Wikipedia

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ProcrastinatingReader (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 23 October 2023 (→‎Requested move 15 October 2023: post close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 8 months ago by ProcrastinatingReader in topic Requested move 15 October 2023
Learn more about this page

Requested move 15 October 2023

Latest comment: 8 months ago166 comments108 people in discussion

Template:RM protected

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Arguments spanned along a few lines:

  • WP:COMMONNAME: The most common argument in the discussion, and the most contentious. Editors were successful in providing prominent use for both the use of Israel-Gaza and Israel-Hamas in sources. Editors generally argued a certain name was the COMMONNAME, but really I think what has been established is that both names are rather common in high quality reliable sources. Some sources switched their framing as the discussion progressed; Al Jazeera, for example, was provided as an example of using Israel-Hamas and now uses Israel-Gaza. Probably, reviewing the discussion, "Israel-Hamas" is slightly more frequent in these sources (a relatively up-to-date summary appears in StellarHalo's comment); perhaps because (as per Scorch's comment) the AP Stylebook currently recommends the term "Israel-Hamas war".
    • Related arguments: The point was raised that variations involving Hamas are currently more searched for on Google.
    • A few arguments asserted that a COMMONNAME did not exist, so we should turn to considering the article titling criteria itself, or to other guidelines like WP:NCWWW.
  • Accuracy and NPOV issues: Editors pointed out that Hamas is not the only participating group, noting eg PIJ's involvement or the separate theatre near the Lebanon border (see Iskandar323's comment among others). Some editors also felt it minimised the impact of the conflict on Gaza as a whole (see nableezy's comment). They also pointed out a feeling of inconsistency, as one group in the title is a state and the other is a governing party (as opposed to it being two states, or two parties). Some editors responded to this by stating other militant groups only play an auxiliary role, so the first argument not being relevant in their eyes.
  • Consistency: Consistency tends to be the weakest of the article titles criteria. Because it was generally not considered paramount by editors participating in the discussion, it is afforded less weight in this analysis.

Editors clearly weighed WP:COMMONNAME as the most important criteria for determining the title of this article. Both sides generally failed to convince the other that theirs was the common name as reflected in reliable sources. The accuracy arguments were reasonable, and in a more established and stable article I may be more inclined to turn to those as decisive in the case of no consensus on the common name question. However, I note both the recency and of the war and ongoing changes in how reliable sources refer to the event. Due to these factors, I think it is better to allow reliable sources to converge on a name and this discussion to take place again after an appropriate time period, as it's very possible a clear consensus among editors will emerge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Gaza–Israel war – This page should move back to a descriptive title both consistent with the WP:NCE guidelines and consistent, per WP:CONSISTENT, with Wikipedia's huge existing body of content on the Gaza–Israel conflict. In the rapidly evolving news, both "Gaza–Israel" (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) and "Israel–Hamas" are clearly extant variants. In this context it is reasonable for Wikipedia to refer back to its own naming policies, such as WP:NCE and WP:CONSISTENT, in making a choice. Speaking to WP:NCE, the guidelines call for the title to be composed of "when, where, what", and, in line with this, "Gaza–Israel" is a "where", while, by contrast, "Israel–Hamas" is not a "where" at all, but a hybridized "place–participant", and so lacks internal consistency, let alone functional adherence to WP:NCE. In terms of the naming discussion that brought us here, it is worth noting that in that discussion there was a considerable voting preference for "Gaza–Israel", but the RM went in a different direction that was less consistent with WP:NCE or consistent, per WP:CONSISTENT, with Wikipedia's existing content on the topic - unlike the prior title of "October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict", which was consistent. There was also a second, snow-closed RM that presented no new arguments and was snow-closed for the obvious reason that it was one-sided in its proposed "where"/geography. See my vote below for further considerations excluded here for brevity. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Support: Comment: Beyond the consistency points raised above, another point that was inadequately incorporated into the closure of the previous successful RM is that the use of "Hamas" alone in the title is, from an encyclopedic perspective, simply inaccurate and imprecise. Whatever the news headlines state, the actual description of events in the news makes plain that the incursion into Israel was undertaken by multiple militant groups, including the PIJ (another major group), and possibly others, so "Hamas" alone is simply not accurate, let alone precise. Another problem with the reference to just "Hamas" in the title is the way in which it lends credence to the simplistic and mildly propagandistic characterization of all Gaza as "Hamas". This is an issue that has only grown as the conflict has progressed and clearly all of Gaza has become embroiled in it; it is now clearly not just Hamas that is feeling the brunt of this conflict on the Palestinian side, but all of Gaza, by virtue of the transparent and roundly acknowledged collective punishment that is currently at work in Gaza. To continue to use only "Hamas" in the title of this page is to pander to the Israeli-US-Western narrative that this is still some sort of targeted and rational military operation that has not drawn 2 million people into its crosshairs. Note that the child article October 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip does not refer to a "blockade of Hamas", or the "Hamas Strip", because this is not the scope, and these are not the terms. The notion that this war is limited to "Hamas" and has not broadened to all of Gaza at this point seems frankly silly, and again, headlines aside, simple unencyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    is it allowed for the person who suggested to support his own nomination? i mean nominating it counts as a support vote and you don't have to write it again Abo Yemen✉ 15:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    WP:RMCOMMENT says not to do this for RM's. It is customary in other types of discussion where nominations are required to be neutral. SilverLocust 💬 23:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I struck the "support" and changed it to "comment". Let me know if anyone oppose what I did. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Israel is bombarding Gaza, it is preparing to launch a ground invasion of Gaza, Israel has cut off the electricity and water supply to Gaza, half of the population of Gaza has been displaced, over 2,000 non-Hamas civilians of Gaza have been killed. This framing of Israel is only at war with Hamas is as POV as you can get, it is pushing the Israeli propaganda line that they are only targeting Hamas. Nearly every descriptive title for a war has the territories. eg Russo-Ukrainian War, or 2006 Lebanon War, or ... . nableezy - 15:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    As far as the claim that no source worth noting uses Israel-Gaza War, ahem. nableezy - 18:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Please note that international media is referring to the war as the Israel-Hamas war.
    Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, CNBC, Al Jazeera, NBC... etc.
    https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-17-23/index.html
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/photos-israel-hamas-war/
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna120978
    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/israel-hamas-war-gaza-live-updates-latest-news.html
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/17/israel-hamas-war-live-anger-after-israeli-strike-kills-500-in-hospital
    I have included mainly English language sources since we are dealing with an English language article. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    The WaPo link you linked to is entitled "In photos: Scenes from the Israel-Gaza war." Also, just look at WaPo's front page, www.washingtonpost.com, and you see it's called "Israel-Gaza war" at the top. Same at WaPo's live update page.
    Al Jazeera also calls it "Israel-Gaza war" at the top of their homepage, www.aljazeera.com. It's still "Israel-Gaza war" for the top navlinks on their live update page, but the title of their live update page is "Israel-Hamas war". At best, Al Jazeera uses both (although I still give the nav link more weight than the headline, when it comes to common name and recognizability).
    NBC and CNBC are the same company, they should only count once.
    CNN, WaPo, Al Jazeera, NBC and many others, have been linked to, discussed, and categorized in depth here already. I agree with you that more int'l media use Israel-Hamas than Israel-Gaza (and I posted links showing that in my vote below), but these links you've linked don't all say what you said they say, and it's important that editors are very careful and accurate in representing sources in this topic area, so that other editors don't have to waste time fact-checking links. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Ding. Also, while I disagree with your vote, I agree there is more usage of Israel-Hamas. But I dont think that usage is so much more that it makes it the common name, I think both names are commonly used. And when there is not a single common name we are obliged to consider neutrality as well as commonality. And here I think the balance of those two ends on the side of Israel-Gaza. nableezy - 17:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    ...and while I disagree with your vote, I agree that both names are commonly used, and as we both know (but maybe not all the editors voting here know), it's not just about what "the most common name is," there are other aspects of WP:CRITERIA than just recognizability (the common name), a point that WP:COMMONNAME makes in some detail in its opening paragraphs ("Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above."). So even if one or the other were "the" common name, that would not be dispositive, and I think pretty much everyone can agree that int'l media are using both names -- indeed, as we've seen in some of these links, some outlets literally put both names on the same page.
    BTW preemptive hats off to whomever closes this discussion :-) Levivich (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. WP:NPOV phrasing. Israel is a political entity. Hamas is the political entity governing the Gaza Strip. Loksmythe (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No, the Israeli government is a political entity, Israel is a country. Hamas is the government of territory known as Gaza. You dont have IDF-Hamas war either, your argument here is nonsensical. nableezy - 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I almost brought up that IDF–Hamas would be the like-for-like equivalent, but dropped it, again for brevity. But yes, Israel is a territory, like Gaza, the IDF, like Hamas, is doing the fighting. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support It is high time. Hamas is just one of the groups fighting. It is true that it rules Gaza. But Israel's problem is originally with the Palestinians as a whole because of the political impasse. Most Palestinians killed are not affiliated with Hamas.--Dl.thinker (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. It was completely wrong for the article to be called the "Israel-Hamas war" in the first place. It's not just Hamas fighting Israel and that is abundantly clear, especially now that Israel is making incursions into Gaza, a place in which not every single man, woman, and child is a fighter for Hamas. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support — Per what nableezy and Iskandar323 said. FunLater (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: Israel is the country, not the government in charge of the country that is fighting the war. The Russia-Ukraine war for example is not Putin-Zelensky war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Reliable sources are overwhelming that this is a war between Israel and Hamas. I would favor "Hamas-Israel War" (reversing the order), due to the nature of how it began, however for the purposes of this discussion I support leaving the title alone. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Searching for news articles from the past hour I find 19 articles using "Israel-Hamas war" or similar, including the New York Times, The Guardian, and Vanity Fair. For "Israel-Gaza war" or similar I find just four, and none from any sources worth noting.
At the moment, this descriptive title is also the WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm not seeing any sufficiently strong justifications for ignoring the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: Normally we put 2023 Israel–Palestine war, but the title 2023 Israel–Hamas war is not appropriate compared to 2023 Israel–Gaza war. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose due to the common name argument listed above. KD0710 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per comments above. —Stewpot 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Per BilledMammal - The term "Israel-Hamas war" is more frequently used in recent news articles, as evidenced by 19 articles from top tier, reputable sources like the New York Times, The Guardian, and Vanity Fair. In contrast, the term "Israel-Gaza war" appears in only four articles from less notable sources. Given this, the term "Israel-Hamas war" not only serves as a descriptive title but also aligns with our policy and I see no compelling reasons to deviate from using the common name at this time. Marokwitz (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support I find the "geographical argument" persuasive and it is in line with our previous namings. It is a bit rich to imply by article title that the war is solely with Hamas at the same time as killing thousands of Palestinian Gazans along with the extensive destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per my comments on the aforementioned snow-closed RM, which for reference I quote below:
[Oppose] on two accounts: that (1) throughout the course of events Hamas is the primary actor in the majority of attacks, with other militant groups playing a supportive role, and (2) Hamas being the only belligerent named as the enemy belligerent in most sources' descriptions of the Israeli declaration of war, e.g. [4] [5]. This would not be the first military conflict on Wikipedia after only the two major parties of several involved (e.g. Russo-Georgian War not including unrecognised states South Ossetia or Abkhazia, or the Iran-Iraq War not including the variety of militant groups of various nationalities), and it would not be unreasonable to follow that convention rather than incorrectly imply that, for example, Palestinian Islamic Jihad had anywhere near as much authority or influence over the attacks as Hamas.
The argument applies in the exact same way for the exact same reasons now, among which are arguments for its consistency with other wars named in a similar manner. A "geographical" descriptor identifying Gaza has its own issues: a Lebanese and Syrian front is also active and there are ongoing events in the West Bank. And above all that, there is BilledMammal's WP:COMMONNAME argument above, which serves as an ideal tiebreaker for all of the descriptive titles on offer which, by necessity, all fail to completely describe the war. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-conflict
https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-16-23/index.html Homerethegreat (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Si Gam (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/14/757
  2. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-rages-israeli-forces-kill-27-palestinians-west-bank-2023-10-11/
  3. ^ https://www.npr.org/2023/10/15/1205950932/israeli-troops-have-killed-several-dozen-palestinians-in-the-occupied-west-bank
  4. ^ https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_fatally_shoot_seven_palestinian_boys_in_the_occupied_west_bank
@WillowCity's comment below is also really good. I'm backing it up as an EC user. eduardog3000 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just noting that I have removed that comment per WP:ARBECR, along with all the other ones. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The comment in question. I completely agree with it:
The WP:COMMONNAME argument is a red herring. The actual policy provides:
"...Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
Per the above, "Israel-Gaza War" is in common use. The current name has problems as outlined above. The current title is also pedantic, being based on the formalistic argument that "well, Israel says it's at war with Hamas". eduardog3000 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Worth noting that sources that have switched to using Gaza instead of Hamas are all using the form Israel-Gaza, not Gaza-Israel, so 2023 Israel-Gaza war. eduardog3000 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support title change to: "2023 Gaza-Israel war"
The war is not exclusively limited to fighting between Israel and Hamas. Israeli state is fighting multiple Palestinian factions. There are also skirmishes with Hezbollah in the Lebanese border.
Also see the article Hamas government of October 2016: "The Hamas government of October 2016 is a faction of the Palestinian government based in Gaza and is effectively the third Hamas dominated government in the Gaza Strip.."
The Israeli state is waging a war against the government of Gaza. Multiple Palestinian armed groups are fighting alongside Hamas. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Reliable sources state that Israel formally declared war on Hamas, not on other Palestinian militant groups.
Merlinsorca 22:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Not only is Gaza an inaccurate description of the area. The conflict is extends to other areas, including the cyber domain and information warfare. The title is more accurate to say Israel-Hamas as it does currently. ~
.
Aeonx (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cortador: FYI, Al Jazeera has switched and is calling it "Israel-Gaza war" on its banner and front page, while the BBC has been using it for a while. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, they haven't. That one article may use the term "Israel-Gaza War", but the news category says "Israel-Hamas War" right there. Cortador (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The main geographic areas involved are also uncontrovertible. It is generally agreed that there was an incursion by militants into Israel and IDF forces are responding in Gaza in kind.
Whereas, names of belligerents are less helpful in article titles for conflicts due to their number (there are SIX militant groups fighting on one side in this war), any uncertainty of responsibility (which may develop) and ontological difficulties (e.g. Israel, IDF and Shin Bett, Netanyahu, the Netanyahu/Israeli government).
Llew Mawr (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Israel-Hamas: CNBC, CNN, Associated Press, Sky News, Axios, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The New York Times, NBC News, CBS News, KPBS, Al-Jazeera, Council on Foreign Relations, Bloomberg, European Council on Foreign Relations, BBC, Foreign Policy, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Politico, Financial Times, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, The Hindu, Time Magazine, Le Monde, CBC, Reuters, Euronews, Vox, Deutsche Welle, New York Magazine, NPR, Chatham House, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, ABC News, Yahoo! News, The Times of Israel, The Economist, The Hill, Haaretz, Boston Globe
Israel-Gaza: Al-Jazeera, Washington Post, BBC News, The Independent, The New York Times, CNN, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, South China Morning Post, ABC (Australia), Reuters, Sky News, Forward, Al-Arabiya, The Times
StellarHalo (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Commenting that the names of the main sections covering this conflict on The New York Times and Reuters seem to call it “Israel-Hamas War” and
“Israel and Hamas at War”. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if the selection being mostly Western affects the balance. Middle East Eye referred to it as the "Israel-Gaza war" before switching to the "Israel-Palestine war" to include atrocities in the West Bank, a move also partly done by Al-Jazeera. Doctors Without Borders, Al-Arabiya, Zawya, the Kuwait Times, and The Daily Tribune of Bahrain refer to it as the "Israel-Gaza war."
Some of the sources you cited for using "Israel-Hamas" seem to also use "Israel-Gaza," upon a quick search, as well (e.g., Foreign Policy, New York Times, CNN, AP).
Either way, we should go with the name that is more common rather than the one we may think is more correct. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose A review of all of the justifications from both sides shows two trends. Those who support the change feels that the proposed title is more appropriate - based mostly their own opinion. Those who oppose the change reviewed the reliable sources on this issue and shows that the current title is in greater usage amongst the reliable sources on this topic, as compared to the alternative title. In my view, those who oppose the change has the better argument, one that draws stronger support from wiki policies and hence, my "oppose" vote. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per AP Stylebook (via undecisive WaPo piece): "For the time being, it can be called the latest war between Israel and Hamas, the latest Israel-Hamas war or simply the Israel-Hamas war if the context makes clear that the reference is not to a previous war. Do not use terms such as Israel-Palestinian war or Gaza war. ... A formal name ... as of now does not exist." Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Don’t have much to add beyond what all other oppose votes have stated. Agree with the 4(and more) directly above me, especially Hameltion.
Justanotherguy54 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, and strongly at that. More neutral in my view. There are good sources supporting both arguments (mine is BBC) but Israel is currently attacking Gaza. That is what is happening now. It would be weird and politically one sided if we said Russian was attacking Zelenskyy's army, or the war in Afghanistan was not that but was the war against the Taliban. It is fundamental wikipedia try to remain neutral in my view. Yours ever, --Czar Brodie (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    It would be weird and politically one sided if we said Russian was attacking Zelenskyy's army I think it is important to note that Hamas is Russia in this situation; they attacked Israel and committed horrific crimes, and now Israel is responding to ensure that such an event can never happen again. This leads me to my main point; Gaza didn't attack Israel, Hamas did - and further Israel isn't targetting Gaza, it's targetting Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @BilledMammal Maybe, maybe not, Israel looks to me like it is attacking Gaza, looking for the culprits, but never the less attacking the city. we could argue all day if Hamas is the military division of Gaza, or who commits more crimes in a war, but all I am arguing is for neutrality, not of us but for Wikipedia. Your rebuttal made me think you were not neutral in this, hell who isn't, is is a war, and has violence that is difficult to comprehend or not condemn. But Wikipedia should be a cold reference in my view. I think that is important. Czar Brodie (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Czar Brodie On this same logic, is "Gaza-Israel" really neutral either? A critic might say that framing the conflict over a specific piece of land erases the political and ethnic dimensions of the conflict. That calling it a war between Gaza and Israel frames it as a war over a small strip of land, as opposed to an ethnically motivated, nationalistic war against a people (that is, Israel seeking to ethnically cleanse Palestinians everywhere including in the West Bank, or from the other perspective, Hamas seeking to eliminate Israelis everywhere).
    I am not trying to argue about whether either of the above characterizations is "correct" or not. My point is, there will always be a dispute that a title of this kind is either over-inclusive or under-inclusive, or that it is named in a leading way. That's why we need to go with the most commonly used name; that's the whole point of the common name policy. -- FlipandFlopped ツ 17:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Flipandflopped interesting points and on on some level you have a point. Of course true neutrality is is probably impossible, but in my view though we should strive for it. Curiously I come to different conclusions from your argument; by stripping the political and ethnic dimensions of the conflict (in the title) is a neutral approach in my view. Most aggressors and defenders in a conflict claim the conflict is morally justified on grounds that they are not attacking/defending against the citizens but some part of the regime. i.e. Putin claims he is liberating Ukraine from the fascist Zelenskyy government, Ukraine probablyclaime it is Putin invading anf not the Russian people. America claimed it was in Afghanistan to liberate the people from the Taliban it was not attacking Afghanistan etc. There may or may not be truth in these allegations, I'm sure there are many sources that argue the points one way or another. But it would be silly in my view to determine the truth by the number of sources. We have sources that are good that point both ways. So the best path is a neutral one in my view. So strip the political and ethnic dimensions of the conflict or any other issues/reasons and just refer to the nations involved. The title is important in my view, it dictates the view of the article, so I think it is paramount the title is neutral. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Agree largely with Flipandflopped. While I have no reason to doubt your good faith Czar Brodie, there should be no illusion at this stage that one title is more neutral than the other. There are important ramifications on perception, and effects on narrative, regardless of whether you adopt the title "Hamas vs Israel" or "Gaza vs Israel".
    Adopting the former title is consistent with the perception of the war as a response to Hamas terrorism. Adopting the latter title tends to support the narrative of Israel as an invader against Gaza; the war as a struggle for land and national identity. Most interested editors probably know the pivotal effect of this title on narrative, hence the intense controversy and activity in this discussion.
    That's why we should stick to Wiki policies. WP:COMMONNAME provides clear guidance on this topic. The preferred name is one that is more commonly used by reliable sources. What's required is a simple comparison of the frequency of use. This exercise favours maintaining the current title. Crude, blunt - yes - but for this reason, it is objective and it works. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @HollerithPunchCard "While I have no reason to doubt your good faith" really? I feel insulted and will politely leave this discussion so as to not be to antagonised. Thanks for taking the time to study and consider my arguments. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Czar Brodie When I wrote "while I have no reason to doubt your good faith", I meant that I do not doubt your good faith as I have no reason to do so. If you insulted by this phrase, then respectfully, I think you misread it. Thank you for your civility. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @HollerithPunchCard, I did not misread it; I note you are legally minded, so you know perfectly well what "while I have no reason to doubt your good faith" actually means, but thanks for that. I felt more a more challenged and as I felt insulted I just decide to back off otherwise this discussion will start obsessing me and affecting me in the real world. Yours ever, fellow chess player, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @HollerithPunchCard On an amusing note, if you really do not know what is meant by "while I have no reason to doubt your good faith", and if you are a trial lawyer, try telling that to a judge - the judges reaction will give you an indication of mine. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, per BilledMammal and others. While I am sympathetic to the argument that de facto, it is Gaza generally, not Hamas and its allies that is on the receiving end of the 'punishment' at present, it is not Gaza that attacked Israel, nor is Gaza in any real sense an 'active' participant in this present conflict. I'm afraid I find the "Israel isn't targetting Gaza" arguments absurd, the practical difference of outcome is zero. You can't bomb or shell only the Hamas members in a building, nor know who is in it when you attack it. The 'specific' and NPOV arguments cut both ways IMO, but Israel is listed as a belligerent in the conflict, Gaza is not. I think those readers who wish to do so will understand that Gazan civilians, not Hamas members are going to be the main victims of the current phase of the conflict, however we name the article. Pincrete (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per most of the reasoning given by users above. If it or a different name actually becomes the common name in the near future we can update it at that time. BogLogs (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - (1) Those citing COMMONNAME for calling this war "Israel–Hamas war" have forgotten that COMMONNAME is not the only criteria for naming articles. The proper naming convention is WP:NCWWW. The naming convention requires the use of "When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened." HAMAS is not "Where the incident happened." Hamas is not a place. The place is Gaza. (2) Outside of the naming convention for events, the most relevant naming convention is WP:CRITERIA, which calls for "Recognizability", "Naturalness", "Precision", "Concision", AND "Consistency". The title "2023 Israel–Hamas war" lacks CONSISTENCY. It would be perhaps the only title of an article about a war that hyphenates a state entity with an organization or faction. This title is inconsistent with all the following articles, many of which were also mostly conflicts with Hamas, or another single resistance group such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or sometimes a group of organizations, including Hamas. Nonetheless, the articles are titled after Gaza:
    1. Gaza–Israel conflict
    2. 2006 Gaza–Israel conflict
    3. March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes
    4. March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes
    5. 2014 Gaza War
      1. Media coverage of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
      2. International reactions to the 2014 Gaza War
      3. Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War
    6. 2018–2019 Gaza border protests
    7. November 2018 Gaza–Israel clashes
    8. May 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes
    9. November 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes
    10. 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes
    11. May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes
For consistency and because the appeals to COMMONNAME are not in keeping with our conventions for titles of events this soon after the beginning of the event, the page should be retitled 2023 Gaza–Israel war. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment @Coffeeandcrumbs Having made this policy argument five days ago, I note that no one has argued why WP:IAR applies here or otherwise made a counterargument supporting the status quo. In fact, almost no one on either side has referenced policy at all.
Llew Mawr (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Respectfully disagree for two reasons.
One, WP:NCWWW clearly stipulates when this naming convention should be applied in the following terms: "If there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a "Bloody Sunday"), use that name. In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors [...]
In another words, WP:COMMONNAME applies in priority to WP:NCWWW. Especially when there is an established common name to this topic. Here, Hamas-Israel War is an established common name, so is Gaza-Israel War, though to a lesser degree. Your proposed name can only be considered if there's no established common name, but there are.
Second, even applying WP:NCWWW as you proposed (which I disagree with), the current title adequately satisfies this convention. The title "2023 Israel–Hamas war" addresses when, where and what. The title tells you that there is a war. It took place in 2023. And at least part of it took place in Israel, consistent with the following introduction in the lede:
"The ongoing armed conflict between Palestinian militant groups led by Hamasand Israel began on 7 October 2023 with a coordinated surprise offensive on Israel." HollerithPunchCard (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No names here are established names; we're two weeks in - we're far from knowing what this conflict will be called in the history books. This is all still just news at the moment, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, which is one of the reasons why following our guidelines might be wise here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Iskandar, but if you look the number of sources using the current title, summarized by some of the editors above in this discussion - it's pretty well established to me. Some names are given by historians decades after the fact, some names gain vogue overnight.
There's nothing requiring a name to be adopted in the history books, for that name to be established. For practical purposes, you'll be denying Wikipedia's ability to name an event using WP:COMMONNAME, while that event has yet to become history. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
In addition to what HollerithPunchCard has said, another applicable guideline for this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history which says that "An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event". So, WP:COMMONNAME really takes precedent here as it should since Wikipedia's goal is to document what reliable sources say on a topic rather than leaving it up to users to decide which events and subject matters are similar to one another based on original research. StellarHalo (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Firstly, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't even apply, as reliable sources are not in consensus. Secondly, it is also not the only policy that applies here. WP:CONSISTENCY, all other articles about the conflict use Gaza, not Hamas; WP:NPOV and just straight-up accuracy, there are other parties in the conflict (albeit Hamas and the IDF are the main ones), plus Israel is fully invading Gaza. BappleBusiness[talk] 20:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Bapplebusiness First of all, I disagree that all sources are not in consensus. All of the most reputable sources use "Israel-Hamas" exclusively or predominantly and that has been demonstrated repeatedly, both above and in the prior discussion on this issue which preceded this one.
    Second, PIJ and Hezbollah, while technically involved, are not main parties to the conflict. Deeming them sufficiently important such that the article's name should be changed is reflects POV. If they become so involved that reputable sources began adjusting the name of the conflict to reflect that, then it is NPOV.
    Analogy: would we change the name to "2022 Invasion of Ukraine" because Belarus was technically involved, and it's therefore inaccurate to call the invasion just "Russian"? No, because that would be a conscious POV choice which goes aside from the standard used by our sources.
    Third, as for the consistency argument, I am much more sympathetic to this. But a POV underpinning of this argument, even if it is a strong argument, is that there is continuity between this war and prior conflict in Gaza. Connecting this war to pasts conflict in Gaza as part of a sequential chronology of names, as opposed to a retaliatory war by Israel specifically to a Hamas attack, is again, a departure from NPOV. I say that as someone sharply critical of the current ground invasion. FlipandFlopped ツ 21:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    All of the most reputable sources use "Israel-Hamas" exclusively or predominantly and that has been demonstrated repeatedly is just not true and that has been demonstrated. BBC, Washington Post, among others. nableezy - 21:45, 23 October 2023 (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.

