Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Novoselivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:07:05Z

91.210.248.223: Undid revision 1232607638 by Mellk (talk)

{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Novoselivka
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Новоселівка}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Novoselivka church 02.jpg
|imagesize =
|image_caption =
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q2612107}}###{{coord|45|41|34.8|N|29|15|48.5|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;11;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q2612107;Q21681840;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Novoselivka;Novoselivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Novoselivka
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1816
|named_for = 'New village', (new {{transl|sla|[[Village#Slavic countries|selo]]}} or new {{transl|uk|selivka}}) 1945<ref>{{cite web|title=Decree of the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR dated November 14, 1945 «On the preservation of historical names and specification and arrangement of the existing names of silrad and population points of Izmail Raion»|url=https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/Указ_Президії_Верховної_Ради_УРСР_від_14.11.1945_«Про_збереження_історичних_найменувань_та_уточнення_…_назв_…_Ізмаїльської_області»|publisher=Wikisource|language=uk}}</ref>
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 67.13
|area_urban_km2 = 2.72
|elevation_m = 14
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 1352
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|40|38.8|N|29|15|42.3|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68320
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-5x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Novoselivka''' ({{lang-uk|Новоселівка}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]] of [[Odesa Oblast]] of [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref>{{cite web|title=Картка громади|url=https://kiliyska-gromada.gov.ua/structure/|publisher=Кілійська громада|language=uk}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Trudove, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:06:51Z

91.210.248.223: Undid revision 1232607607 by Mellk (talk)

{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Trudove
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Трудове}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Свято-Миколаївський храм села Трудове.png
|imagesize = 280
|image_caption = Orthodox Saint Nicholas Church, built in 1897
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q2916995}}###{{coord|45|36|48.3|N|29|24|07.7|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;11;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q2916995;Q20750288;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Trudove;Trudivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Trudove
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1805
|named_for = 'Labouring' ({{transl|sla|[[Wiktionary:trud|trud]]}}) 1945<ref>{{cite web|title=Decree of the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR dated November 14, 1945 «On the preservation of historical names and specification and arrangement of the existing names of silrad and population points of Izmail Raion»|url=https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/Указ_Президії_Верховної_Ради_УРСР_від_14.11.1945_«Про_збереження_історичних_найменувань_та_уточнення_…_назв_…_Ізмаїльської_області»|publisher=Wikisource|language=uk}}</ref>
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 56.06
|area_urban_km2 = 2.64
|elevation_m = 13
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 1201
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|37|12.2|N|29|23|57.9|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68332
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-3x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Trudove''' ({{lang-uk|Трудове}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]] of [[Odesa Oblast]] of [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

== Population ==
{{Pie chart
|thumb=left
|caption=Distribution of the population by mother tongue
|label1=[[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]]|value1=84.06|color1=#ffd500 
|label2=[[Romanian language|Romanian]]|value2=8.74|color2=#002b7f 
|label3=[[Russian language|Russian]]|value3=5.65|color3=#d52b1e 
|label4=[[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]]|value4=0.47|color4=#00976e 
|label5=[[Gagauz language|Gagauzian]]|value5=0.47|color5=#FF1493 
|label6=[[Romani language|Romani]]|value6=0.25|color6=#7ab4e4 
|label7=Others|value7=0.21|color7=#ffffff 
}}

According to the 2001 census, the majority of Trudove's population was [[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]]-speaking ({{formatnum:84.06}}%).

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Vasylivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:06:38Z

91.210.248.223: Undid revision 1232607591 by Mellk (talk)

{{short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Vasylivka
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Василівка}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Церква святого архистратига Махаїла та всіх небесних сил.jpg
|imagesize = 280
|image_caption = Saint [[Michael (archangel)|Michael the Archangel]] Church, built in 1863
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q658287}}###{{coord|45|32|17.3|N|29|12|37.5|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;11;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q658287;Q21681150;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Vasylivka;Vasylivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Vasylivka
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1775
|named_for =
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 35.71
|area_urban_km2 = 2.26
|elevation_m = 16
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 991
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|31|20.4|N|29|10|00.5|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68323
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-8x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Vasylivka''' ({{lang-uk|Василівка}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Vasylivka belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Desantne

2024-07-04T17:06:24Z

91.210.248.223: Undid revision 1232607579 by Mellk (talk)

{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|official_name = Desantne
|native_name = {{lang|uk|Десантне}}
|other_name =
|image_skyline =
|image_caption =
|pushpin_map = Ukraine Odesa Oblast#Ukraine
| pushpin_label_position =
| pushpin_map_alt =
| pushpin_map_caption =
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Vylkove urban hromada]]
|established_title = Village founded
|established_date =
|area_total_km2 = 3.3
|population_as_of = 2020
|population_total = 1816
|population_density_km2 = auto
|population_footnotes =
|timezone = EET
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = EEST
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|31|N|29|36|E|region:UA|display=it}}
|postal_code_type = Postal code
|postal_code = 68341
|area_code = +380 4843
|website =
|footnotes =
}}
'''Desantne''' ({{lang-uk|Десантне}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Vylkove urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_vylkove">{{cite web |title=Вилковская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/vylkivska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref> Population: 1816 {{fact|date=December 2022}}

Until 18 July 2020, Desantne belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}
[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Vylkove urban hromada]]

Myrne, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:06:10Z

91.210.248.223: Undid revision 1232607566 by Mellk (talk)

{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|official_name = Myrne
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Мирне}}
|image_skyline =
|image_caption =
|pushpin_map = Ukraine#Ukraine Odesa Oblast
|pushpin_mapsize = 300
|pushpin_map_caption = Location in Ukraine
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Vylkove urban hromada]]
|established_title = Village founded
|established_date =
|area_total_km2 =
|population_as_of =
|population_total =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_footnotes =
|timezone = EET
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = EEST
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|31|N|29|36|E|region:UA|display=inline}}
|postal_code_type = Postal code
|postal_code =
|area_code =
|website =
|footnotes =
}}
'''Myrne''' ({{lang-uk|Мирне}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Vylkove urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_vylkove">{{cite web |title=Вилковская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/vylkivska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Myrne belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Vylkove urban hromada]]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Prymorske, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:05:42Z

91.210.248.223: Undid revision 1232607558 by Mellk (talk)

{{One source|date=June 2013}}
{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|official_name = Prymorske
|native_name = {{lang|uk|Приморське}}
|image_skyline = Prymorskoe church skyline.jpg
|image_caption = The village's Lipovan church, est. 1905
|pushpin_map = Ukraine Odesa Oblast#Ukraine
|pushpin_mapsize = 300
|pushpin_map_caption = Location in Ukraine
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Vylkove urban hromada]]
|established_title = Village founded
|established_date = 1720s (Zhebriyany) 1945 (Prymorskoe)
|elevation_m = 2
|area_total_km2 = 1.95
|population_as_of = 2004
|population_total = 1,612 <ref name="Kiliya Raion State Administration">{{cite web|url=http://kiliya-rda.odessa.gov.ua/Main.aspx?sect=Page&IDPage=5524&id=379 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120716000553/http://kiliya-rda.odessa.gov.ua/Main.aspx?sect=Page&IDPage=5524&id=379 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-07-16 |title=Characterization of settlements in Kiliya area from the 2001 census |publisher=2001 kiliya-rda.odessa.gov.ua |accessdate=2012-12-08 }} </ref>
|population_density_km2 = 971.79
|population_footnotes =
|timezone = EET
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = EEST
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|31|15|N|29|36|20|E|region:UA_type:city_source:GNS-enwiki|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = Postal code
|postal_code = 68353
|area_code = +380 4843
|website = http://primorskoe.com/
|footnotes =
}}
'''Prymorske''' or '''Primorskoye''' ({{lang-uk|Приморське}}) is a small seaside village in [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], Ukraine. It belongs to [[Vylkove urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_vylkove">{{cite web |title=Вилковская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/vylkivska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

==Geography==
Prymorske is a [[village]] located in south-western [[Ukraine]]. The distance from the city of [[Kiliia]], is 12 km. The distance from the [[oblast]] center, the city of [[Odesa]] is about 208 km by road, and the distance from the capital, [[Kyiv]] is roughly 657 km.

Prymorske is located both in the [[Danube Delta]] and on the [[Black Sea]]. It is situated in the historic [[Bessarabia]]n district of [[Budjak]].

The area has a smooth [[topography]]. Prymorske has several large accumulation reservoirs, and [[Danube]] and [[Black Sea]] [[Drainage basin|basins]] within a 30 km radius. The territory encompasses 6.37 km² (together with agricultural land - 98.68 km ²)

==Demographics==
According to the 2001 census, of the 1612 residents in Prymorske, the ethnic make up is as followers: 59 are [[Ukrainians|Ukrainian]], 986 are [[Russians|Russian]], 14 are [[Moldovans|Moldavian]], 9 are [[Bulgarians|Bulgarian]] and 4 are [[Georgian people|Georgian]]. 74 of them are considered low-income individuals.<ref name="Kiliya Raion State Administration"/>

==History==

===Early history===

The village was founded in the beginning of the 18th century, by the [[Lipovans]] (Russian Old Believers) who fled persecution in the [[Russian Empire]]. During this time, the [[Budjak]] was under control of the [[Ottoman Empire|Turks]]. The Turks traditionally accepted refugees in their lands, and patronized the population of these lands. The area was originally called Zhebriyany. After the annexation of [[Bessarabia]] and [[Budjak]] to the [[Russian Empire]], Zhebriyany became a border village, and after the dissolution of the [[Zaporizhian Sich]], many [[Cossacks]] moved to the [[Danube Delta]], creating [[Danube Sich]], and from there they absorbed the village. In 1905 the village's first [[Lipovan]] church was founded, becoming a local attraction.

During the [[Russian Civil War]], Southern [[Bessarabia]], together with the rest of the province and with it the village, [[Union of Bessarabia with Romania|united with Romania]]. In 1940, following an ultimatum from the [[Soviet Union]], the territory was [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|occupied by the Red Army]] and became a part of the [[Ukrainian SSR]].

===World War II===

During [[World War II]], [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] troops lost control of the village, and fell back to [[Odesa]]. The village was once again occupied by [[Romania]].

In March and August 1944 during the [[Uman-Botoşani Offensive|Uman-Botoşani]] and [[Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive|Jassy-Kishinev Offensive]]s, the soldiers of the [[2nd Ukrainian Front|2nd]] and [[3rd Ukrainian Front]] landed [[marines]] 2 km from the village. The Romanian troops eventually retreated, and the Soviet troops retook control of the village.

After the war, the village, like many other seaside towns in Ukraine, the village changed its name to Prymorske, which translates to "Seaside". As it stands, there are currently several other villages in Ukraine by the name of "Prymorske".

Until 18 July 2020, Prymorske belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>

<div align="center">
<timeline>
ImageSize = width:850 height:300
PlotArea = left:245 bottom:60 top:0 right:50
Alignbars = late
DateFormat = yyyy
Period = from:1538 till:2011
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal format:yyyy

Colors =
id:EarlyModernPeriod value:orange legend:Early_Modern_Period
id:LateModernPeriod value:red legend:Late_Modern_Period
id:ContemporaryHistory value:blue legend:Contemporary_History

Legend = orientation:horizontal position:bottom

ScaleMajor = increment:30 start:1538

LineData =
layer:front
at:1640 width:0.3
at:1917 width:0.3
at:1568 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1598 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1628 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1658 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1688 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1718 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1748 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1778 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1808 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1838 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1868 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1898 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1928 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1958 width:0.1 color:tan1
at:1988 width:0.1 color:tan1
from:1790 till:end width:5 atpos:60 color:green
BarData =
bar:OttomanEmpire text:"Ottoman Empire"
bar:RussianEmpire text:"Russian Empire"
bar:PrincipalityMoldova text:"Principality of Moldavia"
bar:UnitedPrincipalities text:"United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia"
bar:MoldavianDemocraticRepublic text:"Moldavian Democratic Republic"
bar:KingdomOfRomania text:"Kingdom of Romania"
bar:SovietUnion text:"Soviet Union"
bar:Ukraine text:"Ukraine"

PlotData=
width:8 textcolor:black align:left anchor:from shift:(10,-4)
bar:OttomanEmpire from:1538 till:1640 color:EarlyModernPeriod
bar:OttomanEmpire from:1640 till:1812 color:LateModernPeriod
bar:RussianEmpire from:1812 till:1856 color:LateModernPeriod
bar:PrincipalityMoldova from:1856 till:1859 color:LateModernPeriod
bar:UnitedPrincipalities from:1859 till:1878 color:LateModernPeriod
bar:RussianEmpire from:1878 till:1917 color:LateModernPeriod
bar:MoldavianDemocraticRepublic from:1917 till:1918 color:ContemporaryHistory
bar:KingdomOfRomania from:1918 till:1940 color:ContemporaryHistory
bar:SovietUnion from:1940 till:1941 color:ContemporaryHistory
bar:KingdomOfRomania from:1941 till:1944 color:ContemporaryHistory
bar:SovietUnion from:1944 till:1991 color:ContemporaryHistory
bar:Ukraine from:1991 till:end color:ContemporaryHistory
</timeline>
</div>

==Climate==
The climate in Prymorske is [[continental climate|moderate continental]] with short and mild winters with frequent thaws, and warm, sometimes hot long summer, with little humidity. Winter lasts from mid-November to late March (4.5 months), the average temperature is +0.8 °C. The coldest month of the year is January, and its average temperature is -0.5 °C, not below the freezing -22.8 °C. Summer lasts from mid-May to late September (4.5 months), the average temperature is +20.8 °C. July is the hottest month, with the average temperature being +21.7 °C, with a high of +37.8 °C.

