Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Israeli Diplomat Attacked in Beijing

Times of Israel reports:

Israeli diplomat attacked in Beijing

An Israeli embassy staffer in Beijing has been hospitalized after an attack, Israel’s Foreign Ministry says.

The diplomat is in stable condition.

A motive for the attack, which did not occur at the embassy, is being probed, the ministry says.

Israelis and Jews worldwide have been advised to be on alert Friday after Hamas called for a “day of rage.” שי - LionFireKing404 08:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No connection to this article shown at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The same way the Egypt shooting is connected. It's an international reaction to the conflict. שי - LionFireKing404 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for this claim? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i24 News, and Times of Israel, the link of which is included in my first message in this topic. שי - LionFireKing404 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No connection is shown in your link. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is likely to do with the Day of Rage called by Khaled Mashal שי - LionFireKing404 14:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we need a RS to draw that link. Otherwise we're speculating. Riposte97 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-china-attack-d572e4169dd7f451cb2b2197506bc74c

Not to speculate but apparently the suspect was non-Chinese. Borgenland (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Context of Israeli occupation" needs to be removed

This is blatant Palestianian propaganda and entirely based on opinion; there is nothing encyclopedic about it as it is not rooted in facts. It is also the case the Gaza is NOT by any definition of the word "occupied," and frankly I don't care what propagandistic narrative the UN is trying to push, fact of the matter is it is not occupied.

It is irrelevant to the article, anyway. But it remains that it is merely opinion. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad you agree 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree in the least. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for:

Shortcut

WP:NOTADVOCACY

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

Shortcut

WP:NOTOPINION

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, however, has "opinion" pages allowing commentary on articles"

Just called out that section for both 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda is when we erase Israel’s horrific actions in Gaza and pretend they attacked with no provocation or reason The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

🤦‍ 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sir/Ma'am, you should not justify the actions of a group involved in 'crimes against humanity.' Even if someone provokes anyone, it doesn't give the provoked party any right or legitimacy to carry out 'crimes against humanity.' By this logic, Osama was also somehow provoked by the USA for 9/11. Why even use the term 'terrorist' in that context? Why have any morals in the first place? Whatever Hamas's reasons or motivations might be, it cannot negate the brutal acts they have committed. If Israel has also committed 'crimes against humanity,' it should be called out for it, irrespective of the fact that they were also provoked. It should never be justified. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

And it could be said that after 9/11, the US reacted by bombing the wrong country turning a secular gov't into a Islamic gov't, calling it "Shock and Awe", which sounds like a euphemism of terror. Which isn't close to what was done to Vietnam. There's a fine line. Fortunately, we are just tasked with reporting from RS and don't have to make these distinctions. Our opinions on such matters don't matter and this isn't a forum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

when did i justified any of USA's actions? if anything i am against justification of any crime against humanity be it usa,israel,gaza or al-qaeda.i strongly believe cia(with help of isi) is totaly responsible for radicalising whole afghanistan.their own religious motivations are secondry here.usa pushed them to that limit but i also wont justify how these radicalised people conduct themselves and treats others around them.that cia didnt taught. but in anycase i agree with you and once a wise person told me in comments "Please do not make assumptions about motivations here" so ill leave that job for reliable sources which are accepted in wikipedia Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

it helps if you can be specific about which sentences you think need to be addressed and provide reliable sources.

I guess we can agree that this conflict is not isolated from Palestine-Israel conflict but as you said there might be occasions where the text can be improved FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually I'm doubling down here.

The two graphs in this section depicting the deaths of Israelim and Palestinians BEFORE this conflict is completely irrelevant to THIS conflict. This is besides the fact that these graphs are CLEAR Palestinian propaganda that provides no context for these statistics. Do the statistics explain that Hamas blocks civilians from leaving their home after Israel tells them to evacuate? Does say that virtually every war that resulted in deaths was caused by their side? That Hamas stores weapons in highly populated areas and Israel has a defense system to decrease the number of casualties on their side? How about the fact that any rockets Hamas fire land back in the Gaza strip, killing their own? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58183968). That's like saying someone dies because they choke on a bone during a war, thus it's a casualty of the war, implying the other side inflicted it. It's so clearly unrelated to this conflict and so clearly biased that it's laughable to even justify keeping their inclusion here. I'm sorry, but it's not right. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza was still occupied by Israel. It's airspace, maritime zone, electricity and even internet was controlled by Israel. What Hamas done is absolutely terroristic and should never been justified, however this conflict is deep rooted in Israel occupation and blockade. Dauzlee (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"this conflict is deep rooted in israel occupation" should not be used and immediate reasons should be mentioned. by that logic israels occupying the land as well as their grievances are deep rooted in the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem,their expulsion as well as the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan's construction of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. Codenamephoenix (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What? The Dome of the Rock was built 1,700 years ago. Can we just stick with RS and not come up with personal rationales from ancient history? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

what?The Dome of the Rock, also known as the Qubbat al-Sakhrah in Arabic, was built by the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik after the destruction of temple mount. Construction of the Dome of the Rock began in 685 CE and was completed in 691 CE. it would be approx 1332 years .1700 years ago there was no islam. and just because it was back in the time so its justified? and should be disregarded?if enough time is passed since israels current occupation should it also be disregarded? and the debate here is about the deep rooted causes of actions of both palestinians and israelites.if one has deep rooted motivations so does the other.my exact point is not to go back in history but to concentrate on immideatecauses.just because jews occupy that land currently does not make palestinina's deep rooted problem with their grievances any more important. Codenamephoenix (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Map

why the map in Top is different from the map in INFOBOX Please add a 1 map at one time Nauman335 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone fixing the map bugs? Nauman335 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nauman335: It’s not clear what you’re suggesting. The map in the infobox displays the present situation and the maps in body show the first few days of the peak militant infiltration. Ecrusized (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized but everytime situation changes but map in body is old Nauman335 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Map in the body shows the situation on 7-8 October, as its caption says. Ecrusized (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Removal of probable propaganda or disinformation campaigns.