Extremely violent execution video in the body section

Latest comment: 8 months ago163 comments41 people in discussion

There is an extremely violent execution .webm file from the body section. During the video, a civilian is shot in the head by Hamas. Subsequently a large blood pool is seen emerging from the victims body. Such extreme content should not be included. Ecrusized (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I already reverted your edit per WP:NOTCENSORED. "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." FunLater (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also there is WP:OM, and that says that the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. Awesome Aasim 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is just not born out in standard Wikipedia practice. The article for 9/11, for instance, has footage of the plane crashing. I beleive showing readers the actual event that happened does a much better job of imparting information than words do, particularly in a case like this where there will be strong efforts from both sides to selectivly edit and word things in a way favorable to thier own point of view. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks It is ridiculous to compare footage of planes crashing into a building (or, as in this article, a building blowing up) to someone being executed and bleeding out in the street and another person being bayoneted. Your belief that "showing the real event" is beneficial to the reader does not overcome Wikipedia's image content policy. Moreover, the video in question is taken from an unsourced reddit post, so it is not clear that this is Hamas, that this actually happened where it is claimed to have happened, or that this actually happened when it is claimed to have happened. This is not a NOTCENSORED issue. It is a WP:IMGCONTENT, WP:GRATUITOUS, and MOS:OMIMG issue.
From MOS:OMIMG: Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. A dubiously sourced snuff film is not encyclopedic. lethargilistic (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
If the argument is about authenticity and sourcing, that is another matter. Of course if it cannot be verified it should not be included (offensive or not). My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value, particularly in a conflict which is complicated and confusing for many. Trying to create levels of offensiveness (i.e. Bombing, plane into building, murder with a gun) is not really relovant. If the video has encyclopedic value, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter if it is "5" offensive or "10" offensive. The verifiability of the content is an entirely separate issue. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value" - No it doesn't. The most obvious example is illustrating an anatomy article where censoring would compromise the informative purpose of an encyclopedia. Uncensored doesn't mean an image can't be removed: The article already has too many shellshock images. More maps and informative images you would see in an encylopedia would be an overall improovement. Ben Azura (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks We'll deal with verifiability separately, then. What, exactly, does CCTV footage of a murder inform a reader about how the (overall) attack was carried out? You say it is obvious, but what does it clarify about this, in your words, confusing situation? lethargilistic (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lethargilistic So I think you made a few assumtions there. The first is that the image has to show to how the "overall" attack occurred. There is nothing to say that it can't serve to provide the specific details of how an attack was carried out. Additionally, you seem to assume that media must clarify something ambiguous to be used. WP:IMGCONTENT states clearly:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article
— wp:IMGCONTENT

So the video can be encyclopedic simply by illustrating a fuller picture of the article content. By your own acknowledgment this article contains many media depicting airstrikes. I presume that you do not wish for these to be removed as well? I believe that those videos are encyclopedic for the same reason, as they provide the reader with a fuller picture/understanding of the events described. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:PLA is also applicable, specifically that content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain (from wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). I think whether the video should be on Wikipedia is better suited for an FFD discussion or Commons Deletion Request, rather than here. Wait there already is one at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm. But I don't see how the media being described can't accurately be described in words alone without crossing WP:SYNTH. Awesome Aasim 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article" - Wikipedia:Image use policy
This is a video which purports to DIRECTLY depict people (hamas militants) doing things (killing israeli civilians) as described in the article. It's relevant.
"Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." - Wikipedia:Image use policy
Are we claiming here that this is being used to bring attention to an article? I don't see how you can make that argument. What is the argument for removing it exactly? If the argument is "but these actions are already described in the text", then why have pictures at all on wikipedia? Why have videos? This is literally the purpose of them. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks: [Reply edit-conflicted with above comment front Chuckstablers] I would theoretically be in favor of removing the airstrike footage, frankly. However, airstrike footage is normalized by the media. Therefore, I don't think it's disqualified by the part of WP:IMGCONTENT about reader expectations.
Yours is a good argument based on that guideline. To articulate where I think we are actually disagreeing, I reviewed WP:NOTCENSORED again and I think this recenters to why I think this article should be removed: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. If we turn to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, we see the picture captioned This image of a helicopter over the Sydney Opera House shows neither adequately. My problem with the image is not that it depicts a military action, really.
My first problem, with regard to appropriateness, is that it does not clearly show the activity of the fighters. The person is shot from offscreen and bleeds out in the foreground, fighters come across the field in the background, and then the other person is attacked with the bayonet almost out of frame. Im not sure if we would disagree here, necessarily. Even if, as a general matter, footage of Hamas fighting is relevant and encyclopedic, unclear or sufficiently inappropriate depictions would still be kept out.
Second, I think that what this picture does show adequately is not suitable for Wikipedia even under WP:NOTCENSORED. In my view, at least part of the video is WP:GRATUITOUS:

Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

The man being stabbed does not appear especially clearly, so I'm more concerned about the man bleeding out in the foreground. We disagree as to whether depiction of death is encyclopedically valuable in principle, but I think we should be asking whether depicting this man bleeding out is unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous. Regarding the broad conflict, it is unnecessary to show someone bleeding out like this. Regarding the desire to depict Hamas fighters in action as an activity under the war's umbrella, it is irrelevant and draws the focus away from the Hamas fighters' depiction. And showing a dead person's blood slowly seep into the stones is gratuitous. It is far in excess of what a reader would expect to find on Wikipedia, even under an article about a war. Moreover, I think it's extremely disrespectful to the dead person to immortalize their death so clearly on Wikipedia, however besides the point that may be regarding policy.
I contend that this video is sufficiently out of bounds that it should overcome WP:NOTCENSORED on its own, but the alternative suggested by that policy and WP:GRATUITOUS is to find a video that is a more suitable alternative if we want to show Hamas's (or Israel's) ground fighting. Another option would be an image of fighters. (And if the purpose of the image does happen to be depicting death specifically, perhaps there is a CC-licensed image of ZAKA handling bodybags available.)
I think we could find consensus on an alternative image that shows a military action by Hamas and does not show someone bleeding out like that. That compromise would satisfy your belief that showing a military action by Hamas is beneficial to the article and my belief that these specific deaths are not appropriate depictions of the action and are beyond what should be tolerated under WP:NOTCENSORED. Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lethargilistic Well I'm glad we now (mostly) agree on the policy :) While I understand and appreciate your point of view, to some extent I think that this just comes down to a simple difference of opinion which may be irreconcilable. I think that the footage is both relevant and uniquely so. That is to say, I don't think replacing it with general footage of "Hamas ground fighting" would be as informative unless it is also of one of the similar Kibbutz attacks. I think that there is an element of the type of attack that was carried out that was unique to this round of fighting and is relevant to the article and to the developments.
As an aside, I think I disagree with your take on the Sydney Opera house picture in that I think the policy there is designed to guard against images that do not properly depict the thing that makes them relevant (in that picture, a helicopter or the building). In our case, I think that the video shows unambiguously the attack that occurred and also the broader type of attack that was carried out in the opening phase and is described in the article. I do not think that that is diminished by a knife that is partially out of frame or an unideal camera angle, but I suppose I would be open to some of the CCTV footage from the other Kibbutz attacks, as they might also accomplish this goal. Yet I digress as this is really usurped by our more fundamental disagreement. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lethargilistic I just wanted to follow up two parts of our previous discussion. Your (correct me if I'm wrong) main objection was that you thought part of the video was GRATUITOUS enough to overcome NOTCENSORED. I have since researched the practice in a lot of other articles and found there to be a general trend to include such material such as at Abu Ghraib abuse and Einsatzgruppen. Does this alter your perspective at all, or do you feel that a)This video is different or b)They got it wrong?
Also, have you made any progress in identifying a possible less graphic replacement? I think that that would honestly be the least contentious way to resole this?
Thanks, Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks I think it's pretty easy to distinguish them for the purposes of WP:GRATUITOUS, but you'll forgive me if this is not based in policy quoting because (not directing this frustration at you) I have a life outside of this video and I did not anticipate this dispute blowing up like this.
Firstly, they're images, not videos. If I could wave a magic wand, I would remove the video from 9/11. Readers can watch footage of people dying elsewhere. And the flowing of the blood in particular makes it disturbing, as I talked about before. Secondly, the point of documenting those topics is at least in part that those events are so excessively violent that people regularly do not believe occurred. People die in wars all the time, and I do not align with the view expressed in this thread that that this death's brutality was educational because of its excessive brutality. There's nothing notable about any one person dying in a war. If they had gone further and defiled the corpse, it would not be more notable or educational. Third, I understand the reasoning behind looking to mass murder events for a comparison, but I think the person's death here is more comparable to an assassination or (perhaps counter-intuitively) a suicide. I know you don't think the camera angle here is a particular issue, but I do, and the killing is center-stage in this video and arguably its subject. There is no footage of the deaths in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Suicide of Ronnie McNutt, or Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém despite the footage of those events literally being the complete subject of the article. (And in McNutt's and Lem's cases, the footage is the reason it's notable at all.) Nor should there be.
No matter the textual interpretations we get into, the fact is that your position is an aberrant one as far as Wikipedia norms go. If you take this beyond this thread, the policy is more likely to change than this sort of video becoming more accepted/common.
No, I have not yet begun looking through footage to find a suitable alternative. I am a law student and booked solid. I'll point out that I did not remove the video when I joined this, so this isn't me trying to worm out of our compromise. I'm busy. (If the resolution of this is to remove it, I'm not going to replace it myself, tho.) lethargilistic (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuckstablers: I think I've clarified my position well enough in my last reply to Lenny, so check that out. Remember that WP:NOTCENSORED is, by its own text, not categorical and the various other guidelines we've been discussing have things to say about its limits. lethargilistic (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the clarification. I get more where you're coming from, and I appreciate the concern. It is a bit over the top. My issue is that it displays, in a short video format, the type of thing that happened in so many of these massacres against civilians. Civilians running away from militants who chased them down and killed them. This was not combat, this was not an engagement, it was a massacre. The brutality, which is unprecedented, helps explain the way the conflict has evolved (to a degree). Portraying that adds value to the article.
With that out of way, I can agree that it's over the top. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." What equally suitable alternative would you have in mind to replace it with that achieves that purpose? Displaying the nature of the thing that actually happened here, which I think is kind of important here. Just like it's important to display the blood stained kitchen in the image below (that is a very effective way to show that militants entered their homes and murdered civilians). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Honestly, the photo should go too (though it is a much less problematic and pressing issue); both pieces of media are indecorous to our purely educational purposes here. To frame the policy considerations here in the terms you raise above, we don't need the video to illustrate that militants went around killing people in the streets, just as we don't need the photo to demonstrate that they went into homes to kill civilians: both facts are easily, efficiently, cogently, and completely imparted to the reader by simple textual descriptions.
And the key word there is "facts"; the media in question do not add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone. They add emotive emphasis and subtext, which makes the content potentially powerful and possessed of significant social value if presented in the right forum (news media, editorial media, social media), but such emotional and visceral emphasis does not tonally serve a significant enough encyclopedic priority to even begin to offset the immense potential (or indeed, certainty) of harm that will result from keeping the video in the article, where it is likely to be stumbled upon by countless people merely looking for an encyclopedic summary of events.
And all that is putting aside the numerous other policies this content violates. By my tally, the video (at least) clearly violates WP:OM, WP:BLP, WP:NFC, WP:IUP, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:DUE, and at the moment WP:ONUS as well, insofar as it was re-added before there was consensus to do so, in violation of WP:BRD. That's a pretty impressive list of core policies we'd have to turn a blind eye to here to keep the video, for essentially no factual/encyclopedic context added that prose cannot satisfy. This is just not the place for this content. SnowRise let's rap 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your argument that they have to "add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone" is not in the image policy, and if applied equally would essentially result in 90% of the images on this wiki being removed. I have to strongly disagree with you on that one. See the image policy: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". That does not read "the purpose of an image is to add factual information that cannot be described by text alone". Those are very different things. Chuckstablers (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think you're missing an important nuance of that language, though you are by no means the first person, and it is largely down to an issue with the ambiguity in the phrasing in the policy itself: just because an image exists and "directly depicts" a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it "increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" as a per se matter. Those are conjunctive predicates, not a predicate and a result.
An example to clarify the distinction: this image of a carcinoma is the lead image of our skin cancer article. It both depicts an aspect of the subject matter of the article and can be reasonably expected to increase the reader's understanding of that aspect, since a) the average reader will not be aware of what such a mass looks like and b) purely textual descriptions are unlikely to impart all of the features of such a growth with substantial clarity in the reader's mental imagery. By stark contrast, the video here does not enhance any description in the article, because pretty much any reader can intuitively conceptualize what is involved when we describe that the militants roamed these communities shooting people. The reader is going to know what guns are, what it means to be shot, and what death is. Factually, no empirical information is added by the video as an illustrative feature. In terms of anything other than an emotional element, events can be perfectly competently captured by words here, with pretty much zero lose of accuracy and detail in terms of information imparted.
Now, mind you, that description matches a great number of images on this project; not every image has such specific educational value as that of a clinical photo of a medical phenomena, of course, and we tolerate large numbers of these images with very indirect and minimal informative/educational value. This is in part because the "cost" of including such images is generally very minor, so even trivial demonstrative benefits are enough to justify many such images.
Such is not the case here though: there are massive policy problems with this video and significant real world harms (again, not potential, but pretty much certain) that will arise from including it, and on top of all of that, it really does nothing that a couple of well-crafted sentences can't accomplish. The cost-benefit is all wrong here, which is part of how this video fails community expectations on such content. And that includes IUP: it is by no means the only policy which leverages for removal here, nor indeed even in the top four major policies that require this content to be removed. But it is yet another guideline that converges on the same conclusion all the same, if all of its requirements are applied in full. SnowRise let's rap 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Snow Rise, I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects WP:IMGCONTENT. You are right to say that "just because an image exists and 'directly depicts' a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it 'increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter'". Where I think you are making a jump is concluding that since it does not impart new factual information that is not in the text (which, by the way, it does) that it also does not increase the reader's understanding. This project and this article itself are full of media that are there not strictly to give new information but to enhance the picture of the information contained in the text and there is certainly not consensus for your interpretation of that policy to suggest that that is not good enough. Would you suggest that we should also remove all off the images here of airstrikes (which is a huge percentage)?
I think that the airstrike images are valuable and I think this footage is valuable as well. Not only does it shows the readers this particular attack, but it also provides understanding of the kind of attacks that were carried out throughout Israel and are emblematic of start of this particular war. It is an example of a type of action that was unprecedented until this round of fighting and helps explain how the war has developed. I certainly think that this is sufficient to "increase[s] the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" per wp:IMGCONTENT.
Once the media has encyclopedic value, it does not matter if it is graphic.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
— WP:CENSOR