{| class="wikitable collapsible" style="font-size:90%;width:100%;border:0px;text-align:center;line-height:120%;"
! colspan= "15" style="background: #6688AA; color: white; font-size: 1.2em;" | <div style="float:left; width:6em;"> </div> Prymorske Climate
|-
! colspan= "15" style="background: #446688; color: white;" | Temperature
|-
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" height="16" | Month
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Jan
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Feb
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Mar
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Apr
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | May
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Jun
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Jul
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Aug
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Sep
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Oct
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Nov
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Dec
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | 
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Total
|-
! height="16;" |Absolute high,  [[Degrees Celsius|°C]]
| style="background: #B78747; color: black;" | 16,1
| style="background: #AF864F; color: black;" | 21,1
| style="background: #D78B27; color: black;" | 26,1
| style="background: #E78D17; color: black;" | 27,8
| style="background: #EF8F0F; color: black;" | 31,1
| style="background: #F5930A; color: black;" | 37,8
| style="background: #FA9605; color: black;" | 37,2
| style="background: #FF9900; color: black;" | 36,1
| style="background: #FA9605; color: black;" | 33,9
| style="background: #E78D17; color: black;" | 31,1
| style="background: #CF8A2F; color: black;" | 25,0
| style="background: #BF883F; color: black;" | 18,9
| 
| style="background: #FF9900; color: black;" | 37,8
|-
! height="16;" |Average high,  [[Degrees Celsius|°C]]
| style="background: #777D87; color: black;" | 2,8
| style="background: #777D87; color: black;" | 3.3
| style="background: #8F826F; color: black;" | 8,3
| style="background: #A78557; color: black;" | 15,0
| style="background: #BF883F; color: black;" | 21,1
| style="background: #CF8A2F; color: black;" | 25,0
| style="background: #D78B27; color: black;" | 26,7
| style="background: #D78B27; color: black;" | 26,7
| style="background: #C78937; color: black;" | 22,8
| style="background: #AF864F; color: black;" | 16,1
| style="background: #978367; color: black;" | 8,3
| style="background: #878177; color: black;" | 3,9
| 
| style="background: #AF864F; color: black;" | 15,0
|-
! height="16;" |Average temperature,  [[Degrees Celsius|°C]]
| style="background: #6F7C8F; color: black;" | −0,5
| style="background: #6F7C8F; color: black;" | 0
| style="background: #878177; color: black;" | 4,4
| style="background: #9F845F; color: black;" | 10,6
| style="background: #AF864F; color: black;" | 16,1
| style="background: #BF883F; color: black;" | 20,0
| style="background: #C78937; color: black;" | 21,7
| style="background: #C78937; color: black;" | 21,1
| style="background: #B78747; color: black;" | 17,2
| style="background: #A78557; color: black;" | 11,7
| style="background: #8F826F; color: black;" | 5,0
| style="background: #777D87; color: black;" | 1,1
| 
| style="background: #9F845F; color: black;" | 11,1
|-
! height="16;" |Absolute low,  [[Degrees Celsius|°C]]
| style="background: #677B97; color: black;" | −3,9
| style="background: #677B97; color: black;" | −3,3
| style="background: #777D87; color: black;" | 0,5
| style="background: #8F826F; color: black;" | 6,1
| style="background: #9F845F; color: black;" | 11,1
| style="background: #AF864F; color: black;" | 15,0
| style="background: #BF883F; color: black;" | 16,1
| style="background: #B78747; color: black;" | 15,6
| style="background: #B78747; color: black;" | 11,7
| style="background: #978367; color: black;" | 6,7
| style="background: #878177; color: black;" | 1,1
| style="background: #6F7C8F; color: black;" | −1,7
| 
| style="background: #978367; color: black;" | 6,1
|-
! height="16;" |Absolute minimum,  [[Degrees Celsius|°C]]
| style="background: #1771E7; color: black;" | −20,0
| style="background: #0F6FEF; color: black;" | −22,8
| style="background: #2773D7; color: black;" | −18,3
| style="background: #4777B7; color: black;" | −2,2
| style="background: #6F7C8F; color: black;" | 0
| style="background: #777D87; color: black;" | 6,7
| style="background: #8F826F; color: black;" | 10,0
| style="background: #8F826F; color: black;" | 4,4
| style="background: #777D87; color: black;" | −2,2
| style="background: #5F7A9F; color: black;" | −7,8
| style="background: #3775C7; color: black;" | −16,1
| style="background: #1771E7; color: black;" | −16,2
| 
| style="background: #0F6FEF; color: black;" | −22,8
|-
! colspan= "15" style="background: #446688; color: white;" | Prymorske Rainfall
|-
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" height="16" | Months
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Jan
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Feb
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Mar
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Apr
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | May
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Jun
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Jul
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Aug
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Sep
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Oct
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Nov
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Dec
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | 
! style="background: #DDDDDD;" | Total
|-
! height="16;" |Annual rainfall,  [[millimeters|мм]]
| style="background: #789EB5; color: black;" | 20
| style="background: #789EB5; color: black;" | 30
| style="background: #789EB5; color: black;" | 40
| style="background: #6C9BB5; color: black;" | 40
| style="background: #689AB5; color: black;" | 50
| style="background: #6499B5; color: black;" | 80
| style="background: #5C97B5; color: black;" | 60
| style="background: #689AB5; color: black;" | 50
| style="background: #689AB5; color: black;" | 30
| style="background: #789EB5; color: black;" | 30
| style="background: #689AB5; color: black;" | 40
| style="background: #6C9BB5; color: black;" | 40
| 
| style="background: #3086B5; color: black;" | 580
|}

During the year rainfall is on average 400 – 600 mm. The rainy season is June, July and November, during which monthly rainfall is about 60 – 80 mm. The driest months are January and February, with 20 – 30 mm of rainfall. Fog and dew are uncommon, but often appears in the cold half of the year, while the dew occurs mainly in the summer.

==Economy==
The economy of Prymorske relies primarily on [[agriculture]] and seasonal [[tourism]]. The village features a 2 km seaside area of land featuring numerous [[restaurants]], [[discos]], [[Bar (establishment)|bars]], and [[hotels]]

<gallery>
File:Coliseum Prymorskoe.jpg|Coliseum disco at the seaside, in Prymorske
File:Beach_in_Prymorskoe.jpg|The beach, with numerous sunbathers
File:Ферма страусів у Приморському.png|An ostrich farm in Prymorske
</gallery>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Vylkove urban hromada]]

Dmytrivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:05:27Z

91.210.248.223:

{{about|a village in [[Izmail Raion]], Ukraine|other [[populated places in Ukraine]] with the same name|Dmytrivka (disambiguation)}}
{{short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Dmytrivka
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Дмитрівка}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Saint Demetrius church, Dmytrivka.jpg
|imagesize = 280
|image_caption = Orthodox Saint Demetrius Church, built in 1860
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q658251}}###{{coord|45|39|50.9|N|29|23|52.1|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;11;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q658251;Q21681338;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Dmytrivka;Dmytrivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Dmytrivka
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1821
|named_for = [[Demetrius of Thessaloniki]]
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 61.55
|area_urban_km2 = 2.56
|elevation_m = 15
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 2538
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|38|33.0|N|29|22|34.9|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68330
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-7x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Dmytrivka''' ({{lang-uk|Дмитрівка}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

==History==
About 600 Jews (supposedly from [[Odesa]]) were executed by Romanian gendarmerie on March 3, 1942.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://yahadmap.org/#village/dmytrivka-odesa-odesa-ukraine.54|title = Yahad - in Unum}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Dmytrivka belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref> There were 3,144 inhabitants in 2001, including 74 Ukrainian-speakers (2.35%), 2,941 Romanian-speakers (93.54%), 12 Bulgarian-speakers (0.38%), 49 Russian-speakers (1.56%), and 4 Gagauz-speakers (0.13%).<ref>https://socialdata.org.ua/projects/mova-2001/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]
[[Category:Holocaust locations in Ukraine]]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Chervonyi Yar, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:05:11Z

91.210.248.223: Undid revision 1232607542 by Mellk (talk)

{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Chervonyi Yar
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Червоний Яр}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Chervony Yar.jpg
|imagesize =
|image_caption =
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q2918773}}###{{coord|45|35|06.6|N|29|13|40.2|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;12;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q2918773;Q21682354;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Chervonyi Yar;Chervonoiarskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Chervonyi Yar
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1807
|named_for = [[Ultisol|Red]] [[gully]], 1945<ref>{{cite web|title=Decree of the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR dated November 14, 1945 «On the preservation of historical names and specification and arrangement of the existing names of silrad and population points of Izmail Raion»|url=https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/Указ_Президії_Верховної_Ради_УРСР_від_14.11.1945_«Про_збереження_історичних_найменувань_та_уточнення_…_назв_…_Ізмаїльської_області»|publisher=Wikisource|language=uk}}</ref>
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 24.74
|area_urban_km2 = 1.08
|elevation_m = 15
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 662
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|35|03.1|N|29|12|32.7|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68322
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-0x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Chervonyi Yar''' ({{lang-uk|Червоний Яр}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]] of [[Odesa Oblast]] of [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref>{{cite web|title=Картка громади|url=https://kiliyska-gromada.gov.ua/structure/|publisher=Кілійська громада|language=uk}}</ref> According to the 2001 census, the majority of the population of the Chitai commune was Romanian-speaking (86.58%), with Ukrainian (7.95%) and Russian (4.72%) speakers in the minority.<ref>https://socialdata.org.ua/projects/mova-2001/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Dmytrivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:04:46Z

91.210.248.223:

{{about|a village in [[Izmail Raion]], Ukraine|other [[populated places in Ukraine]] with the same name|Dmytrivka (disambiguation)}}
{{short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Dmytrivka
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Дмитрівка}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Saint Demetrius church, Dmytrivka.jpg
|imagesize = 280
|image_caption = Orthodox Saint Demetrius Church, built in 1860
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q658251}}###{{coord|45|39|50.9|N|29|23|52.1|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;11;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q658251;Q21681338;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Dmytrivka;Dmytrivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Dmytrivka
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1821
|named_for = [[Demetrius of Thessaloniki]]
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 61.55
|area_urban_km2 = 2.56
|elevation_m = 15
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 2538
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|38|33.0|N|29|22|34.9|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68330
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-7x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Dmytrivka''' ({{lang-uk|Дмитрівка}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

==History==
About 600 Jews (supposedly from [[Odesa]]) were executed by Romanian gendarmerie on March 3, 1942.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://yahadmap.org/#village/dmytrivka-odesa-odesa-ukraine.54|title = Yahad - in Unum}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Dmytrivka belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref> There were 3,144 inhabitants in 2001, including 74 Ukrainian-speakers (2.35%), 2,941 Romanian-speakers (93.54%), 12 Bulgarian-speakers (0.38%), 49 Russian-speakers (1.56%), and 4 Gagauz-speakers (0.13%).<ref>https://socialdata.org.ua/projects/mova-2001/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]
[[Category:Romanian communities in Ukraine]]
[[Category:Holocaust locations in Ukraine]]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Furmanivka, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:04:27Z

91.210.248.223:

{{short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Furmanivka
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Фурманівка}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Памятник Тимошенко С.К. в Фурмановке.JPG
|imagesize =
|image_caption =
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q658239}}###{{coord|45|35|14.0|N|29|14|09.2|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;10;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q658239;Q21682306;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Furmanivka;Furmanivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Furmanivka
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1760
|named_for =
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 108.93
|area_urban_km2 = 1.9
|elevation_m = 8
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 1202
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|38|12.2|N|29|14|12.1|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68321
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-8x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Furmanivka''' ({{lang-uk|Фурма́нівка}}) is a village in [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Furmanivka belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>
In 2001, 76.7% of the inhabitants spoke Romanian as their native language, while 7.02% spoke Ukrainian and 12.81% spoke Russian.<ref>https://socialdata.org.ua/projects/mova-2001/</ref>

[[Semyon Timoshenko]], a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] military commander and Marshal of the Soviet Union, was born here.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]
[[Category:Romanian communities in Ukraine]]
[[Category:Akkermansky Uyezd]]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Izmail Raion

2024-07-04T17:03:52Z

91.210.248.223:

{{short description|Subdivision of Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
| name = Izmail Raion
| native_name = Ізмаїльський район
| native_name_lang = uk
| settlement_type = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| image_skyline = Озеро Картал 2.jpg
| image_alt =
| image_caption =
| image_flag = File:Izmayil Raion flag.svg
| flag_alt = Flag of Izmail Raion
| image_shield = Izmail ray gerb new.png
| shield_alt = Coat of arms of Izmail Raion
| image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q103842911}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
| image_map1 = Izmayil Raion Map 2020 July.tif
| mapsize = 250px
| map_alt =
| map_caption =
| pushpin_map =
| pushpin_label_position =
| pushpin_map_alt =
| pushpin_map_caption =
| coordinates = {{coord|45|28|59|N|28|55|43|E|type:adm2nd_region:UA|display=inline,title}}
| coor_pinpoint =
| coordinates_footnotes =
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| parts_type = Subdivisions
| parts = [[#Subdivisions|6 hromadas]]
| established_title = Established
| established_date = 1959
| seat_type = [[Administrative centre|Admin. center]]
| seat = [[Izmail]]
| government_footnotes =
| leader_party =
| leader_title = Governor
| leader_name = Serhiy Pavluhin
| leader_title1 = Chairman
| leader_name1 =
| unit_pref = Metric
| area_footnotes = - since July 2020
| area_total_km2 = 3,439.9
| elevation_footnotes =
| elevation_m =
| population_footnotes = <ref name="ua2022estimate"/>
| population_total = 204745
| population_as_of = 2022
| population_density_km2 = auto
| timezone1 = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
| utc_offset1 = +02:00
| timezone1_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
| utc_offset1_DST = +03:00
| postal_code_type = [[Ukrainian postal codes|Postal index]]
| postal_code = 68640—68681
| area_code_type = [[Telephone numbers in Ukraine|Area code]]
| area_code = +380
| iso_code =
| website = {{URL|https://izmail-rda.od.gov.ua}}
| footnotes =
}}
'''Izmail Raion''' ({{lang-uk|Ізмаїльський район |translit=Izmailskyi raion}}) is a [[raion]] ([[Administrative divisions of Ukraine|administrative division]]) in [[Odesa Oblast]] in southwestern [[Ukraine]]. Its administrative center is the town of [[Izmail]]. It is in the historical region of [[Budjak]] in southern [[Bessarabia]]. Population: {{Ua-pop-est2022|204,745|punct=.}}

On 18 July 2020, as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, the number of raions of Odesa Oblast was reduced to seven, and the area of Izmail Raion was significantly expanded. Two abolished raions, [[Kiliia Raion|Kiliia]] and [[Reni Raion]]s, as well as the city of Izmail, which was previously incorporated as a [[City of regional significance (Ukraine)|city of oblast significance]] and did not belong to the raion, were merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref name="2020_reform_maps">{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref> The January 2020 estimate of the raion population was {{Ua-pop-est2020|50,568|.}}