Considering that these unverified claims of baby beheading and rape have faced retractions and disputes from reputable news outlets, it is highly probable that they may have been a part of an effort by the IDF to shape public opinion in their favor. This influence has been compounded by the spread of these unverified allegations. We need to WP:Verify solid, concrete evidence before incorporating these potentially misleading and unconstructive WP:OR "Unconfirmed reports" into Wikipedia.

As it stands, Hamas is actively seeking international attention and support for their cause while strategically engaging Israeli forces on the ground. It is counterintuitive for an organization with these goals to abruptly engage in acts, such as beheading babies, which never has been part of their modus operandi in the past. Even the most extreme terrorist groups, like ISIS or al-Qaeda, have never resorted to such actions. Such actions would likely have a end their global support for Hamas. Unfortunately, there may have been instances of violence against women, but whether it constituted sexual violence remains contested.

We should consider either removing the 'Unconfirmed reports' section due to its inclusion of dubious and unverified narratives, or alternatively, incorporating it into the existing Disinformation section. This is especially pertinent given the recent backtracking on these claims, including a reversal by the White House. StarkReport (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support incorporation into disinfo since it is quite redundant. Borgenland (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why this "redundant" content as you call it has to be incorporated into disinfo? Should it not be removed ? -Deerove (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation and unconfirmed reports are separate things, and these are unconfirmed rather than disinformation. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@VintageVernacular Unverified reports, while distinct from outright disinformation, can sometimes serve as the building blocks for disinformation campaigns. Unconfirmed reports, especially those involving sensitive and unverified claims like violence against children and sexual assault, can easily be weaponized by parties with vested interests to manipulate public opinion. Placing such extensive information in an entirely separate section fails WP:Due. StarkReport (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it due to include it under "disinformation" as you proposed, but not under its own section? Seems you want it labeled disinformation despite it being in another category, it's not debunked, just unverified, which we note. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See O3000, Ret response "And the more extreme the claim, the more support is needed that there is verification. Also, the more time before adding it to see if a claim is withdrawn or debunked"

The thing is that if not outright removing it, 'Disinformation' section can serve as a context in which to discuss the potential implications of such unverified claims in the broader context of the conflict. It's about providing a more holistic understanding of the situation and the broader dynamics at play during the conflict. StarkReport (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The current wiki text refers to the Jerusalem Post verification, but the article I linked above also mentions Margot Haddad claiming to have verified it. There may be others. Snopes alludes to this: "A few journalists claimed to have obtained, or at least seen, visual proof (photos or video) of the deaths, though that evidence also was not publicly accessible, nor available to Snopes as of this writing." Labeling this as disinformation would also be incredibly premature given the current reports. They also note: "Jewish burial rites may complicate the search for answers, given the emphasis on the dignity of the dead and the requirement for burials to take place within 24 hours if possible. Viewing and exposing the body is also considered objectionable and disrespectful." This looks more like conflicting reports than purely-unconfirmed reports. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We must be careful about claims from any side. Humans lie. This has been true throughout history -- and it seems epidemic in recent history. Nothing should be added if it isn't supported by RS. And the more extreme the claim, the more support is needed that there is verification. Also, the more time before adding it to see if a claim is withdrawn or debunked. Otherwise, we'd end up with an article on Rothchild space lasers starting forest fires. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. StarkReport (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

classic case of WP:Idontlikeit and "Hamas is actively seeking international attention and support for their cause while strategically engaging Israeli forces on the ground. It is counterintuitive for an organization with these goals to abruptly engage in acts, such as beheading babies, which never has been part of their modus operandi in the past.": plese dont assume the motivation of a millitant group and dont act like their spokesperson. Their are more relevant sources caliming the acts than the ones trying to negate or dillute it. Codenamephoenix (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean WP:PARTISAN pro-Israeli 'relevant sources'? Yeah, sure. This is actually a case of WP:ILIKE as well as WP:Bludgeon. It's not about assuming the motivation of any group but rather about the need for information to be WP:Verified before being extensively published in a WP:UNDUE manner. The principle of it emphasizes the importance of using reliable sources to confirm the accuracy of claims, particularly in cases where contentious allegations are involved. StarkReport (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

respectfuly sir/ma'am,There is a difference between calling something unverified information and calling something disinformation and/or asking to remove it from wikipedia at all. and no, 'wp:ilike' and wp:bludgeon is not applicable here.no one is forcing any point of view by calling it unverified claims.only pov pushing here is by people who wants this information to disappear completely from public domain because of wp:idontlikeit. These people are also acting like millitant spokesperson :' Even the most extreme terrorist groups, like ISIS or al-Qaeda, have never resorted to such actions." like really? Codenamephoenix (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

and reliable relevant sources that does not aligns with your pov dosent automaticaly becomes pro-israel. some are just pro humans but its understandable it would be difficult for many to digest. Codenamephoenix (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If there were reports of IDF allegedly raping or beheading Palestinian children, I would approach those claims with the same level of skepticism and would await concrete, substantiated evidence, regardless of the IDF's strong historical record, which includes casualties among Palestinian children every year. It's ironic that, while accusing me of being a militant spokesperson, the so-called claims of babies being beheaded are made by an Israeli spokesperson, David Ben Zion, who has been described as a 'notorious radical leader in Israel’s West Bank settler movement. StarkReport (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

if there were any reports of idf doing all these things in reliable sources i am pretty sure you would be the first one to publish it.but unfortunately for you, there are none.what we have are multiple reliable sources claiming beheadings,rape as well as burning . again,unfortunately for you, 'multiple' reliable sources have echoed what 'israeli notorius radical leader' has claimed so it will be included.not only him, there are multiple eye witnesses. what more confirmation and concrete evidence do you need? want to do conduct a seance and ask dead people? there are photos of many of these attrocities published not only by idf but also by 'multiple'reliable sources.still because of forced neutrality and taking into considerationn many "PRO PALESTINE" references its written unded unconfirmed reports.no reliable source has called it to be absolutely false so putting it in"disinformation" is out of the question.technicaly should have been under war crimes without any hestitation from anyone. Codenamephoenix (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas is actively seeking international attention and support for their cause while strategically engaging Israeli forces on the ground. It is counterintuitive for an organization with these goals to abruptly engage in acts, such as beheading babies, which never has been part of their modus operandi in the past."