Lenny Marks (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuckstablers I agree with strongly your position above. I think that if we could find a less graphic video to show one of/the various kibbutz massacres it would be more appropriate, but in lieu of that I think there is good reason to include this video. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to find a more typical video (which this one might be, for all I know), instead of one deliberately selected for making killing people seem as non-violent as possible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
why include a less violent video?that reasoning is flawed. wikipedia is a not a censored encyclopedia. its absolutely educational video.it teaches readers about the extent of what humans can do to other humans in cold blood.it teaches the difference between a professional moral army and a millitant group with no code of conduct. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia’s not censored, period. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
FYI, there is a parallel discussion on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. lethargilistic (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This CCTV footage was verified by multiple WP:RS as authentic. and also WP:NOTCENSORED."Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Codenamephoenix It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. lethargilistic (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Codenamephoenix The footage is not included in that video and you know it. lethargilistic (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
i agree the exact footage which is used in the body is not included that link.my bad for prematurely posting it. if no concensus to keep the video is reached maybe another video can be used in its place(altough the current clip used in body looks genuine enough) for eg https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/toi-original/caught-on-cam-how-hamas-ruthless-terrorism-spares-no-innocents-in-its-wake/videoshow/104349952.cms Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep it. It's important. 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Marokwitz The poll is below if you are trying to !vote Lenny Marks (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Where is this anyways? 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@CooperGoodman The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I believe that it should probably not have been removed, but I can see why it was, as it could potentially be traumatizing to a younger viewer like me. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I understand that concern, but this is an article about a terror attack and a war and, unfortunately, many people have been killed. By longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not censored and by policy, graphicness alone is not a reason to remove a video. It must also lack an encyclopedic purpose. (See wp:GRATUITOUS). Lenny Marks (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
So do you oppose or support the removal of the video? I oppose the removal of it but don't know where I can express my opinion. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 If you scroll down on this discussion there is a poll where you can vote Support or Oppose removal and put a sentence or two explaining yourself. Personally, I oppose the video's removal -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you wish not to see such graphic photos or videos but want to read the article then see Help: Options to hide an image. It will help on the coding on hiding certain images. Cwater1 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support - I agree that it is a WP:GRATUITOUS issue, and that while it is relevant to the article, it is not irreplaceable. Offensive Material shouldn't be on Wikipedia just for the sake of it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@SteelerFan1933. If it's replacable could you provide us with a sufficient replacement? The people opposing removal do not want the image "because" it's offensive. It has been clearly put in the discussion that many feel that a video of the unprecedented kind of attack that occured on October 7, and the way in which civilians were targeted, adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. If you have a less graphic video that accomplishes this please, by all means, provide it. I (and I believe many others) would support a less graphic alternative if we had one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks
I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@SteelerFan1933 The video before the killing is just a few seconds of a man running down a path. In that instance the video really would lack any reason to be here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would absolutely love it if the video showing the killing was removed. Nobody needs to hear or see that, and nobody gains any more understanding of the situation by seeing an execution by Hamas than if they saw some other video/image. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We have the right to not watch said video. Cwater1 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is clearly incredibly inappropriate content for a generalist encyclopedia article, nevermind the dubious sourcing (though this is in itself cause for removal). It's not that this content is merely "objectionable", in thin-skinned, weak-stomached, moralistic, or value judgment terms: this content is likely to be be deeply traumatic for many of our readers, especially (but very far from exclusively) those directly impacted by these events. To say nothing of the questions regarding the privacy and dignity of the individuals shown being violently murdered in the video (and in one case bludgeoned/hacked up). I can't imagine a more profound BLP violation than showing a person's last instant of life and the mutilation of their body with very little compelling argument for how this actually advances the abstract, encyclopedic understanding of the topic or the content of the article in a way that prose would not suffice to convey.

The mere fact that we do not censor ideas in our content in no way means that we check all respect, decorum, social responsibility, or concern for the possible impacts on our readers at the door, in exchange for some robotic moneky-see, monkey-share mentality for such media. What would you say to the family of one of these people if they saw that this content was up here for the entire world to see? "Oh, sorry, we needed to see exactly how your husband's body crumpled as everything he was or ever would be was stolen from him in an instant. Oh gee, terribly sorry that five million people watched your daughter's head beaten to a pulp with a cudgel. We needed to see it in order to understand that real people died here!" We are WP:NOTNEWS: we provide high-level, abstract summaries of our subject matter. We don't have a mandate to create a compelling representation of the real human costs of these events; that's what primary and secondary sources are for. This kind of imagery is not necessary to our educational purposes and it deeply violates principles of least astonishment that could easily cause significant real world harm to a non-trivial portion of our readers, while simultaneously shredding our protections of the privacy of non-notable persons.

Those (mostly relatively newer, I think) editors reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED might want to stop to ask themselves why they don't see more such content elsewhere on en.wikipedia, despite no shortage of articles on massacres that have footage out there. It's because we have other policies which expressly and specifically limit that principle, including WP:OM and our image use policies. Which actually allow for the restriction of media with much lower concerns than those involved here. Further, this is hardly the first time the community has had to face such an issue, and the general consensus is that media needs to have more than shock value in terms of informative quality. There's also the fact that this almost certainly violates our non free content policy. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. SnowRise let's rap 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well said @Snow Rise! Not censored means that an image being offensive or having shock value is rarely a good reason to be included or removed. BTW I already put a request to blacklist the media for now on the bad image list due to its potential for vandalism and disruptive additions. Awesome Aasim 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good call: I also left a notice of this discussion at WP:VPN to help speed along discussion and action here, since I think there are concerns for harm that justify a rapid response. I almost took the matter to AN to see if an admin was willing to revdel on some of the grounds discussed above, but ultimately decided that was not the ideal route, as I didn't want to unintentionally give the impression that there are behavioural issues here: everyone here is clearly contributing in good faith, regardless of the fact that some of the arguments are emphatically not sustainable under policy or (imo) good sense. SnowRise let's rap 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fair points. I never even noticed the second part with the beating to death, only the first with the man being shot on mobile (was under the impression there was some blurring there, but no, there's not, and it's in HD, so yeah, no). Apologies for arguing for it's inclusion in light of that; That's brutal, horrific and goes well above any lines that would warrant it's inclusion.
That being said; I'd still say there should be some replacement in image form for it regarding the killings at "Kibbutzum" (Mefalsim, which is what the link in kibbutzim in "as well as in kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip" should be changed to), given that we have an image displaying the blood stained kitchen of a family in another kibbutz described in the text of the article. We're describing militants driving around in SUV's gunning down civilians, while you don't have to show the graphic part as discussed there's nothing wrong showing the whole "militants driving around in pickup trucks in fatigues" thing.
I'd also have to push back against the BLP violation claim? That's a bit of a stretch. By that logic you basically can't show any photos of any human being, and that's not what that policy is about (I just re-read it)? There's plenty of valid reasons to object to it's inclusion. I bring this up because I don't want a BLP objection from you to replacing it with images of militants as previously discussed. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure there must be content out there that would satisfy the value of presenting the brazenness and brutality of the attacks that is still well short of depicting the actual massacre of random civilians--although it may take some time to find a free-license option (as noted above, that's another issue with this media). In other words, there must be a satisfactory medium here.
As to the BLP issue, I don't think it's a stretch. I'm the first person to push back against that policy being talismanatically invoked, believe me, but the entire purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy and dignity of inherently non-notable individuals, and I can't see how it is not imputed in the context of a decision which puts a depiction of their brutal, dehumanizing ends directly into the article for all the world to see. Other institutions (journalistic in particular) might make a value judgment that the social benefit of animating reactions in their audience outweigh that intrusion, but I don't think we can make that same argument here, since the factual depth (our own focus) added to the article is so minimal, compared against the likely harms. It's not the single biggest policy reason for removing the video, but it's a pretty compelling reason in and of itself, imo. But for the record, you won't hear objections of the BLP variety from me with regard to representing the militants generally (or even all their acts of violence). It's just that this particular video raises particularly strong concerns in this area. SnowRise let's rap 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree with you. This is potentially, slightly traumatizing material that adds nearly no benefit to the article, along with violating several community expectations and Wikipedia guidelines. I think this video should be replaced by something less graphic. Jon.yb093 (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Jon.yb093 Which Wikipedia guideline does it violate? Can you be specific? I appreciate that the material is graphic but that on it's own does not disqualify it per wp:CENSOR. I agree that if we found less graphic footage that also depicted a kibbutz massacre then that footage would be preferable, until we do I think that there is strong reason to keep the footage we have as it clearly depits a tupe of attack that was unprecedented and carried out en mass at the start of the war, and it enhances reader's understanding of the conflict. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Snow Rise, I appreciate your concern, but I'd like to say that people won't develop PTSD from this video. When it's not you or your own (close) loved ones under threat, the DSM-5 requires "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others". A video of a stranger being murdered may be "deeply upsetting" and or "extremely distressing", but it isn't traumatizing. (See also Therapy speak, which I recently wrote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey WAID, it's nice to see you. I appreciate your perspective as well, but if I can be blunt without giving offense, a short quote from the DSM does not much alleviate concerns in this area. The concern is not for PTSD in particular; "trauma" is an idiomatic catch-all term for a much broader spectrum of biopsychological phenomena that impute a variety of harms. Here my major concern is for readers who have recently had their lives touched upon by the violence, as well as those who may not have observed it first hand, but may have suffered personal loss connected to it.
And then there's another another major vulnerable category: children generally. Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content (you'll have to trust me on this, but my work and field of inquiry puts me in a position to be well informed on childhood traumas). And indeed, this concern is one reason why violent content has been an ongoing contentious issue on the project whenever it has come up. I've avoided completely avoided broaching this big wrinkle of the situation here thus far because I was concerned about triggering certain voices to double down on reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED, as there's a few editors here under the mistaken belief that CENSOR is a much more absolute principle on this project than it actually is--the reality is that it's anything but. And with so many other compelling policy violations, risks of harm, and other practical reasons to not allow this media to be added to this article, I didn't see the point in raising an issue that might draw an outsized reaction.
But yes, children read our articles. Lots of children. And the way we structure our content should always take that into account. Now it goes without saying that we have major, major constraints that sometimes mean we cannot accommodate protecting children in every context. But when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose, the possibility of children seeing their first murder absolutely becomes a situation where the huge potential for traumatic exposure massively outweighs the countervailing considerations. That has in fact been a major concern anytime the subject of especially violent content has been discussed on the project, and I don't doubt that it was also a major factor in the WMF's adoption of the principle of least astonishment standard.
To the maximum extent possible without substantially compromising our educational purposes with regard to the rest of our readers, we want children to benefit from this site. That's less likely to happen if parents can't be confident that their child won't see their first death/murder/someone's face bashed in, simply because they were reading a high traffic article on a current event that they wanted to know more about. Likewise, juvenile educational institutions would be very likely to reconsider open access to this project if such content were to start to proliferate on the encyclopedia. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. This law concerns itself, among various other subject matter, with violent content and child welfare on large online platforms, and the DSA administrators have already designated Wikipedia as one of the 18 sites that it per se applies to. And there have been indicators in the last few days that they are looking to aggressively enforce these rules (which were promulgated last year but just went into effect) with regard to the current Israeli-Palestine conflict.
But we shouldn't need that extra threat of headache / inviting state oversight of the project in order to decide that the cost-benefit calculus is off the charts in the red if we include this video. The mere fact that we would inevitably be sharing a "faces of death" equivalent video with a non-trivial number of children, just to add something that doesn't demonstrate a single act (or any detail identified by any editor in this discussion) that couldn't be easily, fully, and accurately described in prose really ought to be enough.
Our outrage and desire to expose the savagery of men who would murder innocents is an understandable impulse stretching out from our humanity. But here it has to take a backseat to the numerous and compelling considerations arguing against adding content that adds only emotive subtext, violates the privacy and dignity of the depicted in their final horrific, agonized, and dehumanizing moments, and shoves that imagery in front of many readers who aren't seeking it and can reasonably be expected to be harmed by it. Especially considering that such motivations to expose such evil to the light of day, natural as they are, are not particularly well-aligned with the purposes of this particular project (said purpose being to provide a high-level, relatively dispassionate summary of the events in question). There are other places to accomplish the goal of sharing the brutality of these attacks with the world.
Nor do you have to be especially young or sensitive to be negatively impacted by that video, especially if you had a loved one killed in the attacks or one held captive at this very moment. Or, you know, you just happen to be Jewish. All of which includes people who might reasonably take an interest in this article. So, I'm standing by my assessment of the potential for traumatizing significant portions of our readers, some of whom may not have the capacity to appreciate the consequences of hitting that play button. SnowRise let's rap 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content Then parents shouldn't allow their children on Wikipedia (much less the Internet as a whole) unsupervised. That's why editors have written advice for parents on how to manage Wikipedia for children. This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be "traumatized". when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose Here's another reductive argument. There's a reason that we use and rely on images on Wikipedia. People are visual learners and images of pogroms and executions of Jews are far more impactful at an immediate glance than 10,000 words of text going into the Holocaust. I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere. I don't doubt that such an image would be distressing for a very young child. That's why as a parent/guardian you should guide your children when exposing them to the bad parts of history. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me. Plenty of countries outright censor and block access to Wikipedia already. You sound like you're either not aware of that or are trying to get editors to self-censor down to the lowest common denominator—again: a shutting down of the project. You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia. -- Veggies (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be 'traumatized'.
No...not "something": the violent, sadistic murder of two people and the frenzied mutilation of a corpse. We're not talking about some speculative span of possible content here. This is not a philosophical debate about possibilities or a slippery slope scenario. We're debating the appropriateness of a very specific, concrete piece of content, and it's pretty much as absolutely bad is anything could be in respect to the potential for harm to our readers and invasion of the privacy and dignity of the subject,
"Here's another reductive argument."
I don't find it particularly reductive. Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video that is not already perfectly well imparted in the prose already (or easily could be). For the most part, the few responses to this inquiry have a decidedly begging the question quality to them, with vague "well it illustrates how the attacks unfolded" language repeated ad nauseum, but without any indication that there is so much as a single fact (I mean one small thing, even) that the video is necessary to communicate that isn't ably done with prose.
In fact, the closest anyone has gotten to an actual, meaningful answer to that question was an editor who (and I think this is the honest and understandable answer at the heart of the support for this video) that the video demonstrates the barbarity and cold-bloodedness of the attackers....and then they immediately went on to opine about how it illustrates the difference between a restrained, honourable "professional army", versus the irredeemably malignant and animalistic "militants"; i.e. a not-at-all subtle comparison of the IDF and Hamas. They said the quiet (if somewhat understandable) part out loud: this is seemingly at least partly about showing how evil Hamas are, for at least some of the minority of editors who want to include this grossly gratuitous video.
And even for those of us who might be inclined to agree, on a personal level, to this reading of the video as an unambiguous demonstration of sociopathy, that's still just too subjective and emotional a subtext to use to justify this image, considering its potential harm to our readers, and its profound BLP implications. To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified and isn't available under an established free-use license, and so can't be used on en.Wikipedia regardless...
"I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere."
No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with other matters off-project when you both commented. I happen to be a very busy person in my professional, home, and volunteer lived who, apropos of nothing, has a member of the household just out of the hospital and has had about seven hours of sleep in the last three days... I don't contribute on your schedule and I'm not compelled to answer every comment you think I should. And b) I've said as much as anyone in this thread, if not more, and there comes a point at which you need to stop responding to every comment, especially if you perceive the discussion to be going in circles. And the fact of the matter is, you haven't given me the impression of someone who is open to having their mind changed on any of this, so I did not feel highly motivated to respond to you in particular. I actually have several paragraphs of a response to Lenny's post, which I found polite and cogent, if not terribly compelling, but by the time I found the time to finish it, WAID had pinged me on another aspect of the discussion which I felt was more fruitful ground for discussion, so I made a choice. I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.
That said, if it's that important to you to have a response, here's just a partial list of the reasons that comparing The Last Jew in Vinnitsa to this video constitutes a non-sequitor and a false analogy:
1) One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.
2) the video depicts the deaths of people who were until very recently alive, meaning they are covered by our BLP guidelines. The image does not.
3) The image is WP:verified, as all disputed content on this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.
4) The image is free-use content, as all media used in this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.
5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. The video is not.
6) I'm quite sure from your previous comments that you won't find this compelling, but it actually pulls some weight with me as someone who comes from a cognitive science/biopsych background: the image, horrific though it undeniably is, does not actually depict the completion of the act of murder. The human brain processes a high-fidelity, real-time representation of a violent act in motion differently from an illustration implying that act. It just does.
Now you and I might actually agree that as an abstract, rational matter, the difference is arbitrary and the result of a cognitive bias, not a logical analysis of any substantial difference in the levels of brutality between the two acts. But for a vulnerable person stumbling upon that image (say a child for example, or someone whose loved one was murdered in one of these attacks), it actually makes all the difference in the world in terms of the harm done. You may not agree with that, but good news: you can still take your pick from numbers 1-5.
"That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me."
I clearly am not or anything that even remotely looks like it. I didn't threaten to take legal action. I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles, which is perfectly valid and appropriate subject matter for a policy discussion. That is neither a bad faith action nor anywhere in the same universe as [[WP:NLT]--and if you can't tell the difference, you really, really, really' need to re-read that policy.
And if I'm blunt, at this point your behaviour here towards all your rhetorical opposition is getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND, acid-toned, inclined towards unjustified WP:ASPERSIONS, and verging on WP:DISRUPTIVE . We all managed to get through this very loaded discussion perfectly politely until you joined the discourse, with your sarcasm and no-holds-barred mentality. Ever since consensus shifted strongly away from support for your perspective, you keep trying to chill, curtail, or define the focus and manner of other users' !votes and responses, in ways you just are not permitted to on this project--all of it wrapped it in hostile, derogatory tone. It appears you haven't been a super heavy contributor in recent years, but if you've been on the project since 2007, you should really know better--and regardless, you should drop this course of action immediately: it isn't doing the appeal of your arguments any favours and if you keep it up, your conduct is likely to end up scrutinized at ANI or AE. Which won't help consensus here in any way. You don't have to like the outcome or the arguments of the majority / emerging consensus, but the snideness is patently unhelpful to your position and to the rest of us.
"You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia."
Well, you're both very right and very wrong about that. You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it. Please don't expect further direct engagement from me here. Beyond that fact that I don't think engaging with you would be particularly productive, I think I've more than said my piece in this discussion in general. I nevertheless hope you have a pleasant rest of your day, however. SnowRise let's rap 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Snow Rise: I see you didn't even attempt to address the very valid point that parents should not let their kids have unmonitored access to Wikipedia, much less the internet as a whole. In fact, you pretty much dropped the "think-of-the-children!" argument in this last reply. There's a reason Wikipedia has and has had for a long time a content disclaimer which reads Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts. and Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.
"Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video"
The same "information" that, say, The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that images of the casualties of war bombings add to their articles. War and violence produce harrowing images. Harrowing images are, often, graphic, but necessary to include in articles in order to further the reader's understanding of what occurred—especially if we recognize that most readers are not going to do a detailed poring through from title to citations of all the text. They will skim, jump to sections that interest them, and pause to look at images. Humans are very much vision-oriented. A perfectly cited text-only Wikipedia article on the Holocaust would not be as moving as one with images, harrowing that they may be.
it's profound BLP implications
There are no serious BLP implications. Nowhere in this video are any of the victims named. Hell, the video blurs the face of the most prominent victim, making recognition extremely difficult by anyone. Also, even if this victim was recognizable, they aren't portrayed "in a false or disparaging light".
To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified
Verified how, exactly? Are you claiming that it isn't Kibbutz Mefalsim or that this didn't actually take place as it shows? It's likely that the IDF released this video, which then filtered down to Reddit, and finally to here. Someone with a better understanding of Israeli freedom of information or beaurocracy could probably find the original press release for the video.
and isn't available under an established free-use license
Who says it isn't? It's on Commons under a PD-CCTV license. I'm a little unfamiliar with that license, but it's false to say it isn't actually available under that license.
No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with ...... I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.
If your time is so short and your sleep deprivation is so bad, you should probably spend less time writing paragraphs about it and more time responding substantively (after a full night's rest). The fact of the matter is: Lenny made a counterargument at ~08:00 on 16 October which you didn't respond to (despite having "many paragraphs" at the ready) even though you replied to others. Again, you should probably go sleep if you're that admittedly short on time rather than making long, drawn-out "think-of-the-children!" pleadings that I find quite unconvincing.
One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.
The former is an argument of time, not whether or not the content is encyclopedic or too graphic. The latter is more special pleading about how somebody might find this video and consider it offensive. Again, I find it quite unconvincing. I've covered 1 through 4 of your list already.
5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. This video is not.
Again, that's rather the point of this discussion, isn't it? If things that haven't been discussed about whether they are notable in their own right, then new images to Wikipedia can never be notable in their own right because they haven't been discussed yet.
I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles
Legal ramifications to Wikipedia over our edits are not something to discuss or bring up in article-space. If you really feel like including the video in Wikipedia or Commons is a violation of some law, you should contact the Wikipedia legal team or start a discussion at an admin noticeboard. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.
You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it.
You sure about that? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- Veggies (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
UPD: You can find VERY GORY VIDEOS ON WIKIPEDIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@CooperGoodman: That video is not used on Wikipedia. You can see that in the "file usage" section. That image exists on Wikimedia Commons, which is a file repository and does not have the same rules as Wikipedia. That link is valid for Wikipedia's API for convenience (and IIRC Wikipedia once did store files locally), but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. lethargilistic (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lethargilistic:That's not exactly true. That video was used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article was deleted for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- Veggies (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Veggies:Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. lethargilistic (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
To respond to the verifiability part alone because I've said my piece on the rest (and images like your Vinnitsaexample) elsewhere: WP:VERIFY's opening sentence defines verifiability: verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. That is, the issue of verifiability is not an abstract "did this factually happen?" question that can be answered by "someone could theoretically go through IDF releases and find it." The limited question is whether this is cited to a reliable source, and it simply isn't. It's from reddit. Moreover, it could even (theoretically) be footage of Hamas attacking a kibbutz last year with the current date superimposed and it would not belong in the article as it was not part of this conflict. I have seen video debunkings in the last several days where IDF violence with no timestamp has been attributed to Hamas. (Again, this is applying policy, not an argument that it didn't take place or wasn't Hamas or whatever.) We don't know what this is because the video has not been connected to a WP:RS. The WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to include the footage to provide that RS. Until one has been provided, it is not verified.
Believe me, that policy does not particularly bring me joy. It means that Wikipedia is not about the literal truth. It occasionally reproduces information that I know to factually be untrue, but it is "verified" because it was reported in the New York Times. How does a person get the literal truth into a reliable source to correct the record and Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not (perhaps cannot) provide a great answer.
In any case, Verifiability means giving a Reliable Source for the video, not "it probably filtered down to reddit and we might be able to find it." WP:V, unlike NOTCENSORED, is categorical and absolute. If someone who wants the image in cannot provide an RS, the video is out of the article and the rest of this discussion is merely theoretical. lethargilistic (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lethargilistic on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks Link? lethargilistic (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
[27]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Snow Rise, does "idiomatic" mean "the definition some people use on social media"? A modern linguist wouldn't call that (or any understandable use of any word) wrong, but I'm looking at the DSM-5, under the heading of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for Children 6 Years and Younger", pages 272–273, where I find the words "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others, especially primary caregivers.  Note:  Witnessing does not include events that are witnessed only in electronic media, television, movies, or pictures" (emphasis added).
IMO children can "absolutely" be terrified, upset, and distressed, and they can absolutely have a biopsychological Stress response, but it appears that the DSM does not call watching a distressing video trauma, no matter how horrified the viewer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain disclaimers. There are options to hide certain content. Cwater1 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
 