In the [[Ukrainian Census (2001)|2001 Ukrainian Census]], the raion, within its boundaries at that time, had a multi-ethnic population of 54,692, including 15,798 ethnic Ukrainians (28.89%), 15,083 self-identified Moldovans (27.58%), 14,072 Bulgarians (25.73%), 8,870 ethnic Russians (16.22%), 230 Gagauz (0.42%) and 34 self-identified Romanians (0.06%).<ref>http://pop-stat.mashke.org/ukraine-ethnic2001.htm</ref> Izmail raion, within its boundaries at that time, had 54,692 inhabitants in 2001, including 26.34% Ukrainian-speakers, 26.21% Romanian-speakers, 21.56% Russian-speakers, 24.88% Bulgarian-speaking and 0.26% Gagauz-speaking.<ref>https://datatowel.in.ua/pop-composition/languages-raions</ref>

==Administrative division==
===Current===
After the reform in July 2020, the raion consisted of 6 [[hromada]]s:<ref name="2020_reform_maps"/>
* [[Izmail urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Izmail]], transferred from the city of oblast significance of Izmai;<ref name="admreform_2020_izmail_city">{{cite web |title=Измаильская городская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/izmail/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>
* [[Kiliia urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Kiliia]], transferred from Kiliia Raion;<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Кілійська районна рада (состав до 2020 г.) |url=https://gromada.info/ru/region/Одесская-область/Килийский-район/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=Russian}}</ref>
* [[Reni urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Reni, Ukraine|Reni]], transferred from Reni Raion;<ref name="admreform_2020_reni">{{cite web |title=Ренійська районна рада (состав до 2020 г.) |url=https://gromada.info/ru/region/Одесская-область/Ренийский-район/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=Russian}}</ref>
* [[Safiany rural hromada]] with the administration in the [[Populated places in Ukraine#Villages|village]] of [[Safiany]], retained from Izmail Raion;
* [[Suvorove settlement hromada]] with the administration in the [[Populated places in Ukraine#Rural settlements|rural settlement]] of [[Suvorove, Odesa Oblast|Suvorove]], retained from Izmail Raion;
* [[Vylkove urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Vylkove]], transferred from Kiliia Raion.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia"/>

===Before 2020===
[[File:Izmayilskyi-Raion.png|thumb|Izmail Raion in Odesa Oblast [[List of raions of Ukraine (1966-2020)|(1966-2020)]]]]
Before the 2020 reform, the raion consisted of two hromadas,<ref>{{cite web |title=
Болградська районна рада (состав до 2020 г.) |url=https://gromada.info/ru/region/Одесская-область/Измаильский-район/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=Russian}}</ref>
* Safiany rural hromada with the administration in Safiany;
* Suvorove settlement hromada with the administration in Suvorove.

==See also==
*[[Izmail Oblast]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* {{in lang|uk}} [https://izmail-rda.od.gov.ua Izmailsky Raion]
* {{in lang|uk}} [https://archive.today/20120311121523/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=05.06.2008&rf7571=24146 Izmailsky Raion]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Izmail Raion| ]]
[[Category:Raions of Odesa Oblast]]
[[Category:Bulgarian communities in Ukraine]]
[[Category:Romanian communities in Ukraine]]
[[Category:1959 establishments in Ukraine]]

Lisky, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T17:02:39Z

91.210.248.223:

{{other places|Lisky (disambiguation)}}
{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Lisky
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Ліски}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline =
|imagesize =
|image_caption =
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map =
|map_caption =
|pushpin_map = Ukraine Odesa Oblast#Ukraine
|pushpin_mapsize = 300
|pushpin_map_caption = Location in Ukraine
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1895
|named_for =
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 83.19
|area_urban_km2 = 2.71
|elevation_m = 0
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 1612
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|28|6|N|29|28|41|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68354
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-5x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Lisky''' ({{lang-uk|Ліски}}) is a village in [[Odesa Oblast]], Ukraine. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Lisky belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Izmail Raion

2024-07-04T16:26:59Z

91.210.248.223:

{{short description|Subdivision of Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
| name = Izmail Raion
| native_name = Ізмаїльський район
| native_name_lang = uk
| settlement_type = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| image_skyline = Озеро Картал 2.jpg
| image_alt =
| image_caption =
| image_flag = File:Izmayil Raion flag.svg
| flag_alt = Flag of Izmail Raion
| image_shield = Izmail ray gerb new.png
| shield_alt = Coat of arms of Izmail Raion
| image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q103842911}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
| image_map1 = Izmayil Raion Map 2020 July.tif
| mapsize = 250px
| map_alt =
| map_caption =
| pushpin_map =
| pushpin_label_position =
| pushpin_map_alt =
| pushpin_map_caption =
| coordinates = {{coord|45|28|59|N|28|55|43|E|type:adm2nd_region:UA|display=inline,title}}
| coor_pinpoint =
| coordinates_footnotes =
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| parts_type = Subdivisions
| parts = [[#Subdivisions|6 hromadas]]
| established_title = Established
| established_date = 1959
| seat_type = [[Administrative centre|Admin. center]]
| seat = [[Izmail]]
| government_footnotes =
| leader_party =
| leader_title = Governor
| leader_name = Serhiy Pavluhin
| leader_title1 = Chairman
| leader_name1 =
| unit_pref = Metric
| area_footnotes = - since July 2020
| area_total_km2 = 3,439.9
| elevation_footnotes =
| elevation_m =
| population_footnotes = <ref name="ua2022estimate"/>
| population_total = 204745
| population_as_of = 2022
| population_density_km2 = auto
| timezone1 = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
| utc_offset1 = +02:00
| timezone1_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
| utc_offset1_DST = +03:00
| postal_code_type = [[Ukrainian postal codes|Postal index]]
| postal_code = 68640—68681
| area_code_type = [[Telephone numbers in Ukraine|Area code]]
| area_code = +380
| iso_code =
| website = {{URL|https://izmail-rda.od.gov.ua}}
| footnotes =
}}
'''Izmail Raion''' ({{lang-uk|Ізмаїльський район |translit=Izmailskyi raion}}; {{lang-bg|Измаилски район}}; {{lang-ro|Raionul Ismail}}) is a [[raion]] ([[Administrative divisions of Ukraine|administrative division]]) in [[Odesa Oblast]] in southwestern [[Ukraine]]. Its administrative center is the town of [[Izmail]]. It is in the historical region of [[Budjak]] in southern [[Bessarabia]]. Population: {{Ua-pop-est2022|204,745|punct=.}}

On 18 July 2020, as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, the number of raions of Odesa Oblast was reduced to seven, and the area of Izmail Raion was significantly expanded. Two abolished raions, [[Kiliia Raion|Kiliia]] and [[Reni Raion]]s, as well as the city of Izmail, which was previously incorporated as a [[City of regional significance (Ukraine)|city of oblast significance]] and did not belong to the raion, were merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref name="2020_reform_maps">{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref> The January 2020 estimate of the raion population was {{Ua-pop-est2020|50,568|.}}

In the [[Ukrainian Census (2001)|2001 Ukrainian Census]], the raion, within its boundaries at that time, had a multi-ethnic population of 54,692, including 15,798 ethnic Ukrainians (28.89%), 15,083 self-identified Moldovans (27.58%), 14,072 Bulgarians (25.73%), 8,870 ethnic Russians (16.22%), 230 Gagauz (0.42%) and 34 self-identified Romanians (0.06%).<ref>http://pop-stat.mashke.org/ukraine-ethnic2001.htm</ref> Izmail raion, within its boundaries at that time, had 54,692 inhabitants in 2001, including 26.34% Ukrainian-speakers, 26.21% Romanian-speakers, 21.56% Russian-speakers, 24.88% Bulgarian-speaking and 0.26% Gagauz-speaking.<ref>https://datatowel.in.ua/pop-composition/languages-raions</ref>

==Administrative division==
===Current===
After the reform in July 2020, the raion consisted of 6 [[hromada]]s:<ref name="2020_reform_maps"/>
* [[Izmail urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Izmail]], transferred from the city of oblast significance of Izmai;<ref name="admreform_2020_izmail_city">{{cite web |title=Измаильская городская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/izmail/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>
* [[Kiliia urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Kiliia]], transferred from Kiliia Raion;<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Кілійська районна рада (состав до 2020 г.) |url=https://gromada.info/ru/region/Одесская-область/Килийский-район/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=Russian}}</ref>
* [[Reni urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Reni, Ukraine|Reni]], transferred from Reni Raion;<ref name="admreform_2020_reni">{{cite web |title=Ренійська районна рада (состав до 2020 г.) |url=https://gromada.info/ru/region/Одесская-область/Ренийский-район/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=Russian}}</ref>
* [[Safiany rural hromada]] with the administration in the [[Populated places in Ukraine#Villages|village]] of [[Safiany]], retained from Izmail Raion;
* [[Suvorove settlement hromada]] with the administration in the [[Populated places in Ukraine#Rural settlements|rural settlement]] of [[Suvorove, Odesa Oblast|Suvorove]], retained from Izmail Raion;
* [[Vylkove urban hromada]] with the administration in the city of [[Vylkove]], transferred from Kiliia Raion.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia"/>

===Before 2020===
[[File:Izmayilskyi-Raion.png|thumb|Izmail Raion in Odesa Oblast [[List of raions of Ukraine (1966-2020)|(1966-2020)]]]]
Before the 2020 reform, the raion consisted of two hromadas,<ref>{{cite web |title=
Болградська районна рада (состав до 2020 г.) |url=https://gromada.info/ru/region/Одесская-область/Измаильский-район/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=Russian}}</ref>
* Safiany rural hromada with the administration in Safiany;
* Suvorove settlement hromada with the administration in Suvorove.

==See also==
*[[Izmail Oblast]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* {{in lang|uk}} [https://izmail-rda.od.gov.ua Izmailsky Raion]
* {{in lang|uk}} [https://archive.today/20120311121523/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=05.06.2008&rf7571=24146 Izmailsky Raion]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Izmail Raion| ]]
[[Category:Raions of Odesa Oblast]]
[[Category:Bulgarian communities in Ukraine]]
[[Category:1959 establishments in Ukraine]]

Furmanivka, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:26:37Z

91.210.248.223:

{{short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Furmanivka
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Фурманівка}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Памятник Тимошенко С.К. в Фурмановке.JPG
|imagesize =
|image_caption =
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q658239}}###{{coord|45|35|14.0|N|29|14|09.2|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;10;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q658239;Q21682306;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Furmanivka;Furmanivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Furmanivka
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1760
|named_for =
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 108.93
|area_urban_km2 = 1.9
|elevation_m = 8
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 1202
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|38|12.2|N|29|14|12.1|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68321
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-8x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Furmanivka''' ({{lang-uk|Фурма́нівка}}) is a village in [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Furmanivka belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>
In 2001, 76.7% of the inhabitants spoke Romanian as their native language, while 7.02% spoke Ukrainian and 12.81% spoke Russian.<ref>https://socialdata.org.ua/projects/mova-2001/</ref>

[[Semyon Timoshenko]], a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] military commander and Marshal of the Soviet Union, was born here.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]
[[Category:Akkermansky Uyezd]]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Dmytrivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:26:22Z

91.210.248.223:

Chervonyi Yar, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:25:51Z

91.210.248.223:

Prymorske, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:22:12Z

91.210.248.223:

Myrne, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:21:52Z

91.210.248.223:

Desantne

2024-07-04T16:21:33Z

91.210.248.223:

Vasylivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:20:35Z

91.210.248.223:

Trudove, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:20:19Z

91.210.248.223:

Shevchenkove, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:20:01Z

91.210.248.223:

{{Short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}
{{About|a village settlement in Odesa Oblast|other populated places in Ukraine|Shevchenkove}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Shevchenkove
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Шевченкове}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = {{CSS image crop |Image = Храм Іоанна Богослова, вид загальний.jpg |bSize = 400 |cWidth = 280 |cHeight = 225 |oLeft = 55}}
|imagesize = 280
|image_caption = Orthodox Saint John's Church, built in 1848
|image_flag = Shevchenkove flag.svg
|image_shield = Coat of Arms of Shevchenkove.png
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q25024}}###{{coord|45|33|00.6|N|29|20|28.6|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:12;11;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q25024;Q4522276;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Shevchenkove;Shevchenkivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Shevchenkove
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 = First mentioned
|established_date1 = 1776
|founder = 1790 as [[sloboda (settlement)|sloboda]] Karamahmed<hr/>
{{collapsible list |title = Historical affiliations
|{{flag|Ottoman Empire}} (1776–[[Treaty of Bucharest (1812)|1812]])
|{{flag|Russian Empire}} (1812–[[Treaty of Paris (1856)|1856]])
|{{flagicon|Ottoman Empire}} {{flagicon|Moldavia}} [[Principality of Moldavia]] (1856–[[Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia|1859]])
|{{flagicon|Ottoman Empire}} {{flagicon|Romania|1859}} [[United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia]] (1859–1862)
|{{flagicon|Ottoman Empire}} {{flagicon|Romania|1862}} [[Romanian United Principalities]] (1862–[[1866 Constitution of Romania|1866]])
|{{flagicon|Ottoman Empire}} {{flagicon|Romania|1866}} [[Principality of Romania]] (1866–[[Romanian War of Independence|1877]])
|{{flagicon|Romania|1866}} [[Principality of Romania]] (1877–[[Treaty of Berlin (1878)|1878]])
|{{flag|Russian Empire|1858}} (1878–[[Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia|1917]])
|{{flag|Moldavian Democratic Republic}} (1917–[[Union of Bessarabia with Romania|1918]])
|{{flag|Kingdom of Romania}} (1918–[[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|1940]])
|{{flag|Soviet Union|1936}} (1940–[[Operation Barbarossa|1941]])
|{{flag|Kingdom of Romania}} (1941–[[Second Jassy–Kishinev offensive|1944]])
|{{flag|Soviet Union}} (1944–[[Declaration of Independence of Ukraine|1991]])
|{{flag|Ukraine}} (1991 – present)}}
|named_for = [[Taras Shevchenko]], 1946
|leader_title = [[Starosta]]
|leader_name = Oleksandr Ostapenko
|area_total_km2 = 99,07
|area_land_km2 = 98.68
|area_urban_km2 = 6.37
|elevation_m = 32
|population_as_of = [[Ukrainian Census (2001)|2001]]
|population_total = {{decrease}} 5625
|population_rank = 5th in Izmail Raion 40th in Odesa Oblast
|population_density_km2 = 883.05
|population_demonym = Shevchenkivtsi, Karahmedchany
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|33|16|N|29|20|09|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68332
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-7x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Shevchenkove''' ({{lang-uk|Шевче́нкове}}, {{IPA-all|ˈʃɛu̯tʃenkowe|[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]|Шевченкове.ogg}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]] of [[Odesa Oblast]] of [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref> It is located {{Convert|63|km|mi|abbr=on}} from the [[Izmail|raion center]] and {{Convert|28|km|mi|abbr=on}} from the Dzinilor [[railway station]]. The territory has a flat topography. A large cluster of water bodies in the [[Danube]] and Northern [[Black Sea]] basins is concentrated within a radius of {{Convert|30|km|mi|abbr=on}}. According to the [[Ukrainian Census (2001)|2001 census]], 5,625 inhabitants lived in the village, the territory is {{Convert|6.37|km2|mi2|abbr=on}}, with the agricultural land measuring {{Convert|98.68|km2|mi2|abbr=on}}, and by both indicators it is the largest village in the district.