Not a strong argument. Their primary goal is widely assumed to be inspiring rage and a counterattack; what they hope to gain from this is a mystery. I don't see anyone disputing that they massacred a large hippie music festival, and kidnapped lots of photogenic young people with no political or military connections; things they have not done before. Not counterintuitive at all if the goal is to provoke, say, a massive ground invasion as a response, and the global attention that entails whether or not one supports the target.

"Unfortunately, there may have been instances of violence against women, but whether it constituted sexual violence remains contested."

That's a curious take on what's already sourced in the article. There is no claimed uncertainty about violence in the photographic and video evidence of kidnapped women. And I don't know that anyone has contested the sexual violence independently reported (sight or sound) by more than half a dozen witnesses who escaped. But it remains unverified, as noted by the legal scholar quoted, for the same reasons that rape is often the last sort of abuse to be verified in other contexts. – SJ + 22:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, rape is so common in warfare it is unremarkable. (I hate that I needed to type that.) But something like 60% of sexual violence is unreported in peacetime in the US. If verified, and it is one-sided, and it is of an unusual volume, it should be included. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The argument that 'Their primary goal is widely assumed to be inspiring rage and a counterattack' is, I must say, an even less convincing stance. To begin with, when it comes to the claims of babies being burnt or beheaded, it's imperative to establish their veracity beyond a shadow of a doubt before presenting them extensively on Wikipedia. It's worth noting that the very claims in question have been met with retractions and disputes from reputable sources.

Regarding the inclusion of claims of rape in the barbaric massacre at the festival, I don't see much of a problem with it in the "Unconfirmed Reports" section, provided they are presented in the context of the following statement: 'However, as of October 11th, Yuval Shany wrote that it was too soon to determine whether there had been a pattern of sexual assault, as there had not yet been time to formally take testimonies from victims and witnesses. These reports of sexual violence were reaffirmed by Israeli officials, US President Biden, and UK security minister Tom Tugendhat. The White House clarified that the latter statement relied on official Israeli statements and news reports.' The primary concern revolves around the highly questionable and likely disinformation claims of babies being burned or beheaded, which should either be removed until concrete evidence is found or relocated to the 'Disinformation' section. StarkReport (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Your reputable sources for establishing a dispute on this subject are: an article (which circulates the rumor that particular photo was AI-generated; incorrectly identified as such due to the pixelation of a serial number) that cites a Stalinist Twitter pundit, an opinion article in Qatari state media Al Jazeera, the White House's meandering, and Turkish state media Andalou Agency? VintageVernacular (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

"But the source of the rape allegation remains murky. While sexual assault is a common feature of violent conflict worldwide, the Israel Defense Forces told the Forward Tuesday night that it does not yet have any evidence of rape having occurred during Saturday’s attack or its aftermath. And most mainstream media outlets have avoided mention of rape, with the Los Angeles Times and NBC News specifically stating they have been unable to verify the claims." Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources: StarkReport (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The point still stands, these claims are a part of disinformation aimed at influencing public opinion, and they should either be removed or relocated to the disinformation section. Should these distressing claims be verified as true, I would be the foremost advocate for their prominent inclusion. StarkReport (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Of reliable sources you've cited, they cast these as "unconfirmed", "unverified", "unsubstantiated" and similar terms. This isn't the same as disinformation, which you've proposed these claims be labeled as. You've apparently acknowledged the distinction above, making the continuation of this dispute peculiar; the article's text already acknowledges that these claims are not thoroughly confirmed. Though, just because one journalist couldn't confirm something, doesn't preclude another being able to, as was the case here. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This situation is like some claiming to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, a claim that's virtually impossible to disprove. When such rumors spread without concrete evidence, they are typically treated as speculative and relegated to a section dedicated to conspiracy theories or unverified claims. In the context of an ongoing conflict, where disinformation is disseminated by both sides, it's prudent to temporarily remove such claims until concrete evidence is available.

Failure to do so risks promoting unverified and potentially misleading information. If these claims ultimately cannot be substantiated, they belong in the Disinformation section to signify their unverified nature.In a few weeks, the assertion of babies being beheaded will likely dissipate, with no substantiating evidence emerging. This will likely confirm that it was indeed a deliberate act of misinformation. StarkReport (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Do I have it correct you've compared the eyewitnesses claiming to have seen women raped during a war, to people claiming to have seen the Loch Ness Monster? It's hardly so implausible. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

none of the sources,if you read them, claims the actions to be exactly disinformation . for eg: one source you mentioned says"Unsupported Claim of 40 Beheaded Babies" however it also mentions "“There have been cases of Hamas militants carrying out beheadings and other ISIS-style atrocities. However, we cannot confirm if the victims were men or women, soldiers or civilians, adults or children,” ." in any case, the information might be unverified but it certainly is not disinformation considering many eye witnesses have confirmed it.its UNCONFIRMED Codenamephoenix (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think we should initiate a voting process on this serious matter about whether to include it or remove it. @Borgenland, @Objective3000O3000, Ret, @FunLater, @Iskandar323, @Hovsepig, what do you think? StarkReport (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