The Last Jew in Vinnitsa

Can anyone explain to me the content difference between The Last Jew in Vinnitsa and this CCTV footage, because I can't see it. -- Veggies (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

For starters that is a still image clearly showing the victim still alive and no insides spewing out and is a publicly available artefact in its own right. And as much as corpses are never eye candy, the circumstances in which they were captured (esp. Black and White) make them slightly more stomachable for users. In the context of the Holocaust (which is generally agreed to be a genocidal operation) that photo also serves its purpose to educate.
as for the video, yes that blood is way too WP:GRATUITOUS and the way editors have been reacting to this has indicated that it has not been as educative as it was expected to in an encyclopedic article now that some editors seem to be using this as none other than political football to call editors they hate as either anti-Semites or Western lackeys. (See every discussion we had relating to NPOV) Borgenland (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Borgenland This is, I believe a total misreading of WP:GRATUITOUS, which's simple point in that the graphic nature of content should not be a reason to include or not include any material. It is not a comment on subjective levels of graphicness.

"Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive"
— wp:GRATUITOUS

I'm sorry, but nothing in there states that becuse you think pictures are more offensive in color than in black in white that they should not be excluded. The policy goes on to state:

"Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"."
— wp:GRATUITOUS

In conclusion: Editors have made strong arguments as to why this image enhancies the understanind of the article topic. You are free to dispute that, but you are not supported by GRATUITOUS in saying it should be removed because other massacres are shown in black and white. Lenny Marks (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
And since WP:OTHERSTUFF exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? Borgenland (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is really sad . 😢😢😢 MrBeastRapper (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What "insides spewing out"? You mean blood? There's plenty of images of blood and wounds on Wikipedia. If you mean the person being bayonetted at the very end, it's obvious what's happening, but there's no graphic "insides spewing out" like you're asserting. I guarantee that if this video was desaturated to black and white, you would still oppose its inclusion, so let's throw that argument out as frivolous. Images of the Holocaust are "stomachable" for you only because the images have become part of the historical canon and have been widely shared and discussed and you live in the era of HD video where an older photograph isn't as shocking to you as motion video. That's simply an argument of medium, not content. Why wouldn't this video serve an educational purpose? It's CCTV, so it certainly wasn't framed to capture this specific event, unlike the Vinnitsa photo. And this is a major event in regional, if not world history—much like all the wars in the Middle East. You need to cite what part of WP:GRATUITOUS you think this falls under. I've read the guideline and can't find where this meets any Wikipedia definition of gratuitousness. As for "the way editors have been reacting to this", that's irrelevant to a rational discussion about policies and image use. It's certainly educational, regardless of a few editors' emotional reactions. I haven't called anyone any names and I'm fully in favor of including this video (as I would be a copyright-free video of Israeli settlers running down, killing, and bayonetting Palestinians). As for Jihadi John, his videos are edited to be blatant ISIS propaganda so would obviously be less neutral than CCTV footage, but, yes, if they were copyright-free, I'd be fine including them in an ISIS or Jihadi John article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Veggies Since you don't want discussion down there, I'll answer you up here. Regarding the police brutality video, I think the main distinction is that the subject matter of that article is whether the police officers' conduct constitutes murder, and hence a video showing their precise actions (apparently cited by the prosecutor as grounds for bringing charges) is highly relevant. In the case under discussion here, it would seem incontrovertible that the civilians were brutally murdered. Regarding the copyright issue, I would say that if the blood-gushing and head-dropping motions are relevant to an enhanced understanding of the incident, we could theoretically create a model animation depicting Daniel Pearl's beheading. Would you support inclusion of such an animation in the article, since it would show what the copyrighted videos show, without violating copyright? I am trying to test your logic here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Orgullomoore I don't think that there needs to be real ambiguity (such as in the police brutality video) in order to justify an image. I think it's clear per wp:IMGCONTENT that an image can be used to enhance readers understandings of what is in the text. This is especially true here where the image represents not just this particular attack but is illustrating an unprecedented type of attack that occurred many times on October 7. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lenny Marks: I am not persuaded by this reasoning. Setting aside copyright issues for the purposes of this argument, if your reasoning is correct, then our article on sexual assault should have a video of a person being sexually assaulted (preferably, in all the various ways--groping, male-on-female penetration, female-on-male penetration, male-on-male, sodomization via objects, etc.), the article on revenge porn (setting aside BLP issues for the sake of argument) should include an actual revenge porn video and the victim experiencing extreme shame and ridicule as a result, the beheading video article should have a beheading video (if copyright is an issue, then a visual animation model), the article on crushing videos should include a video of a cat being crushed (the article currently contains a video of a kiwi fruit being crushed), the article on exsanguination should show someone bleeding out, the various school shooting videos should show and so on and so forth. Applying your reasoning, all of these videos should be as graphic and sharp as possible so as to enhance the reader's understanding of the type of pain and anguish experienced by the subject. I think this reasoning would lead to a situation that is simply distasteful. This is an argumentum ad absurdum that I am presenting here. I think it is simply not true that a person needs to watch immense suffering in order to understand that immense suffering occurred. I think a person who looks up the October 7 attacks is not wanting to see the attacks, but rather learn about the attacks. Certainly, learning can be aided by images, but there is a point at which the shock and obscenity of some of the images detract from the learning. I am not confident that I can articulate where that point is, but I am confident in saying that the examples I have described (and the video under discussion here) are beyond that point. And thus is the nature of obscenity generally: an extremely subjective and nebulous concept that evades definition but not recognition. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's words in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio are by now a cliché, probably for this very reason: The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, stating that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography". He wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (from the article).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Orgullomoore I was not making a blanket statement that all graphic images should be used in every article. I was merely pointing out that there are good reasons to include here. I understand the argument you're trying to make but I don't really think it's analogous. Obiously, neither one of us is interested in going through each of those instances on their merits to see why the media wasn't included. Equally, though, I could list many articles that do have graphic and extremely disturbing media, such as: Abu Ghraib abuse (actual torture), Einsatzgruppen (mass murder), and 9/11 (planes and buildings exploding). Ultimately, it comes down to the individual topic and the level of understanding, fact, or context drived from the images. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note There were some editors who had raised questions about verifiability and I would just point out that the video has been verified by Human Rights Watch [28] --Lenny Marks (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article?

  • Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Absolutely not STRONG oppose per reasons already given (and those tellingly not given by the opposition). -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose I have carefully read and considered the reasons for an against. Ultimately I do not think it should be removed because words do not convey the savage casual violence against unarmed and innocent civilians shown in the clip. WCMemail 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Oppose I have been carefully following the discussion and beleive there is definitely encyclopedic value to satisfy wp:IMGCONTENT. The arguments against inclusion would also apply to a huge swath of material on this article and other well regarded articles on this project. No better alternative has been proposed. --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose I agree with Veggies. While the video is indeed graphic, there is precedent for using graphic media, and I have a better understanding of the atrocities committed by Hamas having watched this video. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove I have seen multiple videos of the conflict that show dead and wounded people on both sides. This particular video is one of the most gruesome ones out there. If I were someone who had not seen any gore or murder footage before, watching this execution video on Wikipedia would deeply disturb me. Ecrusized (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • SNOW support. Look, let's just for the moment put aside the WP:OM issues, the BLP concerns, the substantial potential for causing traumatic responses in our readers, the WMFs principle of reader expectation rule, the likely knock on effects of Wikipedia hosting such content that could lead to the article as a whole reaching less eyes, and any other perennial issues that come up with such material. And by the way, this is a good place to say that I'm very impressed with everyone for keeping the tone polite and even-keeled all through the discussion so far, despite clearly strong feelings on the editorial considerations and the highly contentious nature of the article: it's very nice to see and speaks well to priorities, good faith, and level-headedness of those commenting.
Now, all that said, even putting those substantial editorial and harm concerns aside, this content just isn't going to stay, longterm: if nothing else, it violates WP:V and none free content policies. Both of which are pretty much never abrogated in circumstances like these, ultimately. We can't confirm the provenance of the video and we don't have an appropriate license for it. For those reasons alone, it has to go. The other concerns represent important and heavy editorial issues and I think it's a valuable thing to have that discussion in parallel--and indeed I think we should continue to have that discussion simply on the principle that we might be looking at other similar media in the future, that is licensed properly. But those are simply additional reasons to consider removing the video, whereas verifiability and NFC are buck-stops-here concerns that there aren't any viable arguments to get around. SnowRise let's rap 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove - There is now a video of a trench in Gaza where Palestinian bodies are being buried in a mass grave because the morgues are full and the population forced to leave. Will we end up with competing videos? We are here to dispassionately document, not to push for one side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove snuff films. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I agree it shouldn't be a question; material should not be included solely because it is offensive, nor should it be removed solely because it is offensive. But grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia; especially when less offensive alternatives exist. WP:BLP also applies, specifically "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". This might also be a good application of WP:IAR, but consensus gets muddied in discussions like this. The straw !poll will help a bit with assessing consensus. Awesome Aasim 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Videos showing someone being hurt badly or even murdered shouldn't be in the article. While Wikipedia don't censor things, this is too extreme in my opinion. Context clues without looking, snuff films sound like the film is violent. Cwater1 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Awsome Aasim You say that "grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia". This is simply untrue and not in line with standard practice of articles covering large traumatic events. (see Einzatsgruppen, Abu Ghraib abuse, 9/11.) --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Cwater1 It may be too extreme in your opinion, but I do not think that is the cuttoff for inclusion in Wikipedia policy. Graphicness is neither a reason to include or exclude material, encyclopedic value is. If there were too equally illustrative videos and one was less graphic, it would obviously be the better choice. But since that is not the case, it is not policy to remove the video because someone thinks it is too far. --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I can agree with you. As long as it is legal, then it can stay. We don't have disclaimer warning saying, "it may be disturbing to some." It is implied in the WP:Content disclaimer that Wikipedia can contain something graphic. Cwater1 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Cwater1 Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks I strike out the comment. <s> I put a new reply saying keep video. Cwater1 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Cwater1 I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. lethargilistic (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep. As far as I know there is no auto-play on Wikipedia, so every reader can make their own decision whether to watch it. Alaexis¿question? 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support citing Snow Rise. Borgenland (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support removal per Snow Rise. This has clearly been chosen specifically because it is WP:GRATUITOUS. It is possible to present comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of an armed attack without showing videos of people being killed. Even so, BLP issues (which applies to both the living and recently deceased) should make it overwhelmingly clear that removal is the correct answer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support removal I have refrained from watching the video based solely on what has been said about it here. I saw the Daniel Pearl beheading video, many years ago, and it disturbed me for a long time. Same thing goes for some of the Islamic State beheading incidents and James Foley (journalist) videos circa 2014. It's worth noting, by the way, that the Daniel Pearl, beheading video, Islamic State beheading incidents, and James Foley (journalist) articles all lack beheading videos. Images (especially videos) are very powerful in conveying things that words cannot, and the grotesque character of the attacks help explain the forceful reaction and unprecedented unity of the Israelis. It is not the same to say, "Innocent civilians were chased down and shot at close range" as to show a video of an innocent civilian being chased down and shot at close range. But my opinions is that we should leave it to the Wikipedia reader to google that for themselves if that's what they want to experience.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • @Orgullomoore: This isn't the place for a discussion, but since you didn't contribute in the greater discussion above, I'll have to retort here. Daniel Pearl et al. videos are copyrighted and wouldn't fall within fair-use. This one is evidently not and doesn't have to meet that strict requirement. The article Killing of Kelly Thomas contains CCTV footage of his killing by police officers (with audio). The video is copyright-free, graphic, and was included in the article. Shocking, right? -- Veggies (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove per SnowRise. Andre🚐 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    •Remove: Don't see the justification on including something that goes to THAT level of violence. I can see a justification somewhat for some violent or graphic videos/images, but someone literally gets their brains blown out in HD and someone gets stabbed to death and beaten to death (after being shot I believe). All in one video. It's brutal, and on balance I can't justify including it for all the reasons discussed above. It doesn't add enough to justify it's inclusion (given it WILL reduce viewership, and probably traumatize several people, it's pretty damn bad). Text with images that don't involve depictions of murder suffice. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I would oppose most of the pro-removal arguments as Wikipedia is not censored and the video serves to illustrate some of the violence of the events for the reader. This article is about inherently violent events, so the inclusion of violent/distressing images is certainly due. However, we do not seem to have a good source verifying this particular video at present and the video should be removed unless/until we do. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 'Support inclusion of video. The video has now been authenticated by Human Rights Watch, who thought it significant enough to write 866 words about. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video as well. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Ficaia the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [29] Given that, you would support keeping? Lenny Marks (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose removal - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. Riposte97 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose removal - WIkipedia is NOT censored, period. This is by far not the most graphic video out of the conflict, and the suggestions by some that less violent videos be used as a replacement are egregious and against policy. Our goal is to depict incidents as they occurred, not depict what we think might be pleasing to the eye of the reader. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Removal - There are far more illustrative videos we could use. Frankly it's not even a good video and does not much of anything to the reader's understanding compared to, for example, video of the paragliders, the invasion itself, or rocket fire. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! MrBeastRapper (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Huh? How would a video of a paraglider (if you could even find a copyright-free one) be "more illustrative" to educating readers about this war than this video. And you didn't explain why it "does not much of anything to the reader's understanding"—whatever that means. -- Veggies (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.
      See WP:GRATUITOUS (incorrectly cited by many who want a removal) :- Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
      On the flip side, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. This is what most of the support comments have been arguing - that issues like WP:BLP and wmf:Resolution:Controversial content also greatly apply here. We don't (or at least shouldn't) keep offensive material unless if it adds value to the encyclopedia; I don't believe this clip does that. Its sole purpose is to offend, not to educate, and we are not LiveLeak or Daily Mail or New York Post (or any news agency for that matter that aims to be sensationalist) and there isn't significant cultural significance in this CCTV that merits keeping this, unlike The Falling Man which conveyed a powerful message after 9/11. Awesome Aasim 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
      The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
      I agree with the fact that we shouldn't remove an image or video just because it is graphic. There is that disclaimer on top of the talk page saying that there are options to hide such content. Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

*Support - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware Wikipedia isn't censored and there are ways to hide certain images and videos. Cwater1 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Keep. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep - Just because a video or image is graphic don't mean we remove it. Visitors don't have to watch the video of they don't want to. That's why we got the ability to hide graphic content, see Help: Options to hide an image.