The village was founded in 1790 as a Karamahmet [[sloboda (settlement)|sloboda]] of the [[Ottoman Empire]]. Renamed to Shevchenkove village in 14 November 1945 in honor of the poet-kobzar [[Taras Shevchenko]]. As of 17 July 2020, as part of the [[Decentralisation in Ukraine#Reforms|administrative reform]] in Ukraine, Shevchenkove became part of the Izmail Raion after the abolition of the [[Kiliia Raion]].

== Places of interest ==
<gallery mode = packed>
Шевченковский Дом Культуры.jpg|Palace of Culture
Храм Іоанна Богослова, оновлений розпис.jpg|The dome of St. [[John the Apostle|John's]] Church (since 2023 — [[Orthodox Church of Ukraine]])
Le dôme de l'église Saint-[[Jean (apôtre)|Jean]] (depuis 2023 — [[Église orthodoxe d'Ukraine]])<ref>[[State Register of Immovable Landmarks of Ukraine|classified]] number in Ukraine: 51-223-0009.</ref>
Молитвенный дом.jpg|Facade of the Baptist Church, also called the House of the Gospel
</gallery>

== History ==
<timeline>
ImageSize = width:1000 height:120
PlotArea = left:170 bottom:30 top:0 right:50
Alignbars = late
DateFormat = yyyy
Period = from:1790 till:2023
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal format:yyyy
ScaleMajor = increment:10 start:1790
ScaleMinor = unit:year increment:1 start:1790

BarData =
bar:Ukraine text:"Ukraine"
bar:SovietUnion text:"Soviet Union"
bar:KingdomOfRomania text:"Kingdom of Romania"
bar:MoldavianDemocraticRepublic text:"Moldavian Democratic Republic"
bar:RussianEmpire text:"Russian Empire"
bar:OttomanEmpire text:"Ottoman Empire"

PlotData=
width:8 textcolor:black align:left anchor:from shift:(10,-4)
bar:OttomanEmpire from:1790 till:1812 color:blue
bar:RussianEmpire from:1812 till:1856 color:blue
bar:OttomanEmpire from:1856 till:1878 color:blue
bar:RussianEmpire from:1878 till:1917 color:blue
bar:MoldavianDemocraticRepublic from:1917 till:1918 color:blue
bar:KingdomOfRomania from:1918 till:1940 color:blue
bar:SovietUnion from:1940 till:1941 color:blue
bar:KingdomOfRomania from:1941 till:1944 color:blue
bar:SovietUnion from:1944 till:1991 color:blue
bar:Ukraine from:1991 till:end color:blue
</timeline>
In 1776, next to the estate of the general of the [[Ottoman army]], Kara Mahmet ({{lang-ota|Kara Mehmet}}), on the bank of the Techia stream, the {{ill|first Ukrainian settlement|fr|Colonisation de la Bessarabie}} appeared, founded by [[Cossacks|Cossack]] families from [[Zaporozhian Sich]]. {{OldStyleDate|23 April|1790|12 April}}, the settlement was transformed into [[sloboda (settlement)|sloboda]]. In 1812, following the [[Treaty of Bucharest (1812)|Treaty of Bucharest]], became part the [[Bessarabian Oblast]] of the [[Russian Empire]]. In 1856, according to the results of the [[Treaty of Paris (1856)|Treaty of Paris]], village became part of states under [[Ottoman Empire]] [[suzerainty]]: [[Principality of Moldavia]] (1856–1859), [[United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia]] (1859–1862), [[Romanian United Principalities]] (1862–1866), [[Principality of Romania]] (1866–1878). Sloboda became a village and labor obligations and taxes were introduced for the inhabitants. In 1878, according to the [[Treaty of Berlin (1878)|Treaty of Berlin]], the village returned to the [[Bessarabia Governorate]] of the [[Russian Empire]], and the [[Principality of Romania]] [[Romanian War of Independence|gained its independence]]. In 1917, after the [[Pro-independence movements in the Russian Civil War|collapse of the Russian Empire]], the village became part of the self-proclaimed [[Moldavian Democratic Republic]], formed in the former Bessarabia Governorate. In 1918, the [[Kingdom of Romania]] [[Romanian military intervention in Bessarabia|introduced romanian troops into the Bessarabia Governorate]] (including the village) and the decision was made to [[Union of Bessarabia with Romania|join Bessarabia to the Kingdom of Romania]]. In 1940, according to the [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]], the [[Soviet Union]] [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|annexed Bessarabia]] to the [[USSR]], and the village belonged to the [[Ukrainian SSR]]. 1941, after the start of [[Operation Barbarossa]] by the [[Fascism|fascists]], the village is under the occupation of the Kingdom of Romania. In 1944, during the [[second Jassy–Kishinev offensive]], the [[Soviet Army]] liberated the village from the fascists, and in 14 November 1945 it was renamed Shevchenkove.<ref>[[s:uk:Указ Президії Верховної Ради УРСР від 14.11.1945 «Про збереження історичних найменувань та уточнення … назв … Ізмаїльської області»|Указ Президії Верховної Ради УРСР від 14 листопада 1945 "Про збереження історичних найменувань та уточнення і впорядкування існуючих назв сільрад і населених пунктів Ізмаїльської області"]]</ref> In 1991, after the [[dissolution of the Soviet Union]], the village became part of [[Ukraine]].

=== Administrative subordination ===
* Since 1873 — Karamahmet [[Volost]], [[Akkermansky Uyezd]], [[Bessarabia Governorate]], [[Russian Empire]]
* Since 1904 — Karamahmet [[Volost]], [[Izmailsky Uyezd]], [[Bessarabia Governorate]], [[Russian Empire]]
* Since 1925 — Karamahmed Commune, Chilia Nouă [[Plasă]], [[Ismail County]], [[Kingdom of Romania]]
* Since 1938 — Karamahmed Commune, Chilia Nouă [[Plasă]], [[Ismail County]], [[Ținutul Dunării|Ținutul Dunărea de Jos]], [[Kingdom of Romania]]
* Since 28 June 1940 — The last [[king of Romania]], [[Carol II of Romania|Karol II]], agreed to hand over [[Bessarabia]] to the [[USSR]].
* Since 7 August 1940 — Karamahmet [[Volost]], [[Akkerman Oblast]], [[Ukrainian SSR]], [[USSR]]<ref>Decision of the Politbureau of the [[Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CC of the VKP(b)]] dated August 6, 1940 and the decree of the [[Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b)U]] dated August 7 "On the formation of the [[Akkerman Oblast|Akerman]] and [[Chernivtsi Oblast]]s as part of [[Ukrainian SSR]]."</ref>
* Since 11 November 1940 — [[Kiliia Raion]], [[Akkerman Oblast]], [[Ukrainian SSR]], [[USSR]]<ref>Decision of the Politbureau of the [[Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CC of the VKP(b)]] dated October 4, 1940 "On the formation of raions within the [[Akkerman Oblast|Akerman]] and [[Chernivtsi Oblast]]s of the [[Ukrainian SSR]]" and the Decree of the [[Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic|Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR]] dated November 11."</ref>
* Since 19 July 1941 — [[Romania in World War II|Romanian military occupation zone of USSR]]
* Since 4 September 1941 — Karamahmed Commune, [[Kiliia]] [[Plasă]], [[Chilia County]], [[Bessarabia Governorate (Romania)|Bessarabia Governorate]], [[Kingdom of Romania]]
* Since 24 August 1944 — [[Kiliia Raion]], [[Akkerman Oblast]], [[Ukrainian SSR]], [[USSR]]
* Since 7 December 1940 — [[Kiliia Raion]], [[Izmail Oblast]], [[Ukrainian SSR]], [[USSR]]<ref>Decree of the [[Presidium of the Supreme Soviet]] of the [[USSR]] dated December 7, 1940 "On the transfer of the center of the [[Akkerman Oblast]] of the [[Ukrainian SSR]] from the city of [[Akkerman]] to the city of [[Izmail]] and the renaming of the [[Akkerman Oblast]] to the [[Izmail Oblast]]."</ref>
* Since 15 February 1954 — [[Kiliia Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukrainian SSR]], [[USSR]]<ref>Decree of the [[Presidium of the Supreme Soviet]] of the [[USSR]] dated February 15, 1954 "On the liquidation of the [[Izmail Oblast]] of the [[Ukrainian SSR]]""</ref>
* Since 30 December 1962 — [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukrainian SSR]], [[USSR]]<ref>Decree of the [[Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic|Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR]] dated December 30, 1962 "On consolidation of rural areas of the [[Ukrainian SSR]]"</ref>
* Since 4 January 1965 — [[Kiliia Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukrainian SSR]], [[USSR]]<ref>Decree of the [[Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic|Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR]] dated January 4, 1965 "On making changes to the administrative zoning of the [[Ukrainian SSR]]"</ref>
* Since 24 August 1991 — [[Kiliia Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]
* Since 12 February 2018 — [[Kiliia urban hromada]], [[Kiliia Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]<ref>Рішення Кілійської міської ради від 12 лютого 2018 року № 663-VII-32 «Про добровільне об’єднання територіальних громад»</ref>
* Since 17 July 2020 — [[Kiliia urban hromada]], [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]<ref>Regulation of the [[Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine]] No. 807-IX of July 17, 2020 "On the formation and liquidation of raions"</ref>

Until 17 July 2020, Shevchenkove belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref>



== Population ==
{{Pie chart
|thumb=left
|caption=Distribution of the population by mother tongue
|label1=[[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]]|value1=96.85|color1=#ffd500 
|label2=[[Russian language|Russian]]|value2=1.51|color2=#d52b1e 
|label3=[[Romanian language|Romanian]]|value3=0.73|color3=#002b7f 
|label4=[[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]]|value4=0.39|color4=#00976e 
|label5=[[Romani language|Romani]]|value5=0.25|color5=#7ab4e4 
|label6=Others|value6=0.27|color6=#ffffff 
}}

According to the 2001 census, the majority of Shevchenkove's population was [[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]]-speaking ({{formatnum:96.85}}%).

==References==
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

==External links==
{{Commons|Shevchenkove (Izmail Raion)}}
*[http://www.ukraine-embassy.co.il/english/news/index.php?text=9871 Embassy of Ukraine to the State of Israel]{{dead link|date=May 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014415/http://www.ukrindustrial.com/guide/cities/?id=873 Ukraine Industrial]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Novoselivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:19:31Z

91.210.248.223:

Lisky, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:19:09Z

91.210.248.223:

Furmanivka, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:18:41Z

91.210.248.223:

Chervonyi Yar, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:18:22Z

91.210.248.223:

Dmytrivka, Izmail Raion, Odesa Oblast

2024-07-04T16:17:39Z

91.210.248.223:

{{about|a village in [[Izmail Raion]], Ukraine|other [[populated places in Ukraine]] with the same name|Dmytrivka (disambiguation)}}
{{short description|Rural locality in Odesa Oblast, Ukraine}}
{{Infobox settlement
|name = Dmytrivka
|native_name = {{native name|uk|Дмитрівка}}
|settlement_type = [[Village]]
|image_skyline = Saint Demetrius church, Dmytrivka.jpg
|imagesize = 280
|image_caption = Orthodox Saint Demetrius Church, built in 1860
|image_flag =
|image_shield =
|image_map = {{maplink
| frame = yes
| plain = yes
| frame-align = center
| frame-width = 280
| frame-height = 280
| frame-coord = SWITCH:{{coord|qid=Q658251}}###{{coord|45|39|50.9|N|29|23|52.1|E}}###{{coord|45|33|53.9|N|29|20|09|E}}###{{coord|45|25|59.8|N|29|12|38.5|E}}###{{coord|46|38|35.7|N|29|45|33.9|E}}###{{coord|48|16|55.8|N|31|10|56.4|E}}
| zoom = SWITCH:13;11;9;7;6;4
| type = SWITCH:shape;point;point;point;point;point
| marker = city
| fill = #0096FF
| fill-opacity = 0
| stroke-width = 2
| stroke-color = #5f5f5f
| id2 = SWITCH:Q658251;Q21681338;Q59306018;Q103842911;Q171852;Q212
| type2 = shape-inverse
| stroke-width2 = 2
| stroke-color2 = #5f5f5f
| switch = Dmytrivka;Dmytrivskyi Starostyn District;Kiliia urban hromada;Izmail Raion;Odesa Oblast;Ukraine
}}
|map_caption = Interactive map of Dmytrivka
| subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]]
| subdivision_name = {{UKR}}
| subdivision_type1 = [[Oblasts of Ukraine|Oblast]]
| subdivision_name1 = {{flag|Odesa Oblast}}
| subdivision_type2 = [[Raions of Ukraine|Raion]]
| subdivision_name2 = {{flag|Izmail Raion}}
| subdivision_type3 = [[Hromada]]
| subdivision_name3 = [[Kiliia urban hromada]]
|established_title1 =
|established_date1 =
|founder = 1821
|named_for = [[Demetrius of Thessaloniki]]
|leader_title =
|leader_name =
|area_total_km2 =
|area_land_km2 = 61.55
|area_urban_km2 = 2.56
|elevation_m = 15
|population_as_of = 2022
|population_total = {{decrease}} 2538
|population_rank =
|population_density_km2 =
|population_demonym =
|timezone = [[Eastern European Time|EET]]
|utc_offset = +2
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern European Summer Time|EEST]]
|utc_offset_DST = +3
|coordinates = {{coord|45|38|33.0|N|29|22|34.9|E|region:UA|display=inline,title}}
|postal_code_type = [[Postal codes in Ukraine|Postal code]]
|postal_code = 68330
|area_code = +380 (48) 433-7x-xx
|blank_name = [[Köppen climate classification|Climate]]
|blank_info = [[Humid continental climate#Hot summer subtype|Dfa]]
}}