My main concern is the lack of a smoking gun on whether it is an deliberate act of disinformation. Unless something comes up (probably once a whole bunch of internal probes that most likely appear after the war, if it ever ends) suggesting that these things involved troll networks, lobby groups, planted stories etc, I think it has to be mentioned but in a more summative or concise way that does not highlight extreme/specific details that can be seen as incitement, which appears to be the goal of any disinformative actor. Also, we need constant checking of the list of reliable/blacklisted sources on Wiki and we must strictly uphold restrictions on citing Social Media platforms and even YouTube, which are sometimes violated in this page and all of its spinoffs. Borgenland (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about the difference between disinformation and unconfirmed reports. Clearly in general there is a difference. But I would argue there isn't in Wikipedia as we shouldn't include either. The exception is confirmed disinformation. If it has been verified that egregious accusations are false, I believe that is worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is about information. Examples of verified disinformation can increase a reader's information. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

i dont know why you would specifically tag those editors(my guess is they support your pov).but its not a matter of voting.information from reliable sources should be available in public domain.it was moved from war crimes to unconfirmed eye witnesses.no more whitewashing should be allowed.if you think these claims are undermining the palestinian cause and changing the public opinion i would recommend that instead of only raising"free palestine" and "gas the jews" slogan, there should be a collective voice from palesteinian side to urge millitant groups like hamas to not engage in any activity which raises any question and undermine the palestinian cause. but most are busy justifying the actions. i understand that this information is sensitive and emotionally triggering for many pro palestinians but same is also true for victims of hamas and their families who also deserves representation.and as an editor proposed only "verified disinformation" should be added under disinformation .and if anything these claims are not claimed by any reliable source to be disinformation let alone verified full proof disinformation. Codenamephoenix (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If you claim the reports are unverified (even though there are witnesses who verified it including head of Zaka) it should stay in the unverified paragraph. Misinformation is information that have been proven to be fake, I didn't see any information regarding the incident that is a proof of it being fake (I did see the opposite though). dov (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Despite my call to temporarily remove improbable and unverified claims, your responses seem to be heading in an extreme direction. The persistent personal attacks, such as characterizing me with offensive slogans like 'gas the Jews' or labeling me as a 'militant spokesperson,' violate WP:GOODFAITH." And most of the content you wrote above, such as "there should be a collective voice from palesteinian side ----- deserves representation.and as an editor" doesn't seem to be making sense or relevant to the matter at hand.

Your position is that extreme claims that later gets backtracked without evidence, which are inherently difficult to disprove, should remain as they are. Mine, on the other hand, is that they should be temporarily moved or merged into the disinformation section. That's it from me. Cheers StarkReport (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

no one directly accused you for raising any slogan nor any personal attack was done towards you.calling someone if they are acting as a spokesperson of an organisation when infact they are busy justifying their actions and misrepresenting sources(refer to "misrepresentation in the lead" talk section) is not personal attack. also please stck to RS.no RS mentions disinformation. your personal feelings towards the issue or what consequences any information will have is irrelevant. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

and one look at your talkpage, you have been previously also warned for removing information abruptly as well as misrepresenting sources.so i guess what i said is nothing new. also you falsely accused me of characterizing YOU with a slogan when all i mentioned was pro palestine groups who are engaged in this type of activities(refer to "more articles on antisemetism globally" section in talk page with RS). i dont know why would you take it on yourself. in any case, lets not unnecessarily fight.cheers Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You took just one look at the talk page and made an assumption. However, the discussion was not about removing information but rather about condensing it which I did a bit too much, and my condensation was also supported by other editors. But coming from a user who just joined Wikipedia yesterday to push a single point of view, I wouldn't expect you to fully understand the situation. Again, Cheers. StarkReport (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

my pov is that its a certified warcrime but i am settling with 'unverified information' considering both pro israel and pro palestinian sources.so dont make another assumption about my point of view.i am not bent on removing any sourced information or adding any unsourced information cause it hurts my feelings.

see my stand is NO. its not disinformation as per any RS. it should neither be removed nor moved under disinformation. if majority of other editors agree with you then sure -gain consensus and remove it.

if no other editor has any problem with it then who am i to suggest anything. Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that in my above reply, about condensation and the support from other editors is about a different matter on my talk page, not related to this conflict, right? StarkReport (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

ok my friend. you dont have to justify yourself to a new account. i dont think these conversations between me and you are very productive. i am out of this. i told you my stand. if other editors agree with you then please go ahead and do as you wish.as i said who am i to oppose the majority consensus Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Abducted - "including 120 soldiers"

The provided source does not support this. Until we have a source that breaks down how many captured with active military personal and how many were civilians I don't think we can include this information. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. RadXman (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Tagged with failed verification span. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's actually precisely the opposite, 120 civilians are hostage. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Support, source is invalid and rather misinformation. dov (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've already replaced it. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Article Title Suggested Change to Israel-Palestinian Armed Resistance War

It’s clear that Hamas is not the only active militant group in this conflict, from both other groups’ outlets and general reporting on the conflict it looks like an umbrella coalition of Palestinian Armed Resistance Groups has formed and are co-organizing. 2601:644:8584:2800:4182:6770:BC4D:D34B (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's awkward and clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Hamas is the governing body of the Strip and evidence indicates they took a leading role in the organization of this, so the title as it stands is fair. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:3100:E760:77D2:71D3 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't do that. It would require that a preponderance of reliable sources use the term. WP:RS O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

These random terrorist-adjacent IPs are starting to become a problem. There is no credible source that calls it that. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please strike terrorist. This is a massive WP:PA violation. Besides, civility works better here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Please refer to the last two move requests at the top of this talk page. We have discussed the name of this article at legnth and the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS policies. Search for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." – Fuzheado | Talk 07:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Armed Resistance Part would launch a fury of angry comments here especially once other users would start bringing out the music fest and other massacres. Borgenland (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas documents

@Isi96: In this edit you removed coverage of the Hamas documents detailing their intentions; while they are covered in the other article Hamas' initial war aims and intentions are also relevant to this article and I believe warrant mentioning. BilledMammal (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually added it in the first place; I removed it because was unsure about where it should go. Isi96 (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I'll restore the sentence. Isi96 (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

KAN News website (public broadcasting in Israel) published additional document. I offer to mention it too. The document on NBC describes the plans to attack Kibbutz Saad. The document I propose to add contains the plans to attack Kibbutz Alumim.

In this document, which was seized by the Israelis after Hamas' attack on israel and published by journalists, it is written: "The mission of the department - to attack Kibbutz Alumim with the aim of obtaining as many casualties as possible, taking hostages and staging within the kibbutz until further instructions are received."