Discussion (killing video)

Is there now enough of a consensus to remove the video? 10 votes to 5 looks pretty strong to me. The footage has not been in the article for very long (only maybe a day or two), so I don't think that "implicit consensus" counts for anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

First of all, nobody is voting here. This isn't a democracy. Second, the discussion has only been active for less than thirty-ish hours. A bit quick to be making snap (ahem, "executive") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, consensus is not about mathematical ratios of poll results. If if you were at the right time to close a discussion (much less knowledgeable about how to do so), your rationale needs to be more than "10 > 5". You should probably read what closing a discussion requires. I suppose I should be gobsmacked that an editor with almost 45K edits isn't aware of these fundamental guidelines and procedures, but very little surprises me anymore. -- Veggies (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? You've been here since 2005, long enough to understand the concept of consensus and WP:ONUS. It's incredibly rare in AFD discussions for instance, for a 2:1 vote to be overturned, and you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based. The results of this discussion show that so far there is no consensus to include the video and therefore it should be removed, per ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You also apparently know that the copyright status of this video is unclear, but voted keep on Commons anyway [30], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? As long as necessary. We might even choose to go to WP:RFD if arguments become intractable to get a broader opinion. A far less graphic but far more heated discussion took years (and many archived pages) to resolve. There was a template long ago called Linkimage (also dealing with graphic or "offensive" images on Wikipedia) which was nominated for deletion three separate times over the course of over a year before it was finally (and rightly) deleted. So, what's the rush? I'm fully aware of ONUS. you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based I can't quote the entire discussion in a reply. The arguments are in the main discussion section above. Those who oppose removal (myself included) have made counterarguments to the pro-removal editors which are strongly policy-based and at least two of us have yet to read a response. You, again, are relying on mathematical ratios to further your points. maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you As for the deletion discussion on Commons, I didn't come up with PD-CCTV and I don't have a strong legal understanding of the inherent basis behind that public domain justification, so I'm fully in favor of keeping the video if it's truly copyright-free, but I'm unsure whether it is. But, again, I didn't come up with that template on Commons. I have to defer to the more knowledgeable people who did. It's perfectly "coherent" to say 'I think this is fine content-wise, but I'm unsure about the copyright status.' -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The whole point of the !votes are to make it easier to assess consensus especially when discussions gets muddied like this. Because the original question was about what to do with the media the straw !polls serve to make assessing consensus easier. Awesome Aasim 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Except two things: 1) Many people who cast a !vote didn't contribute to the larger discussion and/or didn't cite applicable policies, either making incendiary statements "snuff film" "gore site" etc. or just saying "per [another user]" and 2) not everyone who contributed to the discussion contributed to the poll. -- Veggies (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I havent voted and dont intend to, but ONUS applies to inclusion of content, and with the straw poll as it is now I think it is fair to say that at the very least there is no consensus for inclusion so it should be out. You, Veggies, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- Veggies (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @Veggies. Images and video media are included in articles to help illustrate a point to the reader. The video in question unequivocally helps to illustrate what occurred during Operation Al-Asqa Flood.
Most of the arguments against inclusion implicitly rely on a moral assertion that people should not see certain things, due to vaguely-invoked and unquantifiable harm. Despite claims to the contrary, these arguments are motivated by the same censorious impulse as most moves to restrict content on Wikipedia, and can be dismissed for similar reasons.
We have a policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and we should apply it. Riposte97 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. nableezy - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is an important point. The guidelines on closure state clearly that consensus is to be found through the arguments (consistent with policy) made by responsible Wikipedians. Not just a head count of people who were not involved in the discussion at all, polling with an argument that flatly contradicts policy. I would suggest that when the time comes that we seek an outside party at Requests for closure. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). Simply arguing "Wikipedia is not censored" or "we need to show how brutal/savage/gratuitous it was" is not enough to meet the requirement for inclusion. There's some irony in people making those arguments and then saying that exclusion violates policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Thebiguglyalien Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). wp:GRATUITOUS is not an inclusion criterion it is a policy which states that graphicness is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion, and that less graphic options should be used when possible. The people arguing that the video can't be excluded for graphicness are not precisly correct, but they are correct barring an alternative with the same encyclopedic value. Simply saying that the video is offensive is not a reason for to remove it. GRATUITOUS goes on to say Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. The inclusion requirements for images are clear:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.
— wp:IMGCONTENT

-- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@EvergreenFir. Could you provide some of the more illustrative videos you think there are? There are several people in this discussion that have agreed that they would be open to changing to a less graphic video that also displayed the attacks on civilians. If you could provide it would go a long way towards reaching consensus. --Lenny Marks (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I will look through these Lenny Marks (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
A few more:
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Honestly, I'm not impressed.
The first is a twelve-hour stream of talking-heads. If a CNN or Fox News twelve-hour stream were free-use, I don't see what it would add to the article if included in-line. Maybe as an external link, this is valuable. Also: it has commercials which I have serious doubts about whether they are actually free-use.
The second is drone footage of an excavator moving rubble. Given how many rubble photos we already have in the article, I don't see what this adds of any value. More importantly, however, Kanal13 is a copyright-washing account. (see [31] vs [32]). NowThis News has a live stream of Trump at a courthouse and Kanal13 straight-up snipped their footage and uploaded it as their own CC content. No way we can trust any of these videos you have of them as being actually copyright-free. That disqualifies the third, fourth, sixth, eighth, and ninth of your videos. As an administrator, I expect you to be aware of copyright washing, so, as I said above, I should probably be gobsmacked at your careless citation of these shady channels, but very little surprises me anymore.
The fifth is a little bit better, but it's a compilation of videos from various sources as well as just "breaking-news"-style talking heads. Not worthless, but not any better at describing the horror of the initial Hamas attack than the video we're discussing.
The seventh is sensationalist rapid-fire jump-cutting with ostentatious music. Did you not watch it? Even if the channel actually had the right to use all those clips (and I'm skeptical that it does), it's editing is way too NPOV. -- Veggies (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@EvergreenFir Thank you for your efforts. I appreciate your work but I share many of the concerns listed above. Most notably, we haven't found a video that shows the unprecedented type of attacks that were carried out and that shows the careful and thorough targeting of civilians that occurred. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lenny Marks is correct. @EvergreenFir has made an effort, as have I, but I don't believe other videos are as good as the one under discussion. I think we should try to gain consensus for re-addition, seeing as the video was removed during the vote above (and the conversation seems to have moved past it). Riposte97 (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Riposte97 I agree, especially considering that verifiability issue has been resolved by Human Rights Watch's verification of the video. I would say that we should review consensus/maybe push for independent closure as this discussion has been so contentious. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Question 2: Should the video be blacklisted from the English Wikipedia?

Closing this discussion, as it's taking place at the wrong venue. The discussion should instead take place at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. Additionally, media is not pre-emptively added to this list, but added when it becomes necessary to prevent further disruptive use of said media. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

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 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.

Update article to reflect evidence of rape by Palestinian militant groups and move from unverified "claims" under disinformation section to War Crimes section

Latest comment: 8 months ago17 comments7 people in discussion


  • What I think should be changed: The entire section called "Claims of sexual violence by Hamas" needs to be rewritten and moved to the section of "War crimes by Palestinian militant groups":
- Replace header with "Sexual violence and rape".
- Remove all lines starting with and following "As of October 11..." with "On October 14, evidence of multiple cases rape were reported by the Israeli military forensics."
  • Why it should be changed: Because it is not accurate, and is written citing information available as of October 11. New information has come out that requires changing the "claims" section, as it is no longer relevant in essence.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

eyal (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

All that says is Israel has said this, it also says no evidence was presented. It is attributing this to "a reserve warrant officer". We can update with the information sure, but saying the narrative voice this as fact is still not supported by independent sources. nableezy - 01:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, this reasoning seems to be inconsistent with the way facts are established using other references in the article. For example, the article uses references that cite various Palestinian government bodies to report the number of dead, e.g.:
- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/16/854881/ cites the "government media office"
- https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/14/Israeli-strikes-on-Gaza-kill-324-including-126-children-in-past-24-hours-Ministry cites the Palestinian Health Ministry
- https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/13/854160/ cites Palestinian Health Ministry
Even directly under the corresponding section of "War crimes by the Israel Government, Medical neutrality", the claims that Israel deliberately targeted medical vehicles use e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/war-crime-gaza-medics-say-israel-targeting-ambulances-health-facilities, which cites the medics themselves and again the Palestinian Health Ministry. No "independent" source was required to add these accusations of deliberate targeted attack directly under the Israeli war crime section and not under a separate "Claims" section as is done for the rape accusations.
I think in all of these cases, we understandably won't wait until a more "independent" body actively verifies the reports. For consistency, we should apply the same standard everywhere, including in the cases related to this edit request. eyal (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We use the equivalent Israeli sources for dead and missing as well. But for claims that arent being accepted as fact by third party sources we attribute it as they do. See for example the material on al-Durrah Children's Hospital being hit by white phosphorous, we attribute that to the MoH of Gaza. The hitting of ambulances and hospitals has been reported by independent sources like the WHO and news agencies. And it does not say deliberately targeted. What it says is there are reports of that, not saying as a fact it happened. nableezy - 02:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
All of this makes sense to me, and I'm saying that we should apply the same standard for the rape accusations relevant to this edit request as described above, i.e. move them from the "Claims of..." section directly into the war crimes by Palestinian militant group section. In addition, we should make clear that this evidence was reported by the Israeli military forensics. I'll update the edit request to add this wording. eyal (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The entire current contention seems to hinge on the fact we don't know the name(s) of any of the victims. There are multiple eyewitness accounts, an Israeli military-forensic attestation, a video from a hostage-taking that may have indicated it, and of course that war rape is practically a general fact of war. Almost all of the reports skeptical of the claims were published before the forensic report. I have to wonder where the line on moving it to the war crimes section is. I've mainly been focused on keeping it from being labeled "disinformation", that is, emphasizing the difference between unconfirmed reports and disinformation. But I have to wonder just how unconfirmed it really is by this point. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This edit request was made in part because we already concretely know where the line is: it's been set by the writing of the current war crimes section (as discussed above). I only argued above that we should apply that line everywhere. eyal (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is clearly a double standard in the war crimes section. We're relying on what a belligerent is reporting in one side, and the other when it comes to rape/other awful things, we're NOT including them because it was "only" reported by a belligerent? Chuckstablers (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There may be some problems with the war crime section due to competitive editing but this is only going to make that situation worse. There is another discussion about the war crime section which may eventually resolve this issue as well.Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think I just saw it, for reference it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Add_more_details_about_HAMAS_war_crimes_in_the_war_crimes_section. Disagree that it would make the situation worse. At most, it would make the situation more balanced, which is not worse. eyal (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
In your opinion, in mine it is just trying to make one side look less bad compared with the other. If it were just down to me, I would do away with the separate "lists" and only include external independent reliable sourcing covering both sides that calls or attributes an expert calling something a war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think that your proposal could be a better outcome overall, but until that edit is complete (it's a re-write of multiple sections) I think we should at least move the contents of the "Military forensic report" (odd heading) section away from "unconfirmed reports" and to the war crimes section. There are plenty of equally "unconfirmed reports" in the war crimes section as well, so this move would just concentrate everything under the same heading, which improves WP:STRUCTURE. I don't believe it makes sense to delay making this incremental improvement until a "grand rewrite" is completed. eyal (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • As written right now, we can not title this section "Disinformation" because none of that is disinformation, but rather just unverified and controversial claims. Some of that may be true, a lot maybe not true, but that might be clear only after independent investigations. And even after that, it might be not ultimately clear, but remain a controversy with claims and counterclaims by all sides. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  •   Note: I'm marking the edit request template as answered as purely a procedural matter and to remove it from the queue. The requested edit meets more than 1 exclusionary criteria. —Sirdog (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, where can I find the list of exclusionary criteria?
    My understanding is that this edit request hasn't been addressed so far purely because those with edit privilege aren't willing to make these changes. The discussion so far clearly shows that this edit request aligns with wikipedia's editing policies to make the article stronger, so I'm forced to assume that this edit request hasn't been addressed for a different reason. This seems like a bizarre yet systematic problem in controversial articles. Curious what is the procedure in this situation? eyal (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for reaching out. Per WP:EDITXY, edit requests must either be for uncontroversial improvements to an article or adjustments which possess clear and present consensus prior to it being requested. Based on my cursory reading of the discussion above, it's my present understanding there isn't a clear consensus for what exactly to implement at this time (another requirement is the request must present the exact prose desired to be inserted, where, and with the relevant sources to support it). So, I marked it as answered as a procedural matter so those browsing the queue of requested edits will only see edits which are immediately actionable.
    If there is a clear and present consensus to do something as of now, the request can be re-opened with an explanation of what the consensus is, the desired changes in the form of change X to Y or similar, and the relevant sources to accompany the edit (if applicable). Alternatively, once the consensus develops, anyone with sufficient permissions can simply enact it without bothering to use the edit request process for it. —Sirdog (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I see, thank you for sharing this information. eyal (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Israeli forensic teams describe signs of torture, abuse". Reuters. Retrieved 17 October 2023.

Babies beheaded?