'''Dmytrivka''' ({{lang-uk|Дмитрівка}}) is a village in [[Izmail Raion]], [[Odesa Oblast]], [[Ukraine]]. It belongs to [[Kiliia urban hromada]], one of the [[hromada]]s of Ukraine.<ref name="admreform_2020_kiliia">{{cite web |title=Килийская громада |url=https://gromada.info/ru/obschina/kiliyska/ |publisher=Портал об'єднаних громад України |language=ru}}</ref>

==History==
About 600 Jews (supposedly from [[Odesa]]) were executed by Romanian gendarmerie on March 3, 1942.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://yahadmap.org/#village/dmytrivka-odesa-odesa-ukraine.54|title = Yahad - in Unum}}</ref>

Until 18 July 2020, Dmytrivka belonged to [[Kiliia Raion]]. The raion was abolished in July 2020 as part of the administrative reform of Ukraine, which reduced the number of [[raion]]s of Odesa Oblast to seven. The area of Kiliia Raion was merged into Izmail Raion.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Про утворення та ліквідацію районів. Постанова Верховної Ради України № 807-ІХ.|url=http://www.golos.com.ua/article/333466|access-date=2020-10-03|date=2020-07-18|website=Голос України|language=uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Нові райони: карти + склад |url=https://www.minregion.gov.ua/press/news/novi-rajony-karty-sklad/ |publisher=Міністерство розвитку громад та територій України |language=Ukrainian}}</ref> There were 3,144 inhabitants in 2001, including 74 Ukrainian-speakers (2.35%), 2,941 Romanian-speakers (93.54%), 12 Bulgarian-speakers (0.38%), 49 Russian-speakers (1.56%), and 4 Gagauz-speakers (0.13%).<ref>https://socialdata.org.ua/projects/mova-2001/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Villages in Izmail Raion]]
[[Category:Populated places in Kiliia urban hromada]]
[[Category:Romanian communities in Ukraine]]
[[Category:Holocaust locations in Ukraine]]

{{Odesa Oblast}}
{{Izmail Raion}}

{{Odesa-geo-stub}}

Resolutions concerning death penalty at the United Nations

2024-07-04T16:14:56Z

91.210.248.223: not 2008, but 2007

{{short description|United Nations General Assembly resolution first adopted 2007}}
{{Use British English Oxford spelling|date=December 2010}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2020}}
{{Infobox UN resolution
|number = 62/149
|organ = GA
|date = 18 December
|year = 2007
|meeting = 76
|code = A/RES/62/149
|document = https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/RES/62/149
|for = 104
|abstention = 29
|against = 54
|subject = Moratorium on the use of the death penalty
|result = Approved
|image = 2008 UN death penalty moratorium votes.svg
|caption = {{Legend|green|In favour}}{{Legend|red|Against}}{{Legend|yellow|Abstained}}
}}
{{Infobox UN resolution
|number = 63/168
|organ = GA
|date = 18 December
|year = 2008
|meeting = 70
|code = A/RES/63/168
|document = https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/RES/63/168
|for = 106
|abstention = 34
|against = 46
|subject = Moratorium on the use of the death penalty
|result = Approved
|image =
|caption =
}}
{{Infobox UN resolution
|number = 65/206
|organ = GA
|date = 21 December
|year = 2010
|meeting = 71
|code = A/RES/65/206
|document = https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/RES/65/206
|for = 109
|abstention = 35
|against = 41
|subject = Moratorium on the use of the death penalty
|result = Approved
|image =
|caption =
}}

At Italy's instigation, a '''resolution for a moratorium on the death penalty''' was presented by the European Union in partnership with eight co-author member States to the General Assembly of the [[United Nations]], calling for general suspension (not abolition) of [[capital punishment]] throughout the world. It was approved on 15 November 2007 by the Third Committee, and then subsequently adopted on 18 December by the [[United Nations General Assembly resolution]] 62/149. New Zealand played a central role facilitating agreement between the co-author group and other supporters.

It calls on States that maintain the death penalty to establish a [[moratorium (law)|moratorium]] on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolition, and in the meantime, to restrict the number of offences which it punishes and to respect the rights of those on death row. It also calls on States that have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it. Like all General Assembly resolutions, it is not binding on any state.

On 18 December 2007, the [[United Nations General Assembly]] voted 104 to 54 in favour of resolution A/RES/62/149, which proclaims a global moratorium on the [[capital punishment|death penalty]], with 29 abstentions (as well as 5 absent at the time of the vote).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10678.doc.htm | title=General Assembly Adopts Landmark Text Calling for Moratorium on Death Penalty | publisher=United Nations | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071221161348/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/ga10678.doc.htm | archive-date=2007-12-21 }}</ref> Italy had proposed and sponsored this resolution. After the resolution's approval, Italian Foreign Minister [[Massimo D'Alema]] declared: "Now we must start working on the abolition of the death penalty".<ref name=Reppublica>{{cite web|title=Pena di morte, sì dell'Onu alla moratoria proposta dall'Italia |trans-title=Death penalty: yes from UN to Italy's proposed moratorium |work=La Repubblica|url=https://www.repubblica.it/2007/09/sezioni/esteri/pena-di-morte2/voto-moratoria/voto-moratoria.html|language=it|access-date=20 January 2020}}</ref>

On 18 December 2008, the General Assembly adopted another resolution (A/RES/63/168) reaffirming its previous call for a global moratorium on capital punishment 106 to 46 (with 34 abstentions and another 6 were absent at the time of the vote). Working in partnership with the EU, New Zealand and Mexico were co-facilitators of the draft text which was developed over a period of six months, which Chile then presented to the UN General Assembly on behalf of cosponsors.

On 21 December 2010, the 65th General Assembly adopted a third resolution (A/RES/65/206) with 109 countries voting in favour, 41 against and 35 abstentions (another seven countries were absent at the time of the vote).<ref name=HandsOff>{{cite web|title=New Resolution Approved by the UN. The Pro Moratorium Front Grows|website=Hands Off Cain|url=http://www.handsoffcain.info/news/index.php?iddocumento=13317774|language=en|access-date=20 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200226/http://www.handsoffcain.info/news/index.php?iddocumento=13317774 | archive-date=2016-03-04 }}</ref>

On 20 December 2012, the 67th General Assembly adopted a fourth resolution (A/RES/67/176) with 111 countries voting in favour, 41 against and 34 abstentions (another seven countries were absent).<ref name="WorldC1">{{cite web |title=World’s nations call for executions freeze |url=https://worldcoalition.org/2012/12/20/worlds-nations-call-for-execution-freeze/ |website=World Coalition |access-date=29 April 2021}}</ref>

On 18 December 2014, the 69th General Assembly adopted a fifth resolution (A/RES/69/186) with 117 countries voting in favour, 38 against and 34 abstentions (another four countries were absent).<ref name="WorldC2">{{cite web |title=117 countries vote for a global moratorium on executions |url=https://worldcoalition.org/2014/12/19/117-countries-vote-for-a-global-moratorium-on-executions/ |website=World Coalition |access-date=29 April 2021}}</ref>

On 19 December 2016, the 71st General Assembly adopted a sixth resolution (A/RES/71/187) with 117 countries voting in favour, 40 against and 31 abstentions (another five countries were absent).<ref name="WorldC3">{{cite web |title=The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for a 6th resolution calling for a universal moratorium on executions |url=https://worldcoalition.org/2016/12/20/the-un-general-assembly-voted-overwhelmingly-for-a-6th-resolution-calling-for-a-universal-moratorium-on-executions/ |website=World Coalition |access-date=29 April 2021}}</ref>

On 16 December 2018, 121 voted in favour of the 7th resolution, 35 against, and 32 abstained.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-12-16|title=Death penalty: Global abolition closer than ever as record number of countries vote to end executions|url=http://worldcoalition.org/2018/12/17/death-penalty-global-abolition-closer-than-ever-as-record-number-of-countries-vote-to-end-executions/|access-date=2021-10-11|website=WCADP|language=en-US}}</ref>

On 16 December 2020, 123 voted in favour of the 8th resolution, 38 against, and 24 abstained.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-12-17|title=Statement on the Adoption of the 8th UN General Assembly Resolution for a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty|url=https://worldcoalition.org/2020/12/17/statement-on-the-adoption-of-the-8th-un-general-assembly-resolution-for-a-moratorium-on-the-use-of-the-death-penalty/|access-date=2021-10-11|website=WCADP|language=en-US}}</ref>

On 15 December 2022, 125 voted in favour of the 9th resolution, 37 against, 22 abstained, and 9 absent.<ref>{{cite web |title=9th Resolution for a moratorium on the death penalty: the trend is growing |url=https://worldcoalition.org/2022/12/20/9th-resolution-for-a-moratorium-on-the-death-penalty-the-trend-is-growing/ |website=World Coalition |access-date=6 April 2023}}</ref>

==International campaign==
===Hands Off Cain===
[[File:Ntc logo2.png|thumb|100px|left|Logo of the organisation "Hands Off Cain"]]
The UN moratorium campaign was launched in Italy by the association '''Hands Off Cain''', affiliated to the [[Nonviolent Radical Party]].<ref name="IPS">{{cite web |title=DEATH PENALTY: NGOs, Italy Seek Worldwide Ban |url=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35043 |website=IPS News |access-date=20 January 2020 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061009191212/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35043 | archive-date=2006-10-09}} ''IPS'', 2006</ref> The association against death penalty and [[torture]] was founded in [[Rome]] in 1993 by former [[left-wing politics|left-wing]] [[terrorism|terrorist]] and current [[nonviolence|nonviolent]] [[politician]] and [[human rights]] activist [[Sergio D'Elia]], with his first wife [[Mariateresa Di Lascia]] and [[Italian Radicals]]' [[Liberalism|liberal]] leaders [[Marco Pannella]] and [[Emma Bonino]] (former [[European Commissioner]]).

===History===
In 1994, a resolution for a moratorium was presented for the first time at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) by the Italian government. It lost by eight votes. Since 1997, through Italy's initiative, and since 1999 through the EU's endeavour, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) has been approving a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty, every year. The 2007 vote at the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly saw intense diplomatic activity in favour of the moratorium by EU countries, and by the Nonviolent Radical Party itself; the [[Catholic]] [[Community of Sant'Egidio]] joined forces by submitting to the U.N. an appeal and 5,000,000 signatures asking for the moratorium to be passed.{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}}.

==Full text of resolution 62/149==
{{quote|
''The General Assembly'',

''Guided'' by the purposes and principles contained in the [[Charter of the United Nations]],

''Recalling'' the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]],{{efn|name=GAR217}} the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]{{efn|name=GAR2200}} and the [[Convention on the Rights of the Child]],{{efn|name=Treaty}}

''Recalling also'' the resolutions on the question of the death penalty adopted over the past decade by the Commission on Human Rights in all consecutive sessions, the last being its resolution 2005/59 of 20 April 2005,{{efn|name=Records}} in which the Commission called upon states that still maintain the death penalty to abolish it completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions,

''Recalling further'' the important results accomplished by the former Commission of Human Rights on the question of the death penalty, and envisaging that the [[Human Rights Council]] could continue to work on this issue,

''Considering'' that the use of the death penalty undermines [[human dignity]], and convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement and progressive development of Human Rights, that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty's deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty's implementation is irreversible and irreparable,

''Welcoming'' the decisions taken by an increasing number of States to apply a moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty,

{{ordered list|type=lower-alpha
| ''Expresses its deep concern'' about the continued application of the death penalty;
| ''Calls upon'' all States that still maintain the death penalty to:{{ordered list|type=lower-alpha
| Respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annexe to [[United Nations Economic and Social Council|Economic and Social Council]] resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984;
| Provide the Secretary-General with information relating to the use of Capital Punishment and the observance of the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty;
| Progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed;
| Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;}}
| ''Calls upon'' States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it;
| ''Requests'' the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution;
| ''Decides'' to continue consideration of the matter at its sixty-third session under the same agenda item.
}}
}}
{{notelist|notes=
{{efn|name=GAR217|Resolution 217 A (III).}}
{{efn|name=GAR2200|Resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.}}
{{efn|name=Treaty|United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531.}}
{{efn|name=Records|Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 2005, Supplement No. 3 and corrigenda (E/2005/23 and Corr.1 and 2), chap. II, sect. A.}}
}}

==Full text of resolution 63/168==
{{quote|
''The General Assembly,''

''Reaffirming'' its resolution 62/149 of 18 December 2007 on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty,

''Welcoming'' the decisions taken by an increasing number of States to apply a moratorium on executions and the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,

# ''Welcomes'' the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 62/149,{{efn|name=GAR63/293}} and the conclusions and recommendations contained therein;
# ''Requests'' the Secretary-General to provide a report on progress made in the implementation of resolution 62/149 and the present resolution, for consideration during its sixty-fifth session, and calls upon Member States to provide the Secretary-General with information in this regard;
# ''Decides'' to continue consideration of the matter at its sixty-fifth session under the item entitled "Promotion and protection of human rights".
}}
{{notelist|notes=
{{efn|name=GAR63/293|A/63/293 and Corr. 1.}}
}}

==Full text of resolution 65/206==
{{quote|
''The General Assembly,''

''Guided'' by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations,

''Recalling'' the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,{{efn|name=GAR217}} the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights{{efn|name=GAR2000}} and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,{{efn|name=Treaty}}

''Reaffirming'' its resolutions 62/149 of 18 December 2007 and 63/168 of 18 December 2008 on the question of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, in which the General Assembly called upon States that still maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing it,

''Mindful'' that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable,

''Convinced'' that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to respect for human dignity and to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, and considering that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent
value of the death penalty,

''Noting'' ongoing national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty, as well as the readiness of an increasing number of Member States to make available information on the use of the death penalty,

''Noting also'' the technical cooperation among Member States in relation to moratoriums on the death penalty,

{{ordered list| ''Welcomes'' the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 63/168{{efn|name=GAR65/280}} and the recommendations contained therein;
| ''Also welcomes'' the steps taken by some countries to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed and the decisions made by an increasing number of States to apply a moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty;
| ''Calls upon'' all States:{{ordered list|type=lower-alpha
| To respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984, as well as to provide the Secretary-General with information in this regard;
| To make available relevant information with regard to their use of the death penalty, which can contribute to possible informed and transparent national
debates;
| To progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and to reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed;
| To establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;}}
| ''Calls upon'' States which have abolished the death penalty not to
reintroduce it, and encourages them to share their experience in this regard;
| ''Requests'' the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-seventh session on the implementation of the present resolution;
| ''Decides'' to continue its consideration of the matter at its sixty-seventh
session under the item entitled "Promotion and protection of human rights".
}}
}}
{{notelist|notes=
{{efn|name=GAR217|Resolution 217 A (III).}}
{{efn|name=GAR2000|Resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.}}
{{efn|name=Treaty|United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531.}}
{{efn|name=GAR65/280|A/65/280 and Corr. 1.}}
}}