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/566768/ 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:A898:B2DC:56E4:2D45 (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

support adding the content about the documents, by now there is enough RS to back this claim, worth mentioning that the document specifies to take control over 3 primary schools in those Kibbutzim and kill as much civilians as possible. dov (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in the lead section

this sentence in lead: "whilst numerous other countries, including Muslim nations, have cited the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as the root cause of the escalation". the sentence claims that numerous non muslim countries (in addition to many muslim countries) are blaming israel for the hamas acts. This is misrepresentation and unsourced information. can anyone list even two non muslim countries directly blaming israeli occupation for hamas attack?even venezuela didnt mention israeli occupation. looks like an attempt to create false equivalences. Codenamephoenix (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the full sentence it isn't ideal; Many countries, including Western nations, have denounced Hamas and labeled its strategies as terrorism, whilst numerous other countries, including Muslim nations, have cited the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as the root cause of the escalation. "Numerous" is typically seen as larger than "many", despite more nations blaming Hamas than Israel. The current version was added here; I think we should revert back to the previous version, which said At least forty-four countries have denounced Hamas and labeled its strategies as terrorism, while countries in the region like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, and Iraq have attributed the responsibility to Israel - it's a far more accurate representation. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

i agree Codenamephoenix (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Infinity Knight (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither side has "Support"?

Nearly every other conflict in the 20th and 21st century has the list of supporters of each side. Leaving out the players like Iran, Syria, Qatar, the US India, etc, seems weird Gabecube45 (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't appear to have enough verifiable information to fill out such a section at this time. I'm sure it'll come later, as evidence appears and reliable reporting continues. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Is news like this not reliable? Genuine question I haven't done too much on here . We don't seem to know the extent of every country's involvement but the US in the support section for Israel seems like a safe bet right? [1]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-attack-israel-secretary-austin-american-aircraft-carrier-group-eastern-mediterranean/ [2]https://time.com/6322820/israel-aid-biden-congress-hamas/ Gabecube45 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There was an RfC about having a Supported by section in infoboxes, and the practice has been deprecated. An exception can be made if an affirmative consensus is reached to have one. entropyandvodka | talk 10:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone can agree that the US and Israel are allies and that the US is helping Israel in this conflict directly right? Gabecube45 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This article might be a case where an affirmative consensus can be reached. The issue is that there was an RfC to deprecate the practice, so now to use a "Supported by" section requires an affirmative consensus of editors, regardless of the actual facts of support. In my view, it leaves critical info out not to use it in some cases, but that's what the RfC decided. entropyandvodka | talk 23:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The same arguments were discussed at Russian invasion of Ukraine when it came to listing the NATO, US, Germany, or other parties as "Supporters" in the infobox; no consensus could be reached there across multiple RfCs. The nuances are too great for an infobox anyway, until the history books get written. DFlhb (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Stinch of Myths

" after the Palestinian National Authority declared war on the country during the Second Intifada of 2000–2005."

..Wow . Can I ask the smart edditor who placed that line to actually bring a decree from the office archives of Arafat , rather than his butt as a source ? . There was no so-called "declaration of War" back then except Ariel Sharon shouting Israeli-Supremacism on the Temple Mount  : the same stunt that caused the 1929 Jerusalem riots , also distorted by Zionist histography being some sort of a dime-a-dozen episode of mindless drunkard Russian rage-trip . That was preceded by almost an entire decade from 1993 to 2000 where Settlements continued to grow , Area C not being handed over to the PA , and in some cases : an entire rejection of Oslo resulting in a Palestinian state , rather than "autonomy" .

I can't believe even events that are contemporary and within our lifetimes are now mythologized with stories that never existed. I ask that editors to try and substantially improve the early portion of the background section as to properly reflect the developments that occurred in an impartial manner of why pre-2nd Intifada discussions failed . This connotation of "Stubborn Palestinian , Virtuous Israeli" is just public relations propaganda , and in Wikipedia : a blatant POV . 176.44.52.30 (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel extends deadline for more than a million Palestinians to flee northern Gaza

can someone summarise the following and add it to the relevant timeline section: The Israeli military extended the deadline to Saturday morning, it said.

The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, said it would not evacuate its schools, where hundreds of thousands have taken shelter. But it relocated its headquarters to southern Gaza, according to spokesperson Juliette Touma. Two routes can be used between the hours of 10am and 4pm local time (7am to 1pm GMT) on Saturday "without any harm" and Civilians should "take advantage of the short time to move south" from Beit Hanoun to Khan Yunis, Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesman Avichay Adraee said.Adaree furthur said:"Rest assured that Hamas leaders have taken care of themselves and are taking cover from strikes in the region. "Residents of the beach, sand, and west of Olive will also be allowed to move on Daldul and Al-Sana Streets towards Salah Al-Din and Al-Bahr Streets."

sources:https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/palestinians-flee-northern-gaza-after-israel-orders-mass-103976627#:~:text=The%20military%20extended%20the%20deadline,according%20to%20spokesperson%20Juliette%20Touma.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/israel-extends-evacuation-deadline-palestinians-flee-northern-gaza/ Codenamephoenix (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Convoy

Hi, @The Great Mule of Eupatoria:. I reverted your edit labeling the hitting of the convoy a war crime. Does actually any source term the hitting of the convoy a war crime? To my understanding it would only be if:

• It was committed with gross carelessness
• It was intentionally performed

Has any source termed it a war crime? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have not reverted the edit again because of the page and the policy,

https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/war-in-israel/israel-war-crime-palestinian-leader/amp/

“ “Israel is committing really a horrible war crime there by forcing people out of their homes,” he said. “And not only forcing the people out of their homes but also demolishing these homes, one after the other.”

Barghouti pointed to an air strike on a convoy of people leaving the area as another example of the struggle civilians in Gaza face.”

hamas has called the Airstrike a war crime but I’m not sure if they should be the ones delivering the term considering the record. Israel has not said anything about it

the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime and Israel has done it during this war, so it’s unlikely that them telling people to evacuate north Gaza then bomb them as they leave might be unintentional The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel is committing really a horrible war crime there by forcing people out of their homes That part is already mentioned and I agree with you that it should remain in.