Latest comment: 8 months ago40 comments12 people in discussion

Looking through some of the archives, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the accusations of baby beheadings. I have, however, seen several mentions of making sure all such atrocities are very well sourced. The baby beheading is also a section in the "Unconfirmed Reports" section, should we remove the beheading mentions in the "Timeline" and "War Crimes" sections? Porg656 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Israeli military has not confirmed that this happened. There are several cites in the article. But it appears they have all originated with one I24 reporter's claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary resources. We have one poor source. This requires removal O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
How accurate is this statement? (currently in the war crimes section, under the massacres by Palestinian militant groups:
"The victims included babies and children, and the many were immolated, dismembered, and beheaded."
It is stating it in wiki voice. If the consensus is that it's not adequately sourced, it may need to be modified. entropyandvodka | talk 06:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I noted in the sections "10 October" and "Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide" that the reports of beheaded babies have not been independently confirmed. A later third sections already stated that, and the second section already had a source stating that the reports have not been independently verified. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
At this point in time, the IDF and their forensic teams do maintain that beheadings of children and infants took place. The "40 beheaded babies" claim though, in particular, was the distortion of what seems to have been the overall amount of people who were at that time claimed to have been decapitated. A distortion which seems to have originated among journalists, especially the October 10th i24 report, and a French television correspondent. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's been extensive discussion at the specific Kfar Aza massacre talkpage. I think there's more to it than just I24 account, but the origins of the claims should be clearly attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, the primary reliable source for bodies condition, independent of the Israeli government, would be Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, which according to their page ZAKA prefer to call the organization and their work Chesed shel Emet (חסד של אמת‎ – lit. 'Kindness of truth'), because they are dedicated to ensuring that the bodies of Jewish victims are buried according to Halakha, Jewish law. After acts of terrorism, ZAKA volunteers also collect the bodies and body parts of non-Jews, including suicide bombers, for return to their families. The phrase Chesed shel Emet refers to doing "kindness" for the benefit of the deceased, which is considered to be "true kindness", because the (deceased) beneficiaries of the kindness cannot return the kindness. he's talking about what's happening in other villages too, and because of his position, he probably has the answer to your question. There's that i24 source, which seems pretty reliable to me, and also a Reuters source that doesn't dive into as much detail. I wouldn't be shocked if he's given more interviews to reliable sources. copied from another section Infinity Knight (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I do not find that self-serving quote useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, if he has, were are those interviews? Cortador (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There are two interviews provided above. There are a bunch of Yossi Landau's (ZAKA) interviews in written form here. The top one in the search results is from France 24, where Landau recalled, after entering the first home and finding a dead woman, "Her stomach was ripped open, a baby was there, still connected with the cord, and stabbed." The Zaka volunteer said he saw multiple civilians, including around 20 children, who had their hands tied behind their backs before being shot and torched. "We saw some victims positioned that they were sexually abused," he added. It is interesting to see if the beheading claim could be connected to Landau. My understanding is that the IDF says "Hamas decapitated babies", but they are not going to provide photographic evidence, because it is "disrespectful for the dead". Due to the right to privacy of the victims and their surviving relatives, I reckon. The condition of the bodies is outside of my field of interest. I am just talking about approaches on how to report about it in a reliable way. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The ZAKA interviews have already been shown to be open to abuse and misinformation propagation - what we really need here are some Coroner's reports, but I understand that this rather crucial evidential step might have been avoided for the sake of privacy and other reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I listened to the IDF spokesperson you linked to. The lengthy discussion was about the hospital bombing. It was interesting in that he kept saying you cannot take the word of either side in a war, but complained that the media was believing Hamas. He made one reference to beheadings relevant to this complaint. But I didn't hear him claim there were beheadings. I didn't hear the beheading question asked or answered. When the reporter explained it was difficult for the media to report from the field, he admitted that journalists have been killed by Israeli airstrikes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Updated the IDF link to more relevant one. ZAKA should be credited for their work. If you have sources suggesting that ZAKA might be susceptible to abuse or spreading misinformation, please share those sources. I'm just pointing out that Landau and his team meticulously handled all of the human remains, whether Israeli or Palestinian, inside Israel, as part of their religious mission, and they have the complete picture. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
They're a primary source, they aren't coroners, they're certainly traumatized, and, as it stands, no one seems willing to provide evidence to corroborate. We can quote quotes, weighted for their prevalence in sources, but beyond that, we're still far from the facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
According to the BBC, "Zaka's responsibility is to gather all the remains of the deceased, including their blood." When secondary reliable sources quote ZAKA, it indicates their trustworthiness. Per Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources should be credited appropriately, so we should handle ZAKA in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It indicates that reliable sources think the quotes are of interest to their readers, and it grants weight here; it does not convey 'trustworthiness'. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
So we agree on the issue of relevance. Given that these individuals regularly handle human remains as part of their work, calling them "certainly traumatized" might be stretching it. Do we have any sources that indicate ZAKA could be at risk of being misused or spreading false information in the aftermath of the Hamas attack? Infinity Knight (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lots of false claims were initially spread by less than stellar sources, some using excerpts of ZAKA testimonies, probably out of context - that's what I mean. It's a moot point now, since there are reliable sources covering this conflict, and concerns regarding reliability have given way to those of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Totally get your point about all the false claims flying around. Thanks for diving into this topic. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The BBC quotes Yacoub Zechariah, a ZAKA volunteer and deputy mayor of Bnei Brak. Zechariah reported seeing bodies of children with severe injuries and burns. Some of the deceased children appeared to have been decapitated, although the exact circumstances were not clear. I reckon we could use this source to clear things up, attributing it to Zechariah. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The man you're naming can't be trusted for his neutrality as you yourself mentioned that he is also a political figure what we need is an independent neutral source, only sources such as 'UN', 'Red Cross', 'hospital officials' or known neutral NGO can be trusted. Balaj Khan (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Based on the existing sources within the article, there is a substantial amount of evidence, including photographs that have been shared with the international pressUS State Secretary. Additionally, several individuals in Israel, who are not affiliated with the government and include public figures, have been engaged in the processing of the bodies, providing further confirmation of these claims. Moreover, a number of international figures have attested to witnessing evidence of decapitations.
While it's undeniable that the evidence may appear somewhat exaggerated, I am uncertain as to why, after a thorough review of the available sources, these references are still categorized as "Unconfirmed" within the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
From WP:RS "Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy." O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The entire attack seemed cartoonish. We should be diligent in assigning the information. For example, EFE mentions "first-hand witnesses" and the word "unconfirmed" is not what I encountered in the sources I've examined. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I read that three times. Where does it say babies were beheaded? Unless there were soldiers who were babies. There still is no evidence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
See "First-hand witnesses" section
Reserve Col. Golan Vach discovered decapitated children in Kibbutz Beeri near Gaza, suspecting non-rocket causes. A ZAKA team member reported numerous child casualties, including decapitated and burned infants and severe violence cases. Plentiful excellent sources exist, so there's no concern regarding the reliability policy, but caution is vital. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The reservist, who I would not accept as a source anyhow, said he found one baby with its head cut off, not multiple. Babies bones are made partially or entirely of soft, flexible cartilage. You would expect damage to a baby to be more severe to even a young child. And children are not babies. These are very poor sources for a dramatic claim that babies were decapitated by Hamas. Perhaps they were. If there is eventually actual evidence, it belongs. Not now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This discussion still ongoing? Thought we established ages ago that there is nothing credible backing this up, at best unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
EFE or BBC did not use "unconfirmed" word. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
How many times do I have to reread the same articles over and over just to discover they do not claim that babies were decapitated? I just responded to the EFE article. I don't see this in the BBC article. Isn't it enough that they are dead without this unsupported claim? Enough. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to this report by ABC, "a senior Israeli officer said to a small group of journalists, saying such images existed but would not be shown" before "screening of an hour-long reel cobbled together from Hamas helmet cam, mobile phone video, surveillance video, dashboard camera video and victims' livestreams". I had heard about the decapitation by garden hoe elsewhere and, when googling for it, found the ABC report. We say killed civilians. That doesn't cover the alleged atrocities committed by the attackers (including against children and old people), alleged because the Israeli military hasn't released the footage from the captured Hamas Go-Pros. Reuters: "Blinken, who flew into Tel Aviv earlier on Thursday, told reporters he was shown photographs and videos of a baby riddled with bullets, soldiers beheaded and young people burned alive in their cars or hideaways." Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with inclusion of attributed atrocities. I just don't think we should include facts not in evidence, like beheaded babies. I think there are plenty of atrocities in this war that are documented. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't really think it matters if the babies were decapitated or not, what does really matter, and what does not appear to disputed, is that children were deliberately killed in the kibbutz attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Two things are important: 1.) Minors were killed. 2.) Wikipedia follows its WP:V policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Regrettably, Israelis have reported more than just "Minors killed." I was mistaken in thinking that Israelis shared photographic evidence with the international press; it seems they shared it exclusively with the US administration through Blinken. The importance of verifiability is clear, and we should rely on credible sources to avoid the spread of misinformation. Upon reviewing the available sources in the Media -> Decapitated section, it's evident that CNN did not receive photographic evidence from the Israeli or US administration, and they couldn't find such evidence online, despite their efforts. While NBC mentioned "Unverified reports of ‘40 babies beheaded" and viral posts, we haven't discussed those, so using NBC' denial in the context of this section is inappropriate. The government of Israel later posted photos of dead babies that they said were killed in the attack. The Jerusalem Post stated that these images confirmed that babies were decapitated,[687] while NBC News stated that no photographic evidence that babies were decapitated was provided.[194] for instance should be revised to align more accurately with the sources. All our sources discuss what the IDF and ZAKA have stated, citing specific individuals and public figures, rather than relying on viral internet rumors. Additionally, there is a disjointed section titled "Evaluations since 14 October", where more "forensic" eyewitnesses are identified. So we have a substantial list of named individuals who seem to be primary witnesses, as reported by credible sources like BBC and EFE in terms of policies related to reliability and verifiability. The bottom line is that Israelis maintain their claims, see Jerusalem mayor deputy interview to Hindustan Times, even after the publications by CNN and NBC, although they do not provide photographic evidence. JP, if considered a reliables source, verified the photos. Therefore, I propose that we review the scattered sources related to this event, remove outdated information, fix NBC/CNN misuse and consolidate them to provide a coherent picture. It also appears that the "Media reports" section in the article might not be the most suitable place to discuss this topic. We should remain impartial and quote the relevant sources in a clear and coherent manner. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'll try to keep this brief and not too 'grisly', but I have difficulty imagining what photographic evidence could exist. Is it obvious in a photo how a small body damaged/dismembered/decapitated by explosive force or flying shrapnel resulting from explosion has had a body part so damaged? Especially with an interval of hours or days before recovery. Is it really obvious, even to an expert looking at a photo that the damage was caused by a hand held sharp instrument rather than red-hot flying metal or glass? Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Frankly, I'd rather be beheaded than burned to death. The problems with using beheaded in this article is that it fails WP:V and that it has become an ISIS trope. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comparing Hamas and ISIS is not a new topic of discussion. In places like Indonesia, scholars research subjects like: Islamist Ideology and Its Effect on the Global Conflict: Comparative Study between Hamas and ISIS. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That source says: However, from the aspect of rigidity doctrine and strategy of the movement, both groups are much different. ISIS is an ultra-radical group hostile to all other communities and brutally attacked the community of which he considered infidels. While Hamas has a more soft ideology and commit acts of violence in the context of resistance against Israeli colonialism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here is another recent scholar source comparing Hamas, ISIS and other names we all know Reflecting on International Terrorism after the Hamas Attacks on Israel Further, the designation of Hamas as a terrorist entity and its legitimacy will likely be reconsidered internationally. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Photos Thus Far -- Balanced and Concise?

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
  • The fighting
  • Video of Gaza building being bombed
  • The direct effect of the war in Israel
  •  
    Blood in Israeli kibbutz
  •  
    Satellite image of fires after Hamas attack
  •  
    Israeli rubble #1
  •  
    Body bags in Israel
  •  
    Israeli rubble #2
  • The direct effect of the war in Gaza
  •  
    Gaza building being bombed
  • Gaza rubble #1
    Gaza rubble #1
  •  
    Gaza rubble #2
  •  
    Gaza rubble #3
  •  
    Gaza rubble #4
  •  
    Palestinian wounded child #1
  •  
    Palestinian wounded child #2
  •  
    Palestinian bodybags
  •  
    Palestinian ambulance destroyed #1
  •  
    Crying Palestinian
  • Israeli relief efforts
  •  
    Israeli kidnapped posters
  •  
    Israeli relief supplies #1
  • Pro-Israel rallies and memorials
  •  
    Pro-Israel memorial #1
  •  
    Pro-Israel rally #1
  • Pro-Palestine rallies and memorials
  •  
    Pro-Palestine rally #1
  • Politicians
  •  
    Netanyahu #1
  • Biden #1
  •  
    Herzog #1
  •  
    US-Saudi Arabia #1
  •  
    Russia-Iran #1

These are the photos we have in the article thus far. I would say there's very little in terms of fighting and far too much redundancy when it comes to Palestinian direct effects. How many photos of rubble, wounded kids, and wrecked ambulances on one side can you have before it becomes unintentionally NPOV? Also, do we need so many photos of pro-whatever rallies and politicians? I'm dubious. What are everyone's thoughts? -- Veggies (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I honestly had the same concern that there was some real redundancy with the photos of direct effects in Gaza. It's just difficult, because due to the electricity and internet blackout, the only images from Gaza have all come from the same day, even though the immediate and direct fighting has occurred in it for more than a week now. Definitely curious to hear others thoughts too though. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. How many more photos of rubble do we need exactly? Whereas a lot of editors seemed to be against including photos of bloody kitchens/destroyed Israeli towns. That being said; there's objectively been more deaths in Gaza now. So maybe fair enough. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Telling you all that some editor mass restored/reverted some pictures under a misleading edit summary that also wiped off info. Borgenland (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I just got through fixing it and I gave the user a warning. Thank you. -- Veggies (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Veggies I think you did a really good with trimming the photos, but I do think adding an additional one in the Healthcare section in the Humanitarian Situation would be really helpful. It's a long section (due to the sheer extent of the humanitarian "catastrophe"), but as a result, so much text with only one image is really hard on the eyes. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Updated the photos above to reflect the state of the article at 17:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC). -- Veggies (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jewish diaspora

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I think it's wise if this section is split up into two subsections — with one subsection on Jewish support for Israel and one on support for Palestine. The current section starts out with the pro Israel events and then goes to just some celebrities bernie sanders, so that I think creates a bias that the Jewish diaspora is by and large for Israel. I likewise didn't see any explicit discussion here on the role of the Jewish diaspora as *groups* who support Palestine AND attended the protests AND locked the White House and surrounded various US congress/senator offices (like Pelosi's). Hovsepig (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war also likely needs sub-dividing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support for this. I think a summary of pro-Palestine responses from the Jewish diaspora is a good idea. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
And? (Tbh I'm just commenting here because I fear the archiving bot) Hovsepig (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
See my comment below on deleted Jewish diaspora reactions in updated "Reaction: Arab world" Talk section. The article's Reaction section seems unbalanced now. JJMM (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
yes that Jewish diaspora section is too relevant and should be brought back. Or perhaps move the reactions section to a separate page? Hovsepig (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Timeline

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think it would be easier if we put the timeline of events, for example [33] and move it to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, since this would make the article easier to read and other similar wars like Russian invasion of Ukraine and World War II did something similar like what I am requesting.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The entire Timeline section can be just removed and moved to that page. It doesn't seem like this page's timeline section isn't even updated anymore from the last two days of events (October 18 19) Hovsepig (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why is this still not done? The entire "Events" and "Outside main conflict zone" sections should be directly moved to the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article where it belongs. There's no reason to have these duplicate sections at all. And why would they even be in separate sections, if they're both lists of "events"? The "Outside main conflict zone" should have been a sub-section of "Events". GMRE (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Trimming the article's excesses

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As noted above, the article could use some shortening if possible, most especially if there's anything extraneous. A good place to start would be the "Reactions" section. I've added a banner at the top of this talk page (under the "Other talk page banners" shell) which measures the length of each section in the article, and currently it shows that the "Reactions" section is quite long. At a glance, the details in the "Jewish diaspora" and "Palestinian diaspora" sub-sections are two of perhaps lesser importance. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I went ahead and trimmed the Economic Impact section that added essentially nothing. Seems reasonable to axe the Diaspora reactions. I'd also add another thing to do is that in these current events articles there's a tendency to add article after article and summarize the article so it starts to read like a series of headlines. It's a pain to do but going through and trying to reduce quotes and summarize can also trim a lot of unwanted fat. Look at the Historical Context section, this should be straight forward because it can use real secondary sources instead of newspapers, but it's just a long list of quotes from random people for FIVE paragraphs. What's particularly baffling is that it's followed by a "Background" section. We could probably just delete the entire Historical Context section and anything it has worth keeping can be added to Background. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
If the war is going to be a long one, the Russian invasion of Ukraine series of articles could serve as some inspiration for restructuring. They break the timeline up into multiple articles of their own. I'm not saying this should be done yet, but thinking ahead this may be necessary. VintageVernacular (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why is this still not done? The entire "Events" and "Outside main conflict zone" sections should be directly moved to the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article where it belongs. There's no reason to have these duplicate sections at all. And why would they even be in separate sections, if they're both lists of "events"? The "Outside main conflict zone" should have been a sub-section of "Events". GMRE (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Remove Lions' Den from belligerents

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Remove the Lions' Den from the belligerents section in the infobox.

References fail verification that this organization is a belligerent in this war. References only claim that the group announced a mobilization and publicly called for its supporters to attack, particularly "lone wolves."

If attacks in the West Bank have been attributed by reliable sources to the group, or if reliable sources report the group has claimed responsibility for attacks, please add these references to the article or make an extended-confirmed-edit request to do so. Assuming that the group is responsible for unclaimed attacks in the West Bank simply by virtue of its call for attacks is WP:SYNTH

Also, remove the group from the note that is currently labeled [l], which begins "The list of groups included..."

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Afaik, Lions' Den is a WB grouping and not involved, at least not directly. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Didn't Lion's Den openly and officially declare war on Israel -- that is, according to Lion's Den, Lion's Den is a belligerent in this war. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they are WP:DUE for inclusion; I'm finding very little RS about Lion's Den's declaration/statement/whatever, but there's MEMO, ISW, and Roya News (don't know much about their reliability). IMO, issuing a formal call to arms makes you a belligerent, doesn't it? Levivich (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
But is it this war? It's not Gaza and not Hamas although the group may contain some Hamas supporters/members. The call to arms is a likely response to all the recent arrests, raids and settler violence. There are other similar groups in the WB, Jenin Brigade springs to mind. Selfstudier (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Barring any source saying that Lions' Den partisans have actually fought Israel in this conflict, I agree with others here that they should not be included as cobelligerent. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Note: I'm marking the edit request template as answered as purely a procedural matter and to remove it from the queue. Ongoing discussion as to whether to implement the edit, and how, disqualifies it. —Sirdog (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Removed, there is no reliable source info for this. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I agree with the removal. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Selfstudier, @Levivich, @Compassionate727: thank you for your comments helping to reach a consensus to have the group removed as a belligerent. Now that this change has been made, would somebody mind removing the name of the Lions' Den from note [L], which reads: The list of groups included Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Lions' Den.
Thank you again! SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

According to reports, the United States Navy shot down some missiles allegedly fired by Houthis in Yemen. Apparently, it is believed that Israel was the primary target. Should this incident be mentioned in this page?

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/gma/us-navy-destroyer-red-sea-185700181.html Randomuser335S (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added information about the USS Carney incident, but did not add the US or Houthis to the belligerents list. What is the threshold for inclusion? Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There has been a number of reports of Iraqi PMU units deploying themselves to Lebanon and sable rattling about intervening in Gaza. However, any attempts at including them in the infoboxes get removed, as the accounts don't seem to have been fully authenticated yet.
I can't fully answer your question about inclusions about belligerents, but I'm guessing that they will be added if American troops or Houthis militiamen are directly engaged in combat. With that out of the way, it seems like this page should be renamed "Axis of Resistance-Israel War" soon. Every couple of days or so now, there appears to be a new report of an Iranian aligned militia like the Lebanese Hezbollah, several PMUs in Iraq, and now the Houthis of Yemen, interfering or threatening to intervene in this current war. Randomuser335S (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. To the best of my knowledge neither Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi, Syria, or Iran have even used the term Axis of Resistance. Hezbollah and Israel are just trading shots, and Iran is just mouthing off, not having (to date!) gotten directly involved. There shall be new nomenclature if and when. kencf0618 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You made many good points in your response. Something that I should clarify is that my "request" for this page to be renamed "Axis of Resistance-Israel War" was actually me trying to use a half joke to make an attempt at a commentary, which I apologize for doing an abysmal job of choreographing.
It seems like every other day, another Iranian backed militia throws its hat in the ring. Like there was the skirmishes on the Lebanese border and the Golan Heights with Hezbollah, the Iraqi PMUs saber rattling about intervening in Gaza and attacking American bases, and now the Yemeni Houthis allegedly launching missiles at Israel. If this pattern keeps escalating, how will it affect the nomenclature of this page? Randomuser335S (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We don't know yet–which is the whole point. "The Vietnam War", "WWII", "WWI", and "The Civil War" have sundry other names, after all. And too, we're basically dealing with the Star Wars cantina scene here. Consider this analysis of the state of play: https://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-preparing-combat-ops-164255427.html kencf0618 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Israel Frey

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The "reactions in Israel" section should include a section on violence against anti-war Israelis like Israel Frey

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/far-right-israelis-threaten-attack-journalist-who-dedicated-a-prayer-to-gaza-victims/0000018b-3434-d450-a3af-7d3ccb9d0000 Hovsepig (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it has a place here, since the story has evolved, he was assaulted, and is now in hiding. However, this is most pertinent at Hate crimes related to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I can understand moving it there too. But this article seems to lack any mention of anti-war activism by Israelis within Israel. I think that creates a false narrative that the Israeli population is united in being pro-war Hovsepig (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is currently not widespread reporting on anti-war Israelis from reliable sources. That will probably change in the near future. JJMM (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
In the context here, Haaretz is already a WP:RSP source ... Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I concur with Iskandar323. Haaretz is already reliable so why not cite it here? Hovsepig (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Casualties infobox

Latest comment: 8 months ago27 comments12 people in discussion

@Meeepmep: Why did you remove all casualties from the infobox? There hasn't been a dispute regarding them. The argument regarding Russia-Ukraine war is WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is actually a dispute regarding the casualties in that conflict, unlike here. Ecrusized (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There was, Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Gaza_death_toll. Either way, I don't think it's helpful state dodgy casualty figures by Hamas and Israel as fact like that, especially when it's been so heavily weaponized. It's all in the lead anyways. Meeepmep (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That is just a discussion between an user with 15 edits and yourself. One user already appears to have voiced his opposition. Hamas figures were used in the past conflicts. They are also cited by reliable sources such as Reuters. Ecrusized (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
To be fair, not their fault that no one else bothered to participate in that discussion apart from a new account. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
In certain ECP articles in the past, non-ECP accounts were prevented from participating in RfC's and move discussions. I don't know if that's the case here but given the controversial nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it might be. Ecrusized (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
AFAIK that is still true, but this wasnt an RFC nor a move discussion. This is a very trivial process compared to those, so just have a discussion about why it should be included. The onus lies on those asking for inclusion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Reuters article you linked is a report on the release of the death toll by the Hamas-run ministry, it doesn't say anything about the veracity of the number. The parroting of Hamas figures by media has been criticized by the US State Department, and of course, it's been disputed by Israel. Figures released by the Health Ministry has already been directly challenged by US intelligence agencies Meeepmep (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
During the 2014 war, Hamas casualty figures were cited by the UN HRC[34]. The figures by Hamas are likely to be inflated, but should be around the true number more or less. As with all large conflict casualties, there can never be a perfect figure. Ecrusized (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
In the same conflict, Hamas claimed 70%[35] of the casualties were civilians, according to the UN investigation 65%[36] were. So the figures should be mostly accurate. Ecrusized (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I noticed there's a little disclaimer tucked away in the footnotes, but it was kind of hard to spot, even though I was on the lookout for it. In this whole mess, there's a huge gap between the numbers Hamas is putting out and what independent sources are saying.
For instance, according to Hamas, there were zero civilian casualties during their attack, which is clearly way off. And when it comes to that hospital explosion, the independent reports are all over the place.
Seems like the smart move would be to tag the numbers in the infobox clearly as "unconfirmed." Maybe we should even think about ditching the constantly changing scorecard in the infobox and instead talk about the numbers in the article body. We could do that until we've got some solid, independently verified sources for those figures. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This needs further third party statements to back it up. Users in this discussion are saying they don't want Hamas figures in the article because.... "just because". However as stated above they have been considered reliable by UN up until now and there hasn't been anything to prove that this has changed in this conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nobody is suggesting the removal of Hamas numbers from the article. However, it's a good idea to discuss them in the article body with careful attribution, considering independent sources like U.S. intelligence agencies mentioned above. The U.S. State Department criticized the media for accepting Hamas claims on the hospital blast without verification, and we're continuing to include those unconfirmed numbers in the infobox with a tiny "c" superscript. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be putting too much stake in the U.S. State Department either at this present juncture and in this specific context. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree; the hospital blast shows that Hamas numbers might not be reliable. Andre🚐 05:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's a lot of quoting of US government sources going on here. The US is now very firmly party to this conflict: it is re-arming one side. We need independent sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't consider U.S. intelligence agencies independent sources in the context of this conflict, even though they are probably right about the hospital explosion casualties being inflated. When compared to UN figures in the past, Hamas figures were roughly the same, with a 5% margin of error. Ecrusized (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Recent AP: More than 4,100 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
US isnt exactly a party per se, the have been providing aid to the Palestinians as well. Granted, they have picked a view supportive of Israel, but their reports are still the more neutral amongst sources. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
They are providing direct military aid to Israel amid an active conflict. That is support. Has the US given Hamas any military aid? I think not. This is nonsensical equivocation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