== Voting record ==

{| class="wikitable"
! '''In favour (104)''' !! '''Abstaining (29)''' !! '''Against (54)''' || '''Absent (5)'''
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|
{| 
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|{{flag|Albania}} {{flag|Algeria}} {{flag|Andorra}} {{flag|Angola}} {{flag|Argentina}} {{flag|Armenia}} {{flag|Australia}} {{flag|Austria}} {{flag|Azerbaijan}} {{flag|Belgium}} {{flag|Benin}} {{flag|Bolivia}} {{flag|Bosnia and Herzegovina}} {{flag|Brazil}} {{flag|Bulgaria}} {{flag|Burkina Faso}} {{flag|Burundi}} {{flag|Cambodia}} {{flag|Canada}} {{flag|Cape Verde}} {{flag|Chile}} {{flag|Colombia}} {{flag|Congo}} {{flag|Costa Rica}} {{flag|Cote D'Ivoire}} {{flag|Croatia}} {{flag|Cyprus}} {{flag|Czech Republic}} {{flag|Denmark}} {{flag|Dominican Republic}} {{flag|Ecuador}} {{flag|El Salvador}} {{flag|Estonia}} {{flag|Finland}} {{flag|France}} {{flag|Gabon}} {{flag|Georgia}} {{flag|Germany}} {{flag|Greece}} {{flag|Guatemala}} {{flag|Haiti}} {{flag|Honduras}} {{flag|Hungary}} {{flag|Iceland}} {{flag|Ireland}} {{flag|Israel}} {{flag|Italy}} {{flag|Kazakhstan}} {{flag|Kiribati}} {{flag|Kyrgyzstan}} {{flag|Latvia}} {{flag|Liechtenstein}} {{flag|Lithuania}}
|{{flag|Luxembourg}} {{Flag|Madagascar}} {{flag|Mali}} {{flag|Malta}} {{flag|Marshall Islands}} {{flag|Mauritius}} {{flag|Mexico}} {{flag|Micronesia (Federated States of)}} {{flag|Monaco}} {{flag|Montenegro}} {{flag|Mozambique}} {{flag|Namibia}} {{flag|Nauru}} {{flag|Nepal}} {{flag|Netherlands}} {{flag|New Zealand}} {{flag|Nicaragua}} {{flag|Norway}} {{flag|Palau}} {{flag|Panama}} {{flag|Paraguay}} {{flag|Philippines}} {{flag|Poland}} {{flag|Portugal}} {{flag|Republic of Moldova}} {{flag|Romania}} {{flag|Russian Federation}} {{flag|Rwanda}} {{flag|Samoa}} {{flag|San Marino}} {{flag|Sao Tome and Principe}} {{flag|Serbia}} {{flag|Slovakia}} {{flag|Slovenia}} {{flag|South Africa}} {{flag|Spain}} {{flag|Sri Lanka}} {{flag|Sweden}} {{flag|Switzerland}} {{flag|Tajikistan}} {{flag|North Macedonia|name=The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia}} {{flag|Timor-Leste}} {{flag|Turkey}} {{flag|Turkmenistan}} {{flag|Tuvalu}} {{flag|Ukraine}} {{flag|United Kingdom}} {{flag|Uruguay}} {{flag|Uzbekistan}} {{flag|Vanuatu}} {{flag|Venezuela|name=Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)}}
|} 

|{{flag|Belarus}} {{flag|Bhutan}} {{flag|Cameroon}} {{flag|Central African Republic}} {{flag|Cuba}} {{flag|Democratic Republic of the Congo}} {{flag|Djibouti}} {{flag|Equatorial Guinea}} {{flag|Eritrea}} {{flag|Fiji}} {{flag|Gambia}} {{flag|Ghana}} {{flag|Guinea}} {{flag|Kenya}} {{flag|Lao People's Democratic Republic}} {{flag|Lebanon}} {{flag|Lesotho}} {{flag|Liberia}} {{flag|Malawi}} {{flag|Morocco}} {{flag|Niger}} {{flagdeco|ROK}} [[South Korea|Republic of Korea]] {{flag|Sierra Leone}} {{flag|Swaziland}} {{flag|Togo}} {{flag|United Arab Emirates}} {{flag|United Republic of Tanzania}} {{flag|Viet Nam}} {{flag|Zambia}}

|{{flag|Afghanistan}} {{flag|Antigua and Barbuda}} {{flag|Bahamas}} {{flag|Bahrain}} {{flag|Bangladesh}} {{flag|Barbados}} {{flag|Belize}} {{flag|Botswana}} {{flag|Brunei Darussalam}} {{flag|Chad}} {{flag|China}} {{flag|Comoros}} {{flagdeco|DPRK}} [[North Korea|Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] {{flag|Dominica}} {{flag|Egypt}} {{flag|Ethiopia}} {{flag|Grenada}} {{flag|Guyana}} {{flag|India}} {{flag|Indonesia}} {{flag|Iran|name=Iran (Islamic Republic of)}} {{flag|Iraq}} {{flag|Jamaica}} {{flag|Japan}} {{flag|Jordan}} {{flag|Kuwait}} {{flag|Libyan Arab Jamahiriya}} {{flag|Malaysia}} {{flag|Maldives}} {{flag|Mauritania}} {{flag|Mongolia}} {{flag|Myanmar}} {{flag|Nigeria}} {{flag|Oman}} {{flag|Pakistan}} {{flag|Papua New Guinea}} {{flag|Qatar}} {{flag|Saint Kitts and Nevis}} {{flag|Saint Lucia}} {{flag|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines}} {{flag|Saudi Arabia}} {{flag|Singapore}} {{flag|Solomon Islands}} {{flag|Somalia}} {{flag|Sudan}} {{flag|Suriname}} {{flag|Syrian Arab Republic}} {{flag|Thailand}} {{flag|Tonga}} {{flag|Trinidad and Tobago}} {{flag|Uganda}} {{flag|United States of America}} {{flag|Yemen}} {{flag|Zimbabwe}}

|{{flag|Guinea-Bissau}} {{flag|Peru}} {{flag|Senegal}} {{flag|Seychelles}} {{flag|Tunisia}}
|- style="text-align: center;"
|colspan=4|Observer States: {{flag|Holy See}}
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
! '''In favour (106)''' !! '''Abstaining (34)''' !! '''Against (46)''' || '''Absent (6)'''
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|
{| 
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|{{flag|Albania}} {{flag|Algeria}} {{flag|Andorra}} {{flag|Angola}} {{flag|Argentina}} {{flag|Armenia}} {{flag|Australia}} {{flag|Austria}} {{flag|Azerbaijan}} {{flag|Belgium}} {{flag|Benin}} {{flag|Bolivia}} {{flag|Bosnia and Herzegovina}} {{flag|Brazil}} {{flag|Bulgaria}} {{flag|Burkina Faso}} {{flag|Burundi}} {{flag|Cambodia}} {{flag|Canada}} {{flag|Cape Verde}} {{flag|Chile}} {{flag|Colombia}} {{flag|Congo}} {{flag|Costa Rica}} {{flag|Cote D'Ivoire}} {{flag|Croatia}} {{flag|Cyprus}} {{flag|Czech Republic}} {{flag|Denmark}} {{flag|Dominican Republic}} {{flag|Ecuador}} {{flag|El Salvador}} {{flag|Estonia}} {{flag|Ethiopia}} {{flag|Finland}} {{flag|France}} {{flag|Gabon}} {{flag|Georgia}} {{flag|Germany}} {{flag|Greece}} {{flag|Guinea-Bissau}} {{flag|Haiti}} {{flag|Honduras}} {{flag|Hungary}} {{flag|Iceland}} {{flag|Ireland}} {{flag|Israel}} {{flag|Italy}} {{flag|Kazakhstan}} {{flag|Kyrgyzstan}} {{flag|Latvia}} {{flag|Liechtenstein}} {{flag|Lithuania}} {{flag|Luxembourg}}
|{{flag|Madagascar}} {{flag|Mali}} {{Flag|Malta}} {{flag|Marshall Islands}} {{flag|Mauritius}} {{flag|Mexico}} {{flag|Micronesia (Federated States of)}} {{flag|Monaco}} {{flag|Montenegro}} {{flag|Mozambique}} {{flag|Namibia}} {{flag|Nauru}} {{flag|Nepal}} {{flag|Netherlands}} {{flag|New Zealand}} {{flag|Nicaragua}} {{flag|Norway}} {{flag|Palau}} {{flag|Panama}} {{flag|Paraguay}} {{flag|Peru}} {{flag|Philippines}} {{flag|Poland}} {{flag|Portugal}} {{flag|Republic of Moldova}} {{flag|Romania}} {{flag|Russian Federation}} {{flag|Rwanda}} {{flag|Samoa}} {{flag|San Marino}} {{flag|Sao Tome and Principe}} {{flag|Serbia}} {{flag|Slovakia}} {{flag|Slovenia}} {{flag|Somalia}} {{flag|South Africa}} {{flag|Spain}} {{flag|Sri Lanka}} {{flag|Sweden}} {{flag|Switzerland}} {{flag|Tajikistan}} {{flag|North Macedonia|name=The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia}} {{flag|Timor-Leste}} {{flag|Turkey}} {{flag|Turkmenistan}} {{flag|Tuvalu}} {{flag|Ukraine}} {{flag|United Kingdom}} {{flag|Uruguay}} {{flag|Uzbekistan}} {{flag|Vanuatu}} {{flag|Venezuela|name=Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)}}
|} 

|{{flag|Bahrain}} {{flag|Belarus}} {{flag|Bhutan}} {{flag|Cameroon}} {{flag|Central African Republic}} {{flag|Cuba}} {{flag|Djibouti}} {{flag|Eritrea}} {{flag|Fiji}} {{flag|Gambia}} {{flag|Ghana}} {{flag|Guatemala}} {{flag|Guinea}} {{flag|Jordan}} {{flag|Kenya}} {{flag|Lao People's Democratic Republic}} {{flag|Lebanon}} {{flag|Lesotho}} {{flag|Liberia}} {{flag|Malawi}} {{flag|Mauritania}} {{flag|Morocco}} {{flag|Niger}} {{flag|Oman}} {{flag|Papua New Guinea}} {{flagdeco|ROK}} [[South Korea|Republic of Korea]] {{flag|Senegal}} {{flag|Sierra Leone}} {{flag|Suriname}} {{flag|Togo}} {{flag|United Arab Emirates}} {{flag|United Republic of Tanzania}} {{flag|Viet Nam}} {{flag|Zambia}}

|{{flag|Afghanistan|2013}} {{flag|Antigua and Barbuda}} {{flag|Bahamas}} {{flag|Bangladesh}} {{flag|Barbados}} {{flag|Belize}} {{flag|Botswana}} {{flag|Brunei Darussalam}} {{flag|China}} {{flag|Comoros}} {{flagdeco|DPRK}} [[North Korea|Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] {{flag|Dominica}} {{flag|Egypt}} {{flag|Grenada}} {{flag|Guyana}} {{flag|India}} {{flag|Indonesia}} {{flag|Iran|name=Iran (Islamic Republic of)}} {{flag|Iraq}} {{flag|Jamaica}} {{flag|Japan}} {{flag|Kuwait}} {{flag|Libyan Arab Jamahiriya}} {{flag|Malaysia}} {{flag|Maldives}} {{flag|Mongolia}} {{flag|Myanmar}} {{flag|Nigeria}} {{flag|Pakistan}} {{flag|Qatar}} {{flag|Saint Kitts and Nevis}} {{flag|Saint Lucia}} {{flag|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines}} {{flag|Saudi Arabia}} {{flag|Singapore}} {{flag|Solomon Islands}} {{flag|Sudan}} {{flag|Swaziland}} {{flag|Syrian Arab Republic}} {{flag|Thailand}} {{flag|Tonga}} {{flag|Trinidad and Tobago}} {{flag|Uganda}} {{flag|United States of America}} {{flag|Yemen}} {{flag|Zimbabwe}}

|{{flag|Chad}} {{flag|Democratic Republic of the Congo}} {{flag|Equatorial Guinea}} {{flag|Kiribati}} {{flag|Seychelles}} {{flag|Tunisia}}
|- style="text-align: center;"
|colspan=4|Observer States: {{flag|Holy See}}
|}