“ “Israel is committing really a horrible war crime there by forcing people out of their homes,” he said. “And not only forcing the people out of their homes but also demolishing these homes, one after the other.”... hamas has called the Airstrike a war crime but I’m not sure if they should be the ones delivering the term considering the record. Israel has not said anything about it Neither Israel or Palestinian militants should be quoted to accuse the other of war crimes. Of course they're going to be make mutual claims; they're not exactly neutral observers. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, et al. is fine. But having only Marwan Barghouti state it is a WP: Weight issue. I'm also unsure why this one strike would be worse than the other civilian casualities.

If it becomes notable somehow in the public eye, yes, it should be included. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it. As for the other possible war crime of the Israeli military clearly executing the unarmed, is it reliable because the video evidence is clear and the IDF spread it with the “we killed terrorists” or not because it’s on Twitter? I’ve yet to find it on mainstream media and it happened a few days ago The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have questions with the use of the word convoy not because of the morality but whether it was a legit convoy of related vehicles or just random vehicles in the refugee exodus. Borgenland (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

i agree with @KlayCax there is no source to claim it was either intentional or carelessness. and in addition to this revert, one should mention hamas' firing of both short range and long range rockets indiscriminately at israel without any warning to israeli citizens as a serious war crime and crime against humanity."Hamas launched its longest-range missile 'Ayyash 250' on northern Israel. The firing of the long-range missile, a first in the current conflict, sparked alarm in Israel. However, the Times of Israel reported that the rocket was intercepted by the Israeli air defense system. Israeli officials said that 'Ayyash 250' is the longest-range missile Hamas ever used against Israel."

sources:https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-rocket-knocked-down-by-davids-sling-interceptor/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/world-news/in-a-first-hamas-group-launches-long-range-ayyash-250-missile-on-israel-what-it-means-101697256047360.html

https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/news-bulletin-reports/727861/the-ayyash-250-missile-hamas-powerful-new-weapon/en Codenamephoenix (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Displaced

Ih the “Casualties and losses” box there is no mansion of displaced Israelis, although Sderot, all Of Otef Aza’s kibbutzim, most of Ashkelon, Netivot, Ofakim and some places on the Israel-Lebanon border (e.g. Metula) have been evacuated. 77.137.64.222 (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find an estimate of how many have been displaced; I've instead added "many displaced". BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Isyetdis topic could be considered as mass murder?

I wish I could add the category Mass murder in 2023 but it's kinda controversial. Filipinohere (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what is considered controversial about this... it was a genocidal mass murder terrorist attack. Wiki[edia won't recognize it as such because it is very biased in favor of Palestine and they're pedantic when it comes to sourcing, but you and I know it's true, brother. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The biggest threat on Wikipedia that it tries to stay so PC and NPOV than in the end even Adolf Hitler will be considered a freedom fighter here. dov (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, they're not even trying to be neutral here. They're just using biased sources to support their own POV, claiming because it's a "legitimate source" (I mean Al Jazeera????) it's NPOV, but the reality is that it's completely their POV, and the problem is that these articles are loaded with Palestinian-generated propaganda.

It's impossible to make an article POV-free, but it is possible to remain neutral, which they won't because they'd rather justify their bias with citations. I hate this. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The article must be based on reliable sources. If there is a consensus among reliable sources than the article can address that. Drsmoo (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

ding, beyond that everybody here should read and internalize WP:NOTFORUM, if you are offering personal opinions then please do it somewhere else. nableezy - 14:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Structure

I'd like to inquire about the editors' viewpoints on the page's structure. One of the major concerns I see pertains to the Timeline. We're currently marking Day 597 of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and it's crucial to account for the potential that this conflict may persist for some time. Additionally, the Timeline begins on Day 1 (7 October) with "Palestinian offensive" and "Israeli response," which can make it challenging to grasp the sequence of events. While we're certainly committed to neutrality, it would be beneficial to provide a more coherent portrayal of how these events unfolded. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The way I understood it when the article was in its infancy, first ball was with the Palestinians and it took some time for the course of events to pass to Israel's initiative. Later, when the Israeli response was made, some editor started the timeline under that heading which meant every date afterwards was listed as under Israeli response, admittedly hindering a lot of events in Gaza. A few days ago I moved back October 7 as a direct subsection of the Timeline. It's still an ongoing effort to include events in Palestine from their perspective back into the timeline since a lot of these were duplicated and condensed in other sections prior to the timeline fixing. You can see that starting 8 October there haven't been much internal subsplits since the pace of events is relatively slower than in the frenzy of the first day. Borgenland (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking down the road, there's a chance we might pull out some meaningful and clear sections from the timeline and give the Timeline own spot as a sub-page. I'm all in for blending those October 7 bits to create a more coherent picture. There are also similar splits elsewhere, and we'll probably need to deal with those one by one. We need to present a smoother account of how these events unfolded, while keeping our rock-solid dedication to neutrality. But also it's worth exploring a bigger-picture way to get rid of these divisions that make the page a bit tricky to read. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

More articles on antismeitism globally

https://www.ft.com/content/e2ccd31d-3c77-4406-8b8c-8245475c407e 69.249.102.223 (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This should also be added to the article maybe in reactions section: pro-palestine/anti-israel Protestors Shout ‘Gas the Jews’ and "fuck the jews" Outside Sydney Opera House. Codenamephoenix (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We all know that antisemitism is rampant in the world. But let us not push the narrative that the attack by Hamas was solely antisemitism or that antisemitism and anti-Israel are the same or that pro-Palestinian is antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

attack by Hamas may not solely be rooted in anti-Semitism, and no one is suggesting otherwise. What we are suggesting or requesting is to report on the slogans raised during pro-Palestine rallies, based on reliable sources provided, without introducing any original research or assumptions from anyone's side.".reactions like these are, in general, added in articles. Codenamephoenix (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