We should be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE here. All figures released by belligerents are suspect, but the degree of distortion can be completely different, going to the reality denial territory in case of Hamas. The Economist interviewed one of Hamas's senior members, here is a quote

Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that basically all claims by Hamas should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agree -- that all claims from all military organizations and politicians be taken with a grain of salt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, that depends on specific military organization, specific politician (consider Donald Trump), and in general, on specific author and source. Are they known for fact checking and accuracy or promoting big lies? My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Do we cite Hamas for Israeli civilian casualties? If not I fail to see the relevance of your quote besides an attempt at poisoning the well. nableezy - 00:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
? They are just pointing out how unreasonably unreliable Hamas is regarding their version of events. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree, Hamas seems like it should be considered unreliable. Andre🚐 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes the attack as a "coincidence". Strangely reminiscent to the argument I'm having with certain other editors at this page. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bias image caption

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The satellite image that shows fires in and around Gaza has the following caption: "Satellite view of widespread fires in Israel on 7 October 2023 when militants set fires, massacred civilians and took hostages at areas neighboring the Gaza Strip"

The bolded part seems unnecessary. While true, it's irrelevant to the picture shown and is not neutral wording. It needs to be removed Personisinsterest (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done Infinity Knight (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Use of the word "Massacres" should probably be removed

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I believe that the word massacre, while accurate in my opinion, violates WP:NPOV. Massacre has certain connotations and implies brutality, which is not neutral. I think this word should only be used if it is the most common name of an event, IE in the case of the Boston Massacre. If we are to be neutral about the events of this war, the phrase "Mass casualty incident" should probably be used instead. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The term is used massively in reliable sources. WP:NOTCENSORED. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
NOTCENSORED is not relevant to NPOV violations. NOTCENSORED refers to the censorship of potentially offensive information, it doesn't give Wikipedia free reign to take a certain viewpoint and use biased terminology. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Correct that NOTCENSORED is not valid here, but your reading of NPOV itself is incorrect. NPOV doesnt mean we should use "absolutely neutral" type words - It means that our article should accurately reflect the weight in sources. Since most call it massacre, its not wrong to call it a massacre.
"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." is the exact wordage if you want. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'll concede the NOTCENSORED point as long as it is clear that "massacre" is an appropriate term to use due to the prevalence of that term in reliable soruces. Not to use would be a POV issue, very much like calling the Boston Massacre the Boston Incident. Interestingly I see that the latter may indeed by called the "Boston Incident" by some (note the redirect) but "Boston Massacre" is the most common usage. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is accurate to describe a series of mass killings against noncombatant civilians during a military operation as a series of massacres. What you're engaging in is euphemism, not too unlike weasel words. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Its definitely not going to be changed to mass casualty incident. It would be a euphemism of our own innovation if we were to use it (but that is not going to happen). Ben Azura (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The mass murders of civilians at kibbutzim & a music festival easily fit the description of massacres & are described as such in many mainstream reliable sources. The Boston massacre had a death toll of five; Palestinian terrorists killed over a thousand civilians when they invaded Israel on 7 Oct. Mass casualty incident would be ridiculously vague & euphemistic. Would you describe 9/11, the 2008 Christmas massacres & the 14 October 2017 Mogadishu bombings as MCI? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree that "mass casualty incident" is absurd. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reaction: Arab world

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

A sentence reads: "Despite strong evidence that the cause of the explosion was a faulty Palestinian missile, many regional governments rushed to condemn Israel for fear of arousing popular anger with the truth about the rocket’s origin."

The phrase "Despite strong evidence that the cause of the explosion was a faulty Palestinian missile" is a premature conclusion. The cause of the hospital explosion is under investigation, with reports still coming out. It also reads as opinionated.

[37]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/20/what-have-open-source-videos-revealed-about-the-gaza-hospital-explosion

[38]https://www.channel4.com/news/human-rights-investigators-raise-new-questions-on-gaza-hospital-explosion

Olgaman (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Addressed this concern. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The "Arab world" section is well worded now. My perspective is that it could be either edited down more or better referenced with additional reliable sources, since there are too many citations all from The Economist. I have an additional concern: I just noticed that yesterday an editor deleted entire sections on reactions from the "Jewish diaspora" and "Palestinian diaspora", saying in the edit summaries that it was "As per talk page" and "Per talk on trimming" respectively. There is now a section for reactions from the "Arab world" (mostly Arab Muslim world), but no section about reactions from the Jewish diaspora to balance that out. Also, Palestinian diaspora voices were removed and should be included in "Arab world" section. See edits below to compare what the sections said before they were removed: JJMM (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Additional note: The Reactions section has the following subsections:
  • Reactions in Israel
  • Reactions in Gaza
  • Reactions in the West Bank
  • Military aid to Israel
  • Arab world
  • Iran
  • Egypt
  • International
JJMM (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Arab world reaction is more focused on the geopolitical relations between the countries and less so twitter statements, so I'm not really sure if it needs balancing as such simply because that's not what it's really about. Also in regards to balancing, thing is that the Article is so long at this point I can't imagine anyone reading any of this who isn't a Wiki edittor. I mean just look at the quantity of entries above the Reaction section. Beyond that wiki recommends that we focus on what would be important in 10 years time and to avoid recentism. In this regard the reactions of the diaspora communities don't seem relevant in this article. I would say that the geopolitical machinations between Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia and how this effects those is something that has real long term impacts. The reaction of the Jewish community in Buenos Aires, less so. If anything I'd boil down the diaspora section then add the Israeli diaspora parts to the Israeli domestic reaction and the Palestinian one to the Palestinian section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Strong evidence" is a direct quote from The Economist. At this point I'd also say that "Strong evidence" is a bit of an understatement as AP, WSJ, Canada, France, CNN, the US and Israel, etc. etc. all say that it wasn't Israel. Also JJMM see here. Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Femi Fani-Kayode

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The source provided in respect of Femi Fani-Kayode's comments seem suspicious due to the references to the New World Order conspiracy theory. Please check if the source is appropriate. --Minoa (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

That whole paragraph seems like fear-mongering garbage. I really wonder about the value in including every statement by some notable person who decided to give their uninformed opinion about how the latest war is totally going to escalate into World War 3. Anyway I've removed the part that was cited to Firstpost and the other source you mentioned. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@VintageVernacular: Thanks, in my opinion I would consider removing the WWIII speculation due to WP:CRYSTAL amongst other things. Something doesn't seem solid there. --Minoa (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead and removed it. The Trump statement is something he's been saying since the Ukraine war began. The others were just random pundits... one was a hedge fund manager. Very due for inclusion... not.
The speculation on a regional spillover was more widely reported on, not to mention so plausible that it practically feels imminent, given the events of the last weeks. So I see no reason to remove that part. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please stop making identical headings in this article

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Per MOS:HEAD, section headings must be unique. Several users have repeatedly made identical headings in this article. Please stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed some if it was the paragraph you were referring to Bobisland (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I saw that, thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

We've Reached the WP:Post‐expand include size limit

Latest comment: 8 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

2 097 116/2 097 152 bytes

There are only 40 characters of wikitext left until templates start getting cut off. This article needs a split desperately. Ca talk to me! 15:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "Reactions" section does not reference the main article, but there's already an article titled International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war so some renaming and a clarification of the scope are necessary. I plan to split "Regional and global effects" which seems like a straightforward improvement. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Done with Regional and global effects Infinity Knight (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Uhm, Infinity Knight, you volunteered to provide the summary, right? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The section was extracted, and the content related to the section's title was condensed, while attending to the quality improvement tags. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I significantly trimmed the "Emergency unity government" section as an immediate measure, hope that's fine. Movement of content to the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page might be wise too. I don't know what else. Anyway, what is the actual effect of hitting this limit? I just assumed "nothing good". VintageVernacular (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
War crimes might be due for its own article soon? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Reading through the article, actually, there are other areas that should probably be edited down first. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's what I was thinking. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ca, Infinity Knight, Space4Time3Continuum2x, VintageVernacular, and CarmenEsparzaAmoux: I've boldly split the war crimes section off into War crimes in the Israel-Hamas War (2023). Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:RSN note

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_Hamas_and_Gaza_ministry_numbers_reliable? Andre🚐 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Removing Ein HaShlosha banner

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

However that merge request is resolved, it will clearly not be merged into this article for reasons noted on the talk page there. It's disproportionate and unhelpful to readers to have that banner on top of this much more prominent article. – SJ + 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Outside main conflict zone" section

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this turning into another Timeline of the war in Donbas (2014)? What is "outside main conflict zone"? Lesser conflict zones, other conflicts, or anything that happens anywhere and is tangentially related to the Israel-Hamas war, like demonstrations in London, stabbings in China and France? I removed the most obvious candidates for tangentially related/not germane but IMO much of that section should be deleted — no day-by-day collection of they/he/she said, a tank missile landing in Metulla (a what?) ... If and when the conflict widens we'll revisit in any case. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 21:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I completely agree, but with one clarification. Some related (per cited RS) warfare/violence in West Bank or at the Israel–Lebanon border would be relevant and arguably a part of this war. But such incidents should be included to the main section, i.e. the "Events". But something in London or China should be placed to "Reactions" or elsewere. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Updated displacement numbers

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As per this United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) article from the 21st, https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-14 a total of 1.4 million Palestinians have been displaced, rather than the 1,000,000 sited in the article, from a source from the 15th. Hexifi (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

updating, ty. nableezy - 00:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Important note for editing "Casualties and losses"

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When changing the numbers to more recent values, make sure to also change the notes that state things such as "Including 1,756 children and 967 women." If these numbers come from different times, it can give the reader a false perception of the percentages of these groups of the total deaths or injuries. Hexifi (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 09:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Title should be Arab-Israeli war

Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion

In light of the initial assault involving multiple Palestinian factions, and recent engagements involving actors in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, this cannot be referred to as the current title. The term "Arab-Israeli conflict" is familiar to the English speaking reader, and is the proper term here. عبد المؤمن (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this can be argued to be the WP:COMMONNAME — Czello (music) 10:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would go further, and say that I don't think the claim that this is an "Arab-Israeli conflict" is currently supported by the sources. However, it may be worth having a preliminary discussion on what to name the article if Hezbollah joins, so that we have a title ready to go and thus aren't lagging behind events. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agree with WP:COMMONNAME, and this situation is still some way short of the 1967 and 1973 wars, which involved a range of nation states going to war with Israel.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agree that the proposed name is inappropriate. In the event of Hezbollah joining in earnest (which frankly I see has far from likely), I expect RSs will be finally forced to agree on a proper name pretty swiftly. Riposte97 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Updated injury numbers for the West Bank

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As per this United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) article from the 21st, https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-15 (specifically an attached PDF) a total of 1,653 Palestinians have been injured in the West Bank, rather than the 300 sited in the article, from a source from the 13th. (The same article has different numbers for many of the things, but no other ones the fall outside of a reasonable margin for error, as far as I'm aware) Hexifi (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Source content dispute

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There is an ongoing content dispute between myself and Haskko about whether or not [this article] from CNN states Israel won the Battle of Sderot. I believe yes, as the article states, even in the small text below the video, “cleanup has begun after the Israel Defense Forces battled Hamas militants to regain control of the city and its police station.” Haskko believes no, as the article does not specifically state “victory”. Can other editors chime in on their opinions about it? This content dispute affects List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Battle of Sderot, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which are all sub-articles of this one and technically affects this article for content related to the town of Sderot. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I recently edited about the October 2023 Tulkarm incursion in the List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page. After you provided the source in the page of the Battle of Sderot, I have no need to revert you. I just want to ask about where it says that it was an Israeli victory in the Tulkarm incursion. Thank you! 🙂 Haskko (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No Israeli victory for that one. Thank you for pointing that out. The source only states Israeli withdrew from Tulkarm, not a true victory, so I updated the engagement list accordingly. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Happy editing! 🙂 Haskko (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

1 kidnapped foreign

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/mae-un-cetatean-roman-a-fost-rapit-de-hamas-si-luat-ostatic-in-gaza-2551015 romanian ManiLLa (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Decapitation

Latest comment: 8 months ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Yet another reference to decapitation has just been added, during discussion. There are now 18 references to decapitation/beheading despite the fact that the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine, said "We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can't definitely say it was from beheadings." Frankly, as this is a trope, the article appears to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

??? the article appears to border on Islamophobia This is such a bizarre accusation. There is no disputing that Hamas murdered civilian Israelis, including children, in cold blood during the initial attack. There is ample proof of this, such as the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, it does not matter at all how they were killed. That's my point. Why use the term eighteen (18) times, even when the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine says this cannot be determined, if the manner of death does not ultimately matter, as you say? That's why gratuitously using a trope like beheaded eighteen (18) times makes the article appear to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Using ctrl + f, I found that variants of "decapitate" and "beheading" are used briefly in the 10 October subsection and then again (extensively) in its dedicated subsection under the "Media coverage" section. One could argue that the subsection on decapitations is given UNDUE weight (and the page is already massively too long as it is), but I don't see this topic being given pervasive coverage throughout the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It shouldn't be used at all since it cannot be determined according to Israel's own expert. It is a highly contentious term due to its actual use by ISIS in the past and the connection some people make between Muslims and beheadings. It fails WP:V and has no purpose other than to inflame. We certainly have plenty of other text about atrocities that are verifiable. There is much to document about this war that is verifiable and important without dwelling on a trope. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making beheading videos, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just like everything else in this article, the topic is included because it has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources. You seem to be hung up on the number of times the word "beheading" or "decapitation" is mentioned instead of focusing on the context of what's been written. Whether the subsection on beheadings is too long or given UNDUE weight is one thing, but to accuse editors of Islamophobia for arguing for some inclusion of the topic is not helpful. Many independent observers doubt Hamas's narrative of the al-Ahli Hospital incident, but we still mention it in this article because it was given significant media attention. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have condensed the subsection in question. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
First, I am not "hung up". I am making an argument based upon Wikipedia policies. Secondly, I accused no one of Islamophobia. Please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. The media gave claims along the lines of someone said someone else said they observed something with which they do not have forensic knowledge. The al-Ahil inclusion makes it clear that it was false. This is an encyclopedia, not The Enquirer. Using the trope wordings of beheadings and decapitation violates WP:NPOV and WP:V, particularly with repetition so severe it pushes an unconfirmed narrative for no reason that I have seen stated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to identify what you're suggesting be done. Removal of the discussion entirely? Removal of certain parts of it? Reducing the amount of times the words "decapitation" and "beheading" appear? --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Removal. There is no question atrocities occurred. So we document those atrocities which pass WP:V. Wikipedia is much easier if one just follows the policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think you can keep the mentions of beheading as long as it's clear that no evidence was ever presented that proved that they ever happened, even according to the IDF. Ashvio (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support removing most of the content from that section and merging it with the discussion under the 10 October subheading. The two things I think worth preserving: that the allegation was repeated by President Biden, and the assessment by the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Per the Gaza Health Ministry"

Latest comment: 8 months ago42 comments9 people in discussion

The Gaza Health Ministry is not an independent health organization or any kind of legitimate government branch. It's essentially just an office of Hamas, staffed by Hamas members (including its head). Our own page lists "Hamas authority" as its "parent agency." I feel like sourcing estimates from the Gaza Health Ministry in the infobox misleads people who don't know this (most Wikipedia readers are just looking for a general overview and are unlikely to go down source rabbit holes). Why the lair of obfuscation instead of being direct? Why not simply state "X killed [Hamas claim]" like so many other articles do concerning claims made by militant groups?--Nihlus1 (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Can't really trust anyone and most things should be attributed. If we believed in combatants and politicians, wed think we are winning in Vietnam. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Of course Hamas is the authority, Hamas is the government of Gaza, of course Gazan ministries are subordinate to that like in literally any other place on the planet. We say it is the Ministry of Health number, we specify which ministry is saying what between Gaza and the West Bank. But why not just say "Hamas claim"? Because the sources dont do that. They report it as the number of deaths per the Ministry of Health. They dont cast doubt based on personal feeling with words like "claim", they simply say this is the number and this is who provided it. So do we. nableezy - 23:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Times of Israel uses the nomenclature "the Hamas-run health ministry", not to put too fine a point on it. Specificity matters, but it doesn't have to be spelled out every single time as far as we're concerned. kencf0618 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also recent AP attribute numbers : More than 4,100 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Clarity is helpful, and is supported by the sources; I would agree with using something like "the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry". I think it's important here, because the exact status of the health ministry in Gaza may be unclear to readers while that would not be the case in a regular country. BilledMammal (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't oppose such a clarification. It appears to be unbiased and in accordance with the terminology used by reputable sources. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
In the BBC’s reporting, they make it abundantly clear that the ministry is controlled by Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
and in the newsbite immediately below, it says "We've had an update from the Palestinian health ministry in Gaza,..." Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You should read the third paragraph of that same newsbite, which says As a reminder, the health ministry, like other government agencies in the Gaza Strip, is controlled by Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would go along with "Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza" if it can be demonstrated that such qualifiers are consistently and widely used in news articles. OCHA in their flash reports simply say "According to the MoH in Gaza" and "Israeli official sources". Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is not, Washington Post: Gaza’s Health Ministry said Monday that the number of people killed in the enclave climbed by 436 in the past day, increasing the toll since the war began to 5,087. According to the update, the majority of the latest fatalities were in southern Gaza, where Israel previously urged more than a million Palestinians to flee to escape the brunt of its airstrikes.

Al-Jazeera: About 40 percent of the 5,087 people killed are children, Gaza’s Ministry of Health said on Monday, the day when Israel’s army said it carried out more than 300 new air attacks within 24 hours. Palestinian officials said more than 400 people were killed in that period.

UN: Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087.

Euronews At least 4,385 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas on 7 October, the territory's Health Ministry has announced.

Reuters: The death toll in Gaza rose to 4,385 dead with 13,651 injured since the conflict between Hamas and Israel escalated on Oct. 7, the Palestinian health ministry said. ... The dead include 1,756 children and 976 women, the health ministry added.

The National (UAE): More than 5,000 Palestinians have been confirmed killed in Gaza, the enclave’s Health Ministry has said.