{| class="wikitable"
! '''In favour (109)''' !! '''Abstaining (35)''' !! '''Against (41)''' || '''Absent (7)'''
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|
{| 
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|{{flag|Albania}} {{flag|Algeria}} {{flag|Andorra}} {{flag|Angola}} {{flag|Argentina}} {{flag|Armenia}} {{flag|Australia}} {{flag|Austria}} {{flag|Azerbaijan}} {{flag|Belgium}} {{flag|Bhutan}} {{flag|Bolivia|name=Bolivia (Plurinational State of)}} {{flag|Bosnia and Herzegovina}} {{flag|Brazil}} {{flag|Bulgaria}} {{flag|Burkina Faso}} {{flag|Burundi}} {{flag|Cambodia}} {{flag|Canada}} {{flag|Cape Verde}} {{flag|Chile}} {{flag|Colombia}} {{flag|Congo}} {{flag|Costa Rica}} {{flag|Croatia}} {{flag|Cyprus}} {{flag|Czech Republic}} {{flag|Denmark}} {{flag|Dominican Republic}} {{flag|Ecuador}} {{flag|El Salvador}} {{flag|Estonia}} {{flag|Finland}} {{flag|France}} {{flag|Gabon}} {{flag|Gambia}} {{flag|Georgia}} {{flag|Germany}} {{flag|Greece}} {{flag|Guatemala}} {{flag|Guinea-Bissau}} {{flag|Haiti}} {{flag|Honduras}} {{flag|Hungary}} {{flag|Iceland}} {{flag|Ireland}} {{flag|Israel}} {{flag|Italy}} {{flag|Kazakhstan}} {{flag|Kiribati}} {{flag|Kyrgyzstan}} {{flag|Latvia}} {{flag|Liechtenstein}} {{flag|Lithuania}} {{flag|Luxembourg}} {{flag|Madagascar}} {{flag|Maldives}} {{flag|Mali}} {{flag|Malta}}
|{{flag|Marshall Islands}} {{flag|Mexico}} {{flag|Micronesia (Federated States of)}} {{flag|Monaco}} {{flag|Mongolia}} {{flag|Montenegro}} {{flag|Mozambique}} {{flag|Namibia}} {{flag|Nauru}} {{flag|Nepal}} {{flag|Netherlands}} {{flag|New Zealand}} {{flag|Nicaragua}} {{flag|Norway}} {{flag|Palau}} {{flag|Panama}} {{flag|Paraguay}} {{flag|Peru}} {{flag|Philippines}} {{flag|Poland}} {{flag|Portugal}} {{flag|Republic of Moldova}} {{flag|Romania}} {{flag|Russian Federation}} {{flag|Rwanda}} {{flag|Samoa}} {{flag|San Marino}} {{flag|Sao Tome and Principe}} {{flag|Serbia}} {{flag|Slovakia}} {{flag|Slovenia}} {{flag|Somalia}} {{flag|South Africa}} {{flag|Spain}} {{flag|Sri Lanka}} {{flag|Sweden}} {{flag|Switzerland}} {{flag|Tajikistan}} {{flag|North Macedonia|name=The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia}} {{flag|Timor-Leste}} {{flag|Togo}} {{flag|Turkey}} {{flag|Turkmenistan}} {{flag|Tuvalu}} {{flag|Ukraine}} {{flag|United Kingdom}} {{flag|Uruguay}} {{flag|Uzbekistan}} {{flag|Vanuatu}} {{flag|Venezuela|name=Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)}}
|} 

|{{flag|Bahrain}} {{flag|Belarus}} {{flag|Cameroon}} {{flag|Central African Republic}} {{flag|Comoros}} {{flag|Cuba}} {{flag|Democratic Republic of the Congo}} {{flag|Djibouti}} {{flag|Dominica}} {{flag|Eritrea}} {{flag|Fiji}} {{flag|Ghana}} {{flag|Guinea}} {{flag|Jordan}} {{flag|Kenya}} {{flag|Lao People's Democratic Republic}} {{flag|Lebanon}} {{flag|Lesotho}} {{flag|Liberia}} {{flag|Malawi}} {{flag|Mauritania}} {{flag|Morocco}} {{flag|Niger}} {{flag|Nigeria}} {{flag|Oman}} {{flagdeco|ROK}} [[South Korea|Republic of Korea]] {{flag|Senegal}} {{flag|Sierra Leone}} {{flag|Solomon Islands}} {{flag|Suriname}} {{flag|Thailand}} {{flag|United Arab Emirates}} {{flag|United Republic of Tanzania}} {{flag|Viet Nam}} {{flag|Zambia}}

|{{flag|Afghanistan|2013}} {{flag|Antigua and Barbuda}} {{flag|Bahamas}} {{flag|Bangladesh}} {{flag|Barbados}} {{flag|Belize}} {{flag|Botswana}} {{flag|Brunei Darussalam}} {{flag|China}} {{flagdeco|DPRK}} [[North Korea|Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] {{flag|Egypt}} {{flag|Ethiopia}} {{flag|Grenada}} {{flag|Guyana}} {{flag|India}} {{flag|Indonesia}} {{flag|Iran|name=Iran (Islamic Republic of)}} {{flag|Iraq}} {{flag|Jamaica}} {{flag|Japan}} {{flag|Kuwait}} {{flag|Libyan Arab Jamahiriya}} {{flag|Malaysia}} {{flag|Myanmar}} {{flag|Pakistan}} {{flag|Papua New Guinea}} {{flag|Qatar}} {{flag|Saint Kitts and Nevis}} {{flag|Saint Lucia}} {{flag|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines}} {{flag|Saudi Arabia}} {{flag|Singapore}} {{flag|Sudan}} {{flag|Swaziland}} {{flag|Tonga}} {{flag|Trinidad and Tobago}} {{flag|Uganda}} {{flag|United States of America}} {{flag|Yemen}} {{flag|Zimbabwe}}

|{{flag|Benin}} {{flag|Chad}} {{flag|Cote D'Ivoire}} {{flag|Equatorial Guinea}} {{flag|Mauritius}} {{flag|Seychelles}} {{flag|Tunisia}}
|- style="text-align: center;"
|colspan=4|Observer States: {{flag|Holy See}}
|}

==See also==
*[[International Commission Against the Death Penalty]]
*[[World Coalition Against the Death Penalty]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [https://deathpenaltyworldwide.org/publication/moratoria/ Moratoria: Death Penalty Worldwide] Academic research database on the laws, practice, and statistics of capital punishment for every death penalty country in the world.
* [http://www.handsoffcain.info/ HandsOffCain.info – official website of Hands Off Cain]

{{United Nations}}{{Capital punishment}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Un Moratorium on the Death Penalty}}
[[Category:United Nations General Assembly resolutions|Moratorium on the Death Penalty]]
[[Category:Capital punishment|Moratorium on the Death Penalty]]
[[Category:Opposition to the death penalty|Moratorium on the Death Penalty]]
[[Category:2007 in the United Nations]]
[[Category:2008 in the United Nations]]
[[Category:2010 in the United Nations]]

Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war

2023-11-18T15:04:44Z

91.210.248.223: /* Child soldiers */

{{talk page}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversial}}
{{notforum}}
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{wikiproject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Human rights}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=mid |law=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y
|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=High}}
}}

== Child soldiers ==

@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] I will look for some more serious investigations into child soldiers now. I shouldn't have instantly just reverted your edits, so I apologize. I just clicked on the sources provided, and they were not reliable. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding news.com.au, while it isn't on the same level as the New York Times or the BBC it is a reliable source. However, I have to apologize; the Mirror is listed at RSP contrary to my statement - I saw the Daily Mirror listed at [[WP:RSP]] (listed as "no consensus"), but didn't realize they were the same source. I've now {{diff2|1181291733|added a note at that RSP entry}}.
:There has been a lot of coverage of this before the war; I suspect there will have been some more since it started. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::I really did look and couldn't find anything for 2023. A bunch of stuff from 2021, and a ton from 2004.. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
They are reporting that an Israeli organization is making a claim. Thats as far as the article can go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram [[WP:RUMOUR]] at present, as well as an [[WP:ECREE|exceptional claim]], so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple [[WP:RS]] supporting the material. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::And to be clear, that would be multiple [[WP:RS]] related to ''this'' conflict, i.e. [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]], not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:International law strictly prohibits the recruitment or use of '''children under the age of 15''' as soldiers or allowing them to participate in hostilities. This norm has a [[Customary international humanitarian law|customary character]]. Considered a [[war crime]] under Article 8 (2) (b) (xxvi) of the [[Rome Statute]] of the ICC --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 14:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

== Lede image ==

I know [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], but I think the the Be'eri massacre image might go against [[MOS:SHOCK]], which says, "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:The images that accurately represent the topic of the war crimes against Israel are going to be horrific; these were the brutal massacres and kidnappings of civilians, and the only way we can accurately represent the topic is by showing that, at least in part - we are not using the more horrific images in the lede, such as the mutilated and burnt bodies of civilians including babies. Images like [[:File:Iron Swords 141023 Kirya Bring The Home 02.jpg|this one]] are sanitized, and don't properly reflect the topic in the way that images like the two currently in the lede do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, the images here are going to be horrific. But I do think we can find an image that doesn't sanitize, while also not repulsing people away as soon as they open the page. Most of the page as it stands now are legal arguments and statements from human rights organizations. I think the most appropriate image would be one that reflects the topic, matches the page's tone, and importantly doesn't shock most readers. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

== More Israeli war crimes. ==

Israel has (a) Faked Hamas plans, conversations etc. and (b) allowed soldiers and settlers to blind, burn, beat, photograph, strip urinate on, and attempt to sodomize 3 Palestinian civilians, despite them saying "we only attack terrorists/Hamas".
The war crimes are: (a) an attack on dignity, (b) a clear attack on non-combatants, (c) blinding people, and (d) sexually assaulting citizens. Should these be added to the page? I'm not sure I should do that, so I'm instead putting this here if you want to. P.S Israel has also released a bunch of disinformation and misinformation, although I don't think those two are war crmes [[Special:Contributions/2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18]] ([[User talk:2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|talk]]) 10:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:We would need reliable sources saying those things to include them. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] • [[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]] 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Indiscriminate attacks]] ==

I believe we should remove the last four paragraphs from this section; this information is covered in the sub-articles, and it would be consistent with [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide]], where we don't add paragraphs for every one of the massacres and instead cover them in the general.

The alternative is to add such paragraphs, but I believe it would be excessive detail to do so. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Disagree. There's nothing wrong with it as it is, noting the most notable and high-profile incidents. Those two sections are off roughly similar length. Also, most of the sub-pages for both of these sections are basically joke-level in terms of quality, so we definitely shouldn't be looking to default back to the disastrous sub-pages. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think this is right. The longest paragraph of the four here is on al-Shati, but the majority of the text there is actually explaining Rome Statute policies on violations against attacks on protected categories (i.e. places of worship). For the most part, these paragraphs are just brief mentions of the most notable incidents, which we're also doing with the Re'im music festival, Be'eri, and Kfar Aza. There have been so many airstrikes in Gaza with graphic narratives and details coming out, I could absolutely write volumes about them here. Mentioning just a few of the most notable though seems appropriate. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== USB drive ==

The cited source does not discuss war crimes and the section should be removed. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|BilledMammal}}, I self-reverted as requested, maybe now you can look to see why material that does not mention a war crime should not be included in an article on war crimes? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::And I removed again, not only as synth, but as gov-sourced synth. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Palestine is a signatory to the [[Chemical Weapons Convention]]; any production would be a crime. I won't argue strongly for its inclusion until we see use, however. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel and allegations of genocide ==

* [https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza]
* [https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide A Textbook Case of Genocide - Raz Segal ( Holocaust and genocide studies professor at Stockholm University)]
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal - Chris McGreal (was a reporter during the Rwandan genocide)]
* [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity Gaza: UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide]
* [https://www.arabnews.com/node/2396301 Israel's Gaza war rooted in dehumanizing, genocidal language]
* [https://theintercept.com/2023/10/19/israel-gaza-biden-genocide-war-crimes/ Going all-in for Israel may make Biden complicit in genocide]

This needs to be explicitly addressed. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 06:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]]: The crime of genocide is often characterized slightly separate to other war crimes in international law, for example in the [[Rome Statute]], which places it in its own category, though the [[Genocide Convention]] obviously came first. Nevertheless, the most pertinent place for this type of material may be at [[Genocide against Palestinians]]. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] That's true, yes. But considering this still directly pertains to the 2023 war, and that genocide is still a war crime, I think something that directly addresses these allegations should be somewhere on this article, too. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== NPOV concerns ==

In my opinion, there are serious NPOV issues with this article - every segment of "By Palestinian militant groups" states the actions taken confidently in wikivoice, at times even without attribution. See "Such rocket attacks [...] constitute a war crime," "[Hamas] kidnapped approximately 200 people," "[Hamas] targeted civilians [and] carried out massacres," all stated confidently without attribution in wikivoice, as though Wikipedia is making the determination. Contrast this with the segment "By the Israeli government" every single action is "alleged," "described as," "[[WP:MRDA|denied]]," "characterized as," videos "appeared to show," etc.

These NPOV violations are so serious and so integrated with the text, I'm not sure how best to edit the content to conform to [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] without outright removing a lot of information, so I'll tag the article instead and make minor changes that do a better job of maintaining neutrality.