More than just that, Hamas called for violence against the Jews as payback for the reactionary strikes in Gaza. That's what this is all about. Pro-Palestinian riots have always called for violence and genocide against Jews, although they're really pushing it to the next level this time... why again are they rallying? Hmm? 69.249.102.223 (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas literally called for violence against the Jews, globally, what are you going on about? 69.249.102.223 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed. and not only violence against jews, hamas has claimed time and time again that they want to eliminate ALL jews. if this is not genocidal intention i dont know what is. Codenamephoenix (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Disturbing behavior on the streets of Berlin:

https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article239796009/Prenzlauer-Berg-Wohnhaus-mit-Davidstern-markiert.html

https://www.t-online.de/region/berlin/id_100259270/berlin-juedische-bewohnerin-hat-davidstern-an-tuer-staatsschutz-ermittelt.html

Look, if it's not going to be included in the article proper because "muh, no proof of connection" than at least I can archive it here on the talk page. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

October 7

We've already mentioned that the main article is Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Right now, this day is kind of chaotic. So, if no one's got a problem with it, I think it's a pretty solid idea to use the intro section of the main article for all the stuff that went down on October 7. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Think the lead of that article is atrocious and oppose bringing it here. nableezy - 15:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

War Crimes

Under "War crimes" section - "According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups infiltrated homes, shot civilians en masse, and took scores of Israeli civilians as hostages into Gaza" shot civilians en masse - this section is not comprehensive enough. Please add that Hamas burned civilians (https://abcnews.go.com/International/blinken-meets-hamas-attack-survivors-pledges-us-support/story?id=103925374) and cut their throats, including those of babies (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/12/photo-baby-dead-hamas-israel-palestine-blinken/).

The title "Unconfirmed eyewitness reports" is suggestive that the mentioned reports are unreliable, thus a subjective title. I suggest to change this section to "Eyewitness reports" and put it in a subsection under war crimes. 2A0D:6FC2:4240:D200:19FD:426E:8B26:E1F8 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Help

The rest of the infobox of other articles contains "Territorial changes". Does anyone know how much of Israel was under the control of Hamas and its allies and what should be written in the infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian-Israeli conflict not Arab-Israeli

All reliable sources have identified it as being part of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, whoever is changing this must seek consensus here first. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hezbollah is not Palestinian. Parham wiki (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous lede was better.

In the lede's fourth paragraph, the statement 'At least forty-four countries have denounced Hamas and labeled its strategies as terrorism, while countries in the region like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, and Iraq have attributed the responsibility to Israel' fails to mention the strong condemnation by many countries, including Muslim-majority nations, regarding the root cause of the conflict. This omission is inconsistent with Wikipedia's principle of WP:Due.

The previous statement, 'Many countries, including Western nations, have denounced Hamas and labeled its strategies as terrorism, whilst numerous other countries, including Muslim nations, have cited the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as the root cause of the escalation,' was a more appropriate representation." StarkReport (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It was changed following the above discussion. FunLater (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

“Possible war crime” of Israel executing surrendered Palestinians then labelling them as terrorists

The post in question shows Israeli soldiers claiming they had gotten into a fight with terrorists and took them out

this is the original post https://twitter.com/idfonline/status/1711798595425366122 directly translated, it says

“IDF forces from the 52nd Battalion of the 401st Armored Brigade, in cooperation with a force of fighters from the Magellan unit, identified four armed terrorists in the Zikim beach area earlier today. Troops from the 17th Battalion (Bislamah) exchanged fire with the terrorists in the area and eliminated them”

however the video was examined here, which shows the Palestinians in question were not only unarmed, but also surrendering https://twitter.com/EuroMedHRAr/status/1712004914597998728

is this possible to be added to the “misinformation” section for falsely labelling unarmed Palestinians as “armed terrorists” or the “alleged war crimes” section as it shows a clear execution of surrendering people The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you referring to, but the twitter video you shared (which isn't under any circumstances RS), shows AKs next to the "unarmed surrendering civilians". dov (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The AK’s next to the dead bodies, not in the video where it is clear they are not holding anything (aside from one holding his shirt and waving it like a surrender flag as the others get on the ground), all four of them The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Needs secondary source coverage or other human rights groups picking up on it. nableezy - 14:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it’s going to get overlooked, I’ve been trying to find news reporting on it for a while The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If we are already on the subject of misinformation. A few reports of a baby that has been killed in Gaza and gone viral online has revealed to be a doll. Resources:

• Times of India
• Free press journal
• official Instagram page of Israel

dov (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't find any information regarding this incident on the article and think it should be mentioned. dov (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Am not sure how this relates to 4 unarmed and surrendering men being killed and labelled as “terrorists” but if were on the topic of babies here you go https://instagram.com/eye.on.palestine?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

I guess 700+ dead children aren’t enough for you The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

How is your reply related to my comment? dov (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad, meant to reply to the other user The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all good. Toodles. dov (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding content to misinformation paragraph

A few reports of a baby that has been killed in Gaza and gone viral has been revealed to be a doll. Resources:

• Times of India
• Free press journal
• official Instagram page of Israel

I think this is important information that should be added, it gained virality and represent well the subject of fake and misinformation regarding the war. dov (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. It's currently mentioned in the article under Unconfirmed reports. FunLater (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

no the above discussion is to remove or lable hamas' grave actions against israel as disinformation. this on the other hand is a verified disinformation of hamas claiming baby killed by idf. Codenamephoenix (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Thank you for clarifying. FunLater (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Different subject, this is not about the beheading incident. dov (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Support with better sources – it definitely deserves a mention, but see WP:TOI FunLater (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times of India said: "The Times of India cannot independently verify the authenticity of the claims."