Obviously Hamas runs the government ministries in Gaza, but we dont say the Likud government in Israel, or the Shas run Health Ministry, we only do these things for one side here. nableezy - 13:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Washington Post:
  1. ...killing hundreds of people, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said.
  2. The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says over 4,300 Palestinians have been killed.
  3. Five hospitals have stopped functioning because of fuel shortages and bombing damage, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said.
Euronews:
  1. 4,385 Palestinians killed since the start of the war - Hamas Health Ministry (This article is actually the same one you shared)
  2. The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast...
  3. The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 4,137 Palestinians have been killed and more than 13,000 others wounded.
Reuters:
  1. ...the Hamas-run government's health ministry said 16 were killed.
  2. The Hamas-run government's health ministry said in a statement that 16 Palestinian Christians were killed in the incident.
  3. Some 4,650 Palestinians have been killed in the bombardment according to the Hamas-run health authorities in the enclave...
The National (UAE)
  1. Children have borne the brunt of Israel's intense bombardment, comprising 40 per cent of more than 4,600 people killed, according to the Hamas-run ministry.
  2. "...so far received 232 martyrs and 1,697 people with various injuries from the Israeli aggression," the Hamas-run ministry said in a statement.
  3. About 5,000 Palestinians, mainly civilians, have been killed in Gaza during Israeli bombardments in retaliation for the Hamas attacks on October 7, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said.
Even most of the sources you presented usually clarify that the Health Ministry is run by Hamas; the only two that don't do so, as far as I can tell, are Al Jazeera (I could only find one source for them), and the UN. Two exceptions don't justify omitting this information, particularly not when the exceptions are those two - Al Jazeera is far from the least biased agency in this topic area, and reports from a supranational entity like the EU or the UN should be treated no differently to reports from a national entity like the US, Israel, or Saudi Arabia. BilledMammal (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Uh we dont omit anything. The footnote says Hamas run Health Ministry. Euronews is not an EU platform, its just based in Brussels. The question was if it is consistently used, and it is not. nableezy - 14:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The question was if it is consistently used, and it is not. I assume you are using the "always" definition of "consistently"; that definition isn't very useful here, when something doesn't have to be mentioned every time for us to need to mention it under WP:DUE.
The evidence I have presented shows that it is used enough for us to mention it - and mention it prominently, rather than hiding it away in a footnote.
Euronews is not an EU platform, its just based in Brussels I didn't say it was? BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I suggest waiting for a while to see whether this becomes common practice, then revisit. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It appears like it already is common practice. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It may just turn out to be an overreaction to the hospital explosion and subsequent debate over the casualty figure. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we should be trying to predict that, per WP:CRYSTAL. Plus, at the moment such a mention is WP:DUE; that may change in the future, but if it does we can always relegate such a mention back to the footnote. BilledMammal (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree that it is DUE. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thats nonsense, because we dont attribute anything to Israel in text in the infobox either. Hell we dont even attribute it in the footnote despite the reporting attributing it to Israel. AFP More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel since the attack unleashed last week by Hamas militants from the blockaded Gaza Strip, the Israeli prime minister's office said Sunday. WSJ: The Health Ministry in Gaza said Tuesday that about 3,000 had been killed and more than 12,500 wounded. In Israel, the death toll from the attacks has reached at least 1,400. Some 289 Israeli soldiers died on Oct. 7 and afterward, Israeli officials have said. The sources attribute both sets of numbers to either combatant, but you want to in text attribute to one and while the other isnt even attributed in the footnote? nableezy - 15:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
because we dont attribute anything to Israel in text in the infobox either Yes, we do - Inside Israel (Israeli claim). If you feel more attribution is needed then I encourage you to open a discussion and we can review the sources and consider it; reviewing the sources on this question shows that we need to include this attribution. BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not for any of the Israeli casualties. Or for captives, or civilians or soldier counts. All of that is according to Israel per the sources, and we dont even say anything in the footnote for it. We already include the attribution, only for one side, including in-text in the infobox for Gaza and not for Israel is a blatant NPOV violation. nableezy - 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:FALSEBALANCE; just because we need to do it for one side doesn’t mean we need to do it for the other; as I said, please open another discussion and we can review the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure we do, especially since it is a well known fact that one side tells porkies (guess which one), assuming that is what this is all about, the desire to throw shade at one side only. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I dont know what about sources attribute both sides stats to either side you dont get. So no, there is not a false balance, and this request that we not deal with both issues here reads as an attempt to impose a double standard without looking so blatant about it. Sources attribute to both sides their stats, and we should too, the same way they do. That is not by attributing in text to Hamas in the infobox and not at all even in a footnote to Israel. nableezy - 16:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, they don't. When I was producing the list below a couple of the sources reported on both Israeli and Palestinian casualties in the same sentence; they attributed the Palestinian casualties but put the Israeli casualties in their own voice.
This is why we need a source evaluation; if you are convinced that reliable sources typically attribute Israeli casualties, then please open a discussion and we can review the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You don't need to quote the political party in power every time you reference a ministry. In the US, you don't say the Democrat-run health ministry, and the in the UK, you don't say the Tory-run health ministry. All ministries are fundamentally run by bureaucrats. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Unless reliable sources do so, in which case you do. Reliable sources don’t say Democrat-run health ministry or Tory-run health ministry - but they do say Hamas-run health ministry. BilledMammal (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, this is a pretty special case, and I agree with BilledMammal on this. Andre🚐 17:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We already do that, what BilledMammal is arguing for is giving greater weight to the "Hamas-run" than reliable sources do versus attributing to Israel or Israeli agencies. They attribute all statistics to both sides consistently. BilledMammal is arguing we should be doing that in-text in the infobox for only one side. Thats what you agree with? Just making sure. nableezy - 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Got a new reference from the freshly minted Gaza Health Ministry about the whole Hamas government setup: Following the 2007 Hamas takeover of Gaza, a month-long doctors' strike ensued due to political disputes. The new Gaza government, with Basem Naim as Health Minister, replaced Fatah-affiliated hospital directors and staff with Hamas loyalists. Jomaa Alsaqqa, a 20-year surgeon at al-Shifa Hospital, lost his job due to his Fatah support and faced arrests and assaults since the Hamas takeover.[1]
Infinity Knight (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There a point related to this discussion in that? nableezy - 17:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the RS typically refer to it as the "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" and I think this is a unique situation, so I'm OK with referring to them as the "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry." If the sources were refer to the "Netanyahu-run Israeli health ministry," I'd support that as well. Andre🚐 17:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, sure, we already do that. nableezy - 17:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Great. We agree, then. And as far as the infobox goes, maybe we should start a new thread @BilledMammal on the infobox change. Since we have some agreement, we could end this 34 comment thread on that note and start a fresh new thread with fresh new ideas and attitudes. Want to try it? Andre🚐 17:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This thread was about adding such a note to the infobox; I don't see much benefit of starting a new one. BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Going through "generally reliable" news organizations listed at WP:RSP and where I am not blocked by a paywall:
ABC news:
  1. The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says over 4,300 Palestinians have been killed.
  2. A massive blast rocked a Gaza City hospital packed with wounded and other Palestinians seeking shelter Tuesday, killing hundreds of people, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said
  3. The deadliest of the five Gaza wars, it has left more than 1,400 people in Israel dead, as well as more than 4,100 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.
The Age
  1. The Hamas-run health ministry said at least 436 Palestinians, including 182 children, were killed in a 24-hour period, bringing the death toll in Gaza to 5087. More than 1400 Israelis were killed by Hamas terrorists on October 7.
  2. A massive blast has rocked a Gaza City hospital packed with wounded and other Palestinians seeking shelter, killing hundreds, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said.
  3. The Hamas-run health ministry said at least 436 Palestinians, including 182 children, were killed in a 24-hour period, bringing the death toll in Gaza to 5087.
AFP
  1. More than 4,100 people have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Israel launched a ferocious air and artillery bombardment in response, according to the Hamas-controlled health ministry.
  2. The Hamas-run health ministry in the crowded Palestinian enclave says more than 3,785 Palestinians have been killed in the bombing.
  3. Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry said that upwards of 5,000 people have been killed, more than 2,000 of them children -- figures AFP has not been able to independently verify -- since Israel responded with a relentless bombing campaign.
Associated Press
  1. The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says over 4,300 Palestinians have been killed.
  2. A massive blast rocked a Gaza City hospital packed with wounded and other Palestinians seeking shelter Tuesday, killing hundreds of people, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said.
  3. Meanwhile, Israeli airstrikes have killed more than 4,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry.
The Australian
  1. Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry said Monday that more than 5,000 people had been killed...
  2. The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza said the explosion was caused by an Israeli air strike.
  3. The bombing campaign has killed more than 4,300 Palestinians, mainly civilians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry...
Axios (Axios has only mentioned the health ministry twice in the past week; every time they have mentioned it they have included "Hamas-run")
  1. ...the Hamas-run Health Ministry said killed 500 people.
  2. ...which the Hamas-run Health Ministry says killed at least 500 people.
BBC
  1. ...officials from the Hamas-run health ministry say the overall death toll has risen to more than 4,300 people.
  2. The Hamas-run health ministry also said hundreds had been killed there in Israeli air strikes over the past day.
  3. The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says 55 more Palestinians in Gaza were killed in Israeli air strikes overnight and that more than 4,300 have been killed in total since 7 October, more than half of them women and children.
CNN
  1. The Palestinian Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas...
  2. Some 436 people, including 182 children, were killed in overnight Israeli strikes on Gaza, the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Health Ministry said in a statement.
  3. The Hamas-run Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza reported that 17 people were killed in the Israeli airstrike on the church compound.
The Telegraph
  1. The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has predicted the death toll in the al Ahli hospital could rise to 800.
  2. The Hamas-run health ministry said Israel’s retaliation had killed more than 4,300 Palestinians since it began.
  3. At least 5,087 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since October 7th, including 2,055 children, the Hamas-run health ministry has claimed.
DW
  1. More than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry
  2. The visit follows a blast at a Gaza hospital, which the Hamas-run health ministry said killed at least 500
  3. The number of Palestinians killed in Gaza since October 7 has risen to 4,385 dead and 13,651 wounded, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry.
The only reliable news sources which did not typically use "Health Ministry" are Al Jazeera (discussed above), Bellingcat (who has only published one story mentioning the health ministry in the past month, and so there isn't enough data to say whether they typically include or exclude it)
A few sources also published no stories mentioning the health ministry in the past month; those were excluded.
Given this source review, and the source review above, I think it is clear that we cannot put casualty estimates from the Health Ministry in WikiVoice; instead, we must attribute them to Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I agree with this. Andre🚐 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The BBC not doing that Selfstudier (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As I said, these sources typically attribute to the Hamas-run health ministry - "always" is not required for us to need to do it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We don't need to do it at all. However, I see that it has been done anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Merav, Sarig (2007-11-03). "Striking medics in Gaza temporarily return to work after talks with Hamas". National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2023-10-20.

ISIS calls for worldwide attacks against Jews in response to the war

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

An article about it, citing an infographic in the group's paper titled "Practical ways to support Muslims in Palestine". This appeared in issue #413 of Al-Naba, the official newspaper of the Islamic State, on October 20. Seems like they may intend to involve themselves as a belligerent? VintageVernacular (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unless it actually results in anything, I don't think it should be given much, if any weight. ISIS is a shadow of a what it was in 2014/2015. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
They've still got some 10,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria alone. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but given this article's already enormous length "reactions" of various tangenitally related parties to the conflict should be kept to a minimum in the text itself. I wouldn't oppose a mention at International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I hadn't realized there was now a section for Islamist groups on that page. I'll go ahead and take it there. VintageVernacular (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Second source. Mentions Al-Qaeda releasing similar statements. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lebanese & Syrian civilian casualties

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should Lebanese & Syrian civilian casualties, regardless of whether or not they occur in Lebanon or Syria or elsewhere, be included under "Foreign and dual-national casualties"?

I know Hezbollah, a Lebanese organization, is skirmishing with Israeli forces and they're even included under the Belligerents section, but Lebanon itself is not involved in the war though continued attacks across the Lebanese-Israeli border will likely continue throughout the conflict, and it has resulted in civilian casualties on both sides of the border.

Likewise, attacks from militants in Syria will likely continue despite the Syrian government itself not being involved in the conflict.

Currently I've found mention of two civilians and Lebanese journalist being killed in Lebanon by Israeli shelling, as well as two Syrian airport workers being killed, and I've gone ahead and included them in the table, but I don't know if this is the right call or not. Raskuly (talk) Raskuly (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems logical to include them if we are counting the border skirmishes and Israeli bombings of Syrian airports as being part of this conflict. It may make sense to spin off a separate "Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war", which would enable a more detailed discussion of how people from various nationalities died in the conflict. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ground invasion

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ground invasion of Gaza has already started [41] Crampcomes (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article says the IDF conducted a raid—not that a large-scale ground offensive has begun. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

How to handle the Battle of Zikim

Latest comment: 8 months ago13 comments4 people in discussion

There has been several minor content disputes surrounding this battle's topic, so a discussion is needed to once and for all clear up it. In a previous (now archived) talk page discussion, the situation was described previously: Talk:2023 Hamas attack on Israel/Archive 1#Ongoing?. In short, sources state Bahad 4, an Israeli military base was captured by Hamas during the Battle of Zikim. No source that I am aware of claims Bahad 4 was directly recaptured by Israel, and sources (all the way to October 16) indicated fighting was still ongoing - See battle article for further details on the various clashes.

Here is the main issues at hand: (1) Does the Battle of Zikim count as a battle of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood? (2.1) If yes, is the operation still ongoing? (2.2) If no, did Hamas "win" the battle? Right now, to not violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH territory, we need a source directly stating the battle ended to say the battle ended and who won. Just a few minutes ago, two editors The Great Mule of Eupatoria and BilledMammal disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their disagreement was on whether or not Israel recaptured all (key word) territory. Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured and sources (post the supposed 9 October recapture of all territory) indicate fighting was at least ongoing there until 16 October - See battle Wiki article for info & sources.

So, can we either have a discussion about how to handle the situation or can someone locate a source specifically stating whether or not the Battle of Zikim ended? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

From what I’ve looked through, the only evidence supporting that all, and I mean all of the territory with militant presence from Gaza was retaken is a claim by the idf on October 9th, if it is to be mentioned then it should only be “Israel claims”, not written as if the case is 100% proven. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Are there any claims that the IDF has not retaken all territory - that Hamas remains in control of any territory outside of Gaza? For this to be true would be extraordinary; that despite the mobilization of 360,000 soldiers the most powerful military in the Middle East has not been able to regain control of all of its territory sixteen days after the war began. As such, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, such a claim would need strong sourcing, and as far as I can tell no sourcing for the claim exists. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You may have to wait years until an extremely comprehensive analysis of the military operations is published to get the precise answer you want. However, here and elsewhere it states that Israel retook all of its territory two days after the initial attack: October 9th. I don't think it's a violation of SYNTH when citing the sources I mentioned to reasonably conclude that the "battle" for that base was over, at the latest, by the 9th. Israeli territory means territory in Israel. -- Veggies (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Key phrase: “Israel said” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Do you have any sources that state (or even hint) that any part of Zikim is still under Hamas control?... No? Ah, I didn't think so. -- Veggies (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The battle occurred on 7 October, what we are looking for is a source that properly states Israel retook all (stressing on all) territories on 9 October, aside from “Israel said”. The burden is on them, not us The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, I guess you'll have an ongoing battle with an undefeatable Hamas force in the Israeli rear going on forever since you seem devoid of common sense. It doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured If sources say that all Israeli territory was recaptured, and sources say that Bahad 4 is Israeli territory, then I don't believe it is WP:OR to say that Bahad 4 was recaptured. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then how do we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October? Those are cited in the battle article. Is it ongoing during that time? Did Israel win? That’s the problem. Capturing “all” territory doesn’t really work when there is 6 more days worth of battles cited in the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Zikim is on the coast and can potentially be infiltrated by land and sea. It's possible that those clashes (I'd need citations to examine them) were due to isolated groups of Hamas militants still roaming the countryside or secondary infiltration attempts after Oct 7th. This is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- Veggies (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Photo of kidnapped persons posters posted in public locations in LA

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I uploaded this photo to WikiCommons that I took and released all rights to. Please feel free to add it to the article if it would help with the visuals, potentially with the similar image in 2023_Israel-Hamas_war#Hostages or elsewhere https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Posters_of_hostages_taken_by_Hamas_during_the_2023_Israel-Hamas_war,_taken_in_Los_Angeles.jpg Ashvio (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Iranian IRGC's Tasnim is a reliable source?

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Our article includes what's described as a still photo from a video, purportedly of a Palestinian ambulance hit by an Israeli missile. But it's sourced to Tasnim News Agency, Iran's state-funded propaganda outlet of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Is there any reason to think—let alone consensus—that Tasnim is credible or a WP:RS for imagery or video? After all, this is an outlet that spews anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including that Henry Kissinger is behind a Jewish plot that created and released COVID-19.

Similar imagery has been inserted into our War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article.

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Gazans detained in Israel

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Has this come up before? Apparently there are "thousands of missing Palestinians after the Israeli government cancelled work permits for Gazans" that have been "rounded up, arrested and blindfolded before being taken to military camps" per the Independent. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

+ Jewish currents ref Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
+ WAPO Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've added it to the article. Alaexis¿question? 19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

A new report by Axios[42] states that U.S. has sent a three star general and several other U.S. military officers to Israel "to help advise the Israeli military's leadership in its ground operation in Gaza." Additionally, it was reported on Friday that a U.S. Navy destroyer had intercepted a Houthi cruise missile over the Red Sea[43] which was potentially headed towards Israel. In light of these developments, notably the first one, it might be time to place U.S. in the belligerents section of the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[44] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nope. US advisors are in Ukraine, too but US is not a belligerent as such. I would think, without looking at sources, one would need to see actual combat with an existing belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ukraine is a conflict where U.S. is seeking to avoid appearing as a direct belligerent in order to avoid confrontation with Russia. That is not the case here. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The only way that the US is a "belligerent" is in the Red Sea naval action a few days ago when it shot down Houthi cruise missiles and drones. If you include that in the theater of war, then, yes, the US is technically a belligerent—but, so are the Houthis, now. -- Veggies (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We could roll out the ever-popular "Supported by" subheading for the US but to list it as a belligerent on par with Israel is simply incorrect. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." BBC Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. Ecrusized (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then I have to put "Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training except during this conflict (according to a WP editor)" Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Flags

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I added the flags of the Palestinian leaders in accordance with their countries in the infobox as is the case for the Israeli leaders, my contribution was canceled twice. Why should we classify Palestinian leaders and politicians according to their political party or movement ? Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Putting the Lebanese flag for Hezbollah is incorrect. The government of Lebanon is not the same as Hezbollah. Neither is PA/Fatah same as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Ecrusized (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Look at my second contribution, I changed only flags of leaders. That's about what I ask in the talk page. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reports of several pro Iranian militias deploying themselves on the disputed Golan heights border

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SOHR has reported that several Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghani militiamen (presumably under the Private Mobilization Forces, Liwa Fatemiyoun, and National Defense Force banners) have deployed themselves to the Golan Heights border with Israel. If SOHR's reports are to be believed, they have placed themselves under the command of the Lebanese Hezbollah, and are allegedly acting against the orders of Syrian military officials.

Should these accounts be added to this page?

Source: https://www.syriahr.com/en/314883/ Randomuser335S (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not yet. Two issues: I would want more than SOHR as a source to use this in the article. But also, it's not clear where it would belong in this article yet. This SOHR report does not allege that these militia fighters have participated in any fighting yet. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1181585273"