If we're going to observe an exception to [[MOS:DOUBT]] for this situation (something I don't see as unreasonable, as the actual determinations by the UN, ICC etc. have not occurred yet), shouldn't we also observe [[WP:NPOV]] when doing so? [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] I just addressed many of these concerns. There were huge issues with the writing, in addition to the ones you listed. Many of the assertions made in the "By militant groups" section were not supported by the sources. I included qualifying language, attributed statements to organizations and individuals, and removed material unsupported by sources. Hope this addresses the most significant concerns. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] there are really serious issues with the writing that you reverted. A lot of what I removed is NOT supported by the sources. They're serious misreadings of the sources. I think more could definitely be added with legitimate sources, but the writing there has really fundamental issues, which I don't see anybody else addressing. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree wholeheartedly, BilledMammal continues to edit under the belief that Hamas crimes must be presented with greater prominence and additionally given more space in the article. Whereas sources that cover war crimes in the conflict do exactly the opposite. He also did not deign to address '''any''' of the issues with SYNTH or V or NPOV in the revert. Ive reverted. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Nableezy, please stop these repeated personal attacks. They've both inappropriate and inaccurate - I've been very clear that I believe they should be given equal prominence, and I've presented copious evidence for this at various points.
::::Further, you've now removed sourced content, as I detail below. Please restore it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Some have merely lost their sources in various restructurings; you shouldn't be removing the content, you should be restoring the sources; for example, {{tq|The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory said that "Reports that armed groups from Gaza have gunned down hundreds of unarmed civilians are abhorrent and cannot be tolerated" and that "Taking civilian hostages and using civilians as human shields are war crimes"}}, which you removed, is sourced to [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/commission-inquiry-collecting-evidence-war-crimes-committed-all-sides-israel this article].
:::Elsewhere, you removed content that was supported by extant sources. For example, you removed {{tq|armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare"}}; this is supported by the following sources: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/israel-palestinian-armed-groups-must-be-held-accountable-for-deliberate-civilian-killings-abductions-and-indiscriminate-attacks/ Amnesty International], [https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-attack-10-08-23/h_03a000be2373619e0c7a1dcfb7732016 CNN], and [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/kidnappings-israel-hamas-photographs/675593/ the Atlantic]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The war crime is taking hostages and targeting and killing civilians. We include that part. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As simple and dry facts, without detail. If we pursued that policy throughout that article it would be appropriate to do there, but we don't - we go into considerable detail regarding the allegations against Israel.
:::::Why do you believe these details are inappropriate to include? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::The allegations regarding Israel dont include things like "the baby was incinerated by the bomb that leveled the apartment block and killed 43 members of her family". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::And neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes.
:::::::Further, we now introduce Hamas' arguments for why it isn't a war crime, such as {{tq|On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}} We don't do that for any of the allegations against Israel, despite the arguments against those being war crimes being far stronger and having received far more coverage. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::They have not received far more coverage, cribbing from a comment elsewhere: Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/ Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza]; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. As far as "neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes", um you quoted it: ''armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare''. Now as unseemly as that might be, the war crime was the targeting and killing the civilian and taking hostages. And we include that. What you want to include are the details that you decline to include for the crimes committed by Israel. Theres a whole list of them at [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza AI] if you want to go through them and add details on this family or that family wiped out in an attack on a civilian target with no evidence of military targets nearby. I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|They have not received far more coverage}} Please, read my comment fully before replying. I'm not saying the crimes as a whole have received far more coverage; I'm saying that arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes have received far more coverage than arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes. However, we only include the arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes and do not include the arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes.
:::::::::{{tq|I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way.}}
:::::::::Read the full sentence; {{tq|On 12 October, Jens David Ohlin argued Hamas's attacks potentially violated Articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute.[17] Ohlin asserted the attacks might violate Article 6, if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."[17] On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}}
:::::::::The quote from Hamas is very clearly an attempted rebuttal in this context; however, regardless of how you see it, we don't include similar Israeli justifications, despite those justifications having received far more coverage, and being given far more credence, in reliable sources. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, it is an argument against the intent ascribed to it. It certainly is not calling it not a war crime, it is saying Hamas does not view the motivation the way that Ohlin does. Im happy to add sources rebutting the accusations against Israel where they are reliably sourced and relevant. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Given that intent is part of that war crime {{tq|if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."}}, an argument against the intent is a rebuttal. Further, what is the evidence that this is [[WP:DUE]]? The only source we have is a primary source transcribing a speech by Haniyeh. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We should be including details, but we don't need to include colorful depictions of all the terrible things that happen, especially ones whose accuracy are actively in dispute, as is the case with Shani Louk.
::::::The biggest issue, in my mind, is not whether details are present, but that we are saying things like "Hamas did this and that, which is a war crime," at the same time we say "Israel miiiiiiight have done maybe something that looks kind of like this, and those nasty Palestinians said it was a war crime, but nobody really knows for sure, and Israel said they weren't war crimes too." This was the state of the article when I tagged it.
::::::Wikipedia should not be making assertions like this while things are so difficult to pick apart, when the international organizations tasked with making these determinations barely starting their processes, with new information arriving every day, and with the people of Gaza unable to even make their own case because of the communications blackout.
::::::Outside of that, we should include information proportional to their coverage in RS, as @[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] describes. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail in the Palestinian militant group section, but like I said, we should be providing simple, factual descriptions instead of parroting witness statements and random allegations and presenting them as truth. [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The difference in presentation is that it is undisputed that Hamas committed war crimes; there are no reliable sources arguing that it is not a war crime to go into a civilian settlement and deliberately massacre civilians. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have yet to see a source claim that cutting off food water and electricity to a captive population is not a war crime. Even Israel’s allies have said it not consistent with international law. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::[https://lieber.westpoint.edu/complete-siege-gaza-in-accordance-international-humanitarian-law/ Lieber Institute] and [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-war-crimes-laws-apply-israel-palestinian-conflict-2023-10-11/ Reuters] were some of the first results; given that I suspect there are many more who are not saying it is a war crime. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't see how the Reuters source supports what you say. And the Lieber source says "Because not all lines of questioning can be addressed with this post, I will limit my analysis to the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare" and says "Article 54, paragraph 1 of AP I and Article 14 of AP II prohibit using civilian starvation as a method of “warfare” or “combat” respectively." So maybe you were reading something else? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Reuters says {{tq|A siege can be considered a war crime if it targets civilians, rather than a legitimate means to undermine Hamas' military capabilities, or if found to be disproportionate.}} It's not saying it is a war crime, it's saying it is possible is one if it is found to be disproportionate or to target civilians.
:::::::::::Lieber goes further, and says {{tq|In conclusion, sieges themselves are not per se prohibited by IHL. Some military advantages are to be gained by the temporary implementation of a complete siege as ordered here. It is also clear that Hamas’s attacks within Israel’s territory and its population need not go unanswered. However, siege must be a temporary measure, dependent upon how the complete siege of the Gaza Strip is, in fact, carried out. When looking at its own interpretation of the prohibition to starve civilians, it seems likely that Israel could itself only consider the “complete siege” lawful for such time until conditions require access to humanitarian aid or the immediate evacuation of the civilian population.}} It's saying that it's not a war crime, although it may become one if Israel doesn't end the siege in a timely manner. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::The first also assumes that Gaza is not occupied, which is a minority position. The first does not in fact say it does not violate international law, it says it per se does not as a rule. It also said that Israel, even if not a state party, apparently believes the prohibition on the starvation of civilians is indeed customary international law and as such bound by it. And it is also by a PhD student. Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all. But Lieber is '''not''' saying it is not a war crime, it is saying a siege by itself may not be a war crime. It does not say that this one is not. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all.}} Reuters discusses the siege in the context of IHL, and declines to call it a war crime instead presenting a more nuanced position.
:::::::::::I think our interpretations of Lieber differ; my interpretation is that it is saying it was legal at the time of writing, and would continue to be so conditional on Israel relieving it at an appropriate time. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reuters does not say it is not. And a PhD student with no relevant publications in a non scholarly outlet is nowhere close to an established expert in the field, like [https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/ Tom Dannenbaum]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]: You appear to take up issue with {{tq|"simple and dry facts"}}. I find this a bizarre complaint to make on this platform. Another word for this is just "encyclopedic tone". [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I think it's slightly misleading to leave off the last half of that sentence; {{tq|without detail}}. I take issue because we don't do it in both parts; if we treated the allegations against Israel in the same manner I would have no issue, but doing so only for one is an NPOV violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I can try to add some more to balance things out or whatever that Wiki rule is, I am not sure I am good at Wiki voice. Here’s a list of war crimes: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Balasp cannot be used to create a false balance, it just means a balanced reporting of the sources. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Selfstudier, that makes sense. I did notice some war crimes in the Geneva list that were not explicitly listed in their own categories under the Palestinian militant groups like torture and sexual assault/ rape, but I do see rape listed under the “Massacres” section. Also, do you think you maybe want to protect the [[Criticism of Amnesty International]] page? There’s been some recent edits there that may be related to contentious topics, and I saw your username in the edit history. [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Completely Agree. this is one of the most blatant pro-zionist biases observed on wikipedia in general, not just this article. [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::Like [[Russian war crimes]] VS [[Allegations of war crimes against Israel]]. Like Lol seriously ? Try reading the first few lines of the leads in both articles, This is hilarious [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion by an author of war crimes statutes: [https://puck.news/the-israel-war-crime-complexifier/ David Scheffer interview] – [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj| +]] 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

== Are the lead pictures really necessary? ==

Not ''every '' article needs to have featured pictures as soon as the page is opened, especially when it comes to downright discomforting ones. [[User:NocheLluviosa|NocheLluviosa]] ([[User talk:NocheLluviosa|talk]]) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think in general images add a lot to an article, but I'd 100% agree about finding an image that is less discomforting to somebody just opening the page. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:The picture we currently have in the lede of the massacres is comparatively tame; to tame it down further would be whitewashing and a [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Per [[WP:SHOCK]] you are right; the more shocking image ''is'' valuable but shouldn't be the first thing you see when you open the article. Swapped the image with a less gory one from further down the page. [[User:Bnuuy|bnuuy]] ‖ [[User talk:Bnuuy|🐇💬]] ‖ 20:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

== GENEVA – The Director of the NY Office of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in protest over the organizations inability to stop the genocide in Gaza. ==

"The European colonial project has entered a final stage to destroy the remnants of indigenous Palestinian life"

"Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it,"

“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt or debate… Across the land, Apartheid rules.
The situation in Gaza “is a text-book case of genocide,” he continued, with the aim of the “expedited destruction of the last remannts of indigeous Palestinian life in Palestine”

He said.

someone add that, '''and especially''' the first quote.

Sources reported:
[https://x.com/aja_egypt/status/1719390105058648354 Aljazeera], [https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/latest-news/731924/الجزيرة-استقالة-مدير-مكتب-المفوضية-السامية-لحقوق-ا/ar LBCI Lebanon], [https://www.elbalad.news/5981915 Sada El-Balad], [https://www.jordannews.jo/Section-20/Middle-East/Director-of-NY-Office-of-UN-High-Commissioner-of-Human-Rights-resigns-31935 Jordan News], [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-live-gaza-hamas-war-invasion Middle East Eye],[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/31/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-latest-news-today-hamas-clashes-idf-gaza-aid-plan-failure?page=with:block-65412f4e8f08d9386c6936fc The Gaurdian] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

== Rocket range ==

Please update to reflect that the rockets have not only reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but have reached all the way north and south as well. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9|2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9]] ([[User talk:2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9|talk]]) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:Source? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

== Sentence in Medical Facilities ==

We have a sentence that reads, "Hamas has been documented to use hospitals and other medical facilities such as ambulances." What's the source for this? Every source I've read notes these are IDF allegations, not internationally verified reports, documents, or investigations. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

:We're also saying, "the IDF released videos showing Hamas fighters firing from the Sheikh Hamad Hospital." But it seems in dispute that these videos do actually show that. Can we really say in Wikivoice that's what the videos show? [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2023 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Red-link at the "Further information" section of the "Massacres" section of the article. The article "Hamas beheading incidents" appears to have been deleted. This link should be removed from the further info section. [[User:Frojas798|Frojas798]] ([[User talk:Frojas798|talk]]) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done''' Another editor has removed the link. [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

== Targeting of journalists ==

Currently, we say {{tq|Reporters Without Borders conducted a preliminary investigation into the killing of Issam Abdallah, a Reuters photojournalist killed in Lebanon, and found that the strike on a clearly marked vehicle marked "Press" was purposely targeted and that the fire had come from Israel}}. However, this doesn't align with the source, which outside headlines (which, per [[WP:HEADLINES]], are not considered reliable) only says is that there was {{tq|precise targeting}} and that {{tq|It is unlikely that the journalists were mistaken for combatants}}.

[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]], I see you added this; can you align it with the source? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:I’m mostly on mobile rn and it’s kinda hard to edit like that but if I made a mistake by all means correct it, I won’t call it a revert. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

== Title of the article ==

Why would we not use "Alleged war crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" for this article's title? According to [[WP:NDESC]], articles that deal with the topic of "actual accusation[s] of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law" are best titled using the word "allegations" or similar.

As I understand it, the International Criminal Court is the only body with the authority to rule on war crimes; if any other person or governmental organization decisively terms something a "war crime", that doesn't make it so. Could anyone shed some light on how a definitive ruling of what IS a war crime is made? Because unless we have such definitive rulings for this conflict, the article should probably be renamed. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war

2023-11-18T14:57:59Z

91.210.248.223:

{{talk page}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversial}}
{{notforum}}
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{wikiproject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Human rights}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=mid |law=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y
|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=High}}
}}

== Child soldiers ==

@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] I will look for some more serious investigations into child soldiers now. I shouldn't have instantly just reverted your edits, so I apologize. I just clicked on the sources provided, and they were not reliable. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding news.com.au, while it isn't on the same level as the New York Times or the BBC it is a reliable source. However, I have to apologize; the Mirror is listed at RSP contrary to my statement - I saw the Daily Mirror listed at [[WP:RSP]] (listed as "no consensus"), but didn't realize they were the same source. I've now {{diff2|1181291733|added a note at that RSP entry}}.
:There has been a lot of coverage of this before the war; I suspect there will have been some more since it started. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::I really did look and couldn't find anything for 2023. A bunch of stuff from 2021, and a ton from 2004.. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
They are reporting that an Israeli organization is making a claim. Thats as far as the article can go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram [[WP:RUMOUR]] at present, as well as an [[WP:ECREE|exceptional claim]], so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple [[WP:RS]] supporting the material. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::And to be clear, that would be multiple [[WP:RS]] related to ''this'' conflict, i.e. [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]], not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:International law strictly prohibits the recruitment or use of '''children under the age of 15''' as soldiers or allowing them to participate in hostilities (Article 8 (2) (b) (xxvi) of the [[Rome Statute]] of the ICC). This norm has a [[Customary international humanitarian law|customary character]]--[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 14:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

== Lede image ==

I know [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], but I think the the Be'eri massacre image might go against [[MOS:SHOCK]], which says, "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:The images that accurately represent the topic of the war crimes against Israel are going to be horrific; these were the brutal massacres and kidnappings of civilians, and the only way we can accurately represent the topic is by showing that, at least in part - we are not using the more horrific images in the lede, such as the mutilated and burnt bodies of civilians including babies. Images like [[:File:Iron Swords 141023 Kirya Bring The Home 02.jpg|this one]] are sanitized, and don't properly reflect the topic in the way that images like the two currently in the lede do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, the images here are going to be horrific. But I do think we can find an image that doesn't sanitize, while also not repulsing people away as soon as they open the page. Most of the page as it stands now are legal arguments and statements from human rights organizations. I think the most appropriate image would be one that reflects the topic, matches the page's tone, and importantly doesn't shock most readers. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

== More Israeli war crimes. ==

Israel has (a) Faked Hamas plans, conversations etc. and (b) allowed soldiers and settlers to blind, burn, beat, photograph, strip urinate on, and attempt to sodomize 3 Palestinian civilians, despite them saying "we only attack terrorists/Hamas".
The war crimes are: (a) an attack on dignity, (b) a clear attack on non-combatants, (c) blinding people, and (d) sexually assaulting citizens. Should these be added to the page? I'm not sure I should do that, so I'm instead putting this here if you want to. P.S Israel has also released a bunch of disinformation and misinformation, although I don't think those two are war crmes [[Special:Contributions/2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18]] ([[User talk:2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|talk]]) 10:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:We would need reliable sources saying those things to include them. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] • [[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]] 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Indiscriminate attacks]] ==

I believe we should remove the last four paragraphs from this section; this information is covered in the sub-articles, and it would be consistent with [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide]], where we don't add paragraphs for every one of the massacres and instead cover them in the general.

The alternative is to add such paragraphs, but I believe it would be excessive detail to do so. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Disagree. There's nothing wrong with it as it is, noting the most notable and high-profile incidents. Those two sections are off roughly similar length. Also, most of the sub-pages for both of these sections are basically joke-level in terms of quality, so we definitely shouldn't be looking to default back to the disastrous sub-pages. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think this is right. The longest paragraph of the four here is on al-Shati, but the majority of the text there is actually explaining Rome Statute policies on violations against attacks on protected categories (i.e. places of worship). For the most part, these paragraphs are just brief mentions of the most notable incidents, which we're also doing with the Re'im music festival, Be'eri, and Kfar Aza. There have been so many airstrikes in Gaza with graphic narratives and details coming out, I could absolutely write volumes about them here. Mentioning just