We should wait for (or find, if available) better sources and verification. FunLater (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

update of Casualties

in the west bank 54 are killed and 1,100 wounded arabic source and english source

and in lebanon it is written that 7 are killed so please make it more clarify because one of them was journalist and the other 6 were militias أحمد توفيق (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters photojournalist Issam Abdallah for the record. nableezy - 15:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@أحمد توفيق: Gaza and West Bank health ministries appear to have two different classifications for counting the wounded. According to sources, only 300 out of the 950 injuries in West Bank required hospitalization. A ratio of 1/6 per 50 killed. In Gaza this ratio is 1/4 per killed and wounded, so I have only placed the number of wounded which required hospitalization for the West Bank injuries. Ecrusized (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

rafah border crossing

egypt refuses foreigners passage from Gaza except as part of relief aid agreement.ahram أحمد توفيق (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Cyber warfare and hacktivism

"Hacktivism erupts in response to Hamas-Israel war". Could be worth it to incorporate mentions of any significant cyber attacks into the article (perhaps as its own section). This ended up being significant during the Ukraine war. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

At this moment, seems minor for this article. If it becomes widely covered and has an effect later, then possibly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ali Qadi is killed

the idf announce that they killed Ali Qadi a senior hamas commander who according to the idf led hamas massacres on 7 october source1 ,source 2 and source 3 أحمد توفيق (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Militant Group Box Organization

a couple of days ago, there was a very helpful section in the infobox that organized where all the Palestinian militants were; Hamas/PFLP/DFLP in Gaza, Lion's Den in West Bank, Hezbollah in South Lebanon, etc. I found this really helpful, but why was it removed? Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

In the third paragraph the sentence "Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation" should be rewritten as: "Hamas wishes to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories" because Hamas is not the same as Palestinians and it is misleading and non-neutral to write "Israeli occupation" without specifying which territory is being occupied. Seffardim (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. DFlhb (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the correct template for this? 71.182.180.159 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a template, but you should ask other people their opinion about the change on this talk page. Then once others agree the change can be made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

The map of the conflict was a far better lead image than the one that was just added. Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. Damage in the Gaza Strip is not representative of the subject as it doesn't show how the conflict began. Bring back the map. Seffardim (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Seffardim: I changed the lead image after some deliberation, feel free to revert my edit. I suspected the change would not be uncontroversial, but ah well... On the other hand, how about File:Isr vs pla war.jpg? That was my second choice. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If we have enough good photos on the Wikimedia Commons (I suspect we may not yet), one option is to use a collage. See the page crisis in Venezuela for an example of how that might look. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of a collage. I'll try to put one together if I have time. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any freely or CC licensed photos of the Re'im music festival massacre, which would probably be one of the events such a collage should have a photo of. It's possible that one exists. I didn't see one at the Wikimedia Commons's 2023 Israel–Hamas war category, though. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I looked into a collage, but most of the pictures in the commons category are of the damage in Gaza, and most of the good ones are up for deletion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, including images up for deletion due to copyright or other issues, here's what I would suggest (very roughly) for broad coverage:

File:Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 49.jpg

File:Isr vs pla war.jpg

Very roughly, anyway. Hopefully we wouldn't gave to use the multiple images template. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we put them in chronological order? I'm assuming the order of the first two here:

1. Missiles (the last one you put from left to right)
2. Firefighters (second)
3. Explosion (first); its metadata says 17:43, 7 October 2023
4. Aftermath (third); its metadata says 16:30, 10 October 2023

FunLater (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Infiltration were 1000 in most reported news channels.

Please correct Infiltration were 1000 in most reported news channels. 2500 is not accurate. 202.47.36.141 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Casualties

The infobox for casualties is a bit confusing. I’m guessing the bold categories are by location, but it’s not really clear. I think putting “In Israel”, “In Lebanon” might be more clear.

Also, who are the casualties? It just seems too vague. Either break it down by group or just do one big total for all locations like on the main page Israeli–Palestinian conflict KD0710 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Mention Palestinian deaths in status like Israel's is mentioned.

In info box status Mention Palestinian deaths in like Israelis death are mentioned. 202.47.36.141 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

They are already mentioned on the left side, under "Gaza Strip". FunLater (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

But it was not in the status whereas Israeli deaths were. I added it there. nableezy - 01:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize they said in status. Thank you for adding it. :-) FunLater (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Parham wiki please see here regarding your edit. You seem to be under the impression Israeli casualties are not included there, but they are. nableezy - 02:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Edit reverted. Parham wiki (Parham wiki) 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, nableezy - 03:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the alleged involvement of Iraqi PMF and other "Axis of Resistance" militias be added to this page

According to the Institute for the Study of War, there are reports of a number of Iraqi PMU militias joining the Lebanese Hezbollah in Lebanon for a planned war against Israel. I don't know the veracity of such reports, but should the alleged involvement of Iraqi PMF elements be mentioned in this page? Or is to far too premature for that right now?

Source: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-14-2023 Randomuser335S (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

World-renowned political scientist Gilles Kepel: Hamas attacks is Iranian 9/11

Source: https://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/societe/gilles-kepel-le-11-septembre-d-israel-version-iranienne-20231008 2A02:14F:176:99AE:0:0:B785:1700 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli reports of Hamas casualties

This information does not seem suitable for wikipedia yet, since it cannot be confirmed and some say 1,000 and others 1,500 (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/1799-gazans-have-been-killed-6388-injured-in-idf-airstrikes-this-week-hamas-health-ministry/)

I would say that unless it is properly confirmed by independent sources it should not be included in the table. Onesgje9g334 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Onesgje9g334: I am in favor of removing this. The number seems extremely unreliable, and Israel downgraded it from 1,500 to 1,000 in a day. Putting its reliability into doubt. Ecrusized (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It could simply be because casualties during a war are notoriously difficult to estimate or verify. Even now there are constant revisions to causalities of WW2 battles for example. Meeepmep (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Meeepmep much true..

who decides if a missing person is dead, or he's running for his/her dear life away from the warzone ?

so yeah, deathtolls during war are a hard thing to conclude. 102.70.4.44 (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

in favor of removing this, reasons similar with Ecrusized Durranistan (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say check a bunch of articles and come out with what the majority favor, or better yet what the more recent ones state. My guess is that the 1,500 count is accurate, it just took a while to count them.--RM (Be my friend) 10:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This account might be a sock puppet by the way. It has several hundred same day +1/-1 edits on an article called ‎Draft:Hv6zfzuvu, quick way to get extended confirmation. Meeepmep (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to quickly edit these articles, that's not forbidden, right? Onesgje9g334 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Onesgje9g334: In response to your message on my talk page, the Israeli claim is already highlighted in it's titled as being reported by Israel. The long lines are used to separate combatants who do not cooperate with each other and should not be used here. Ecrusized (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Then it should still be under the three other points Onesgje9g334 (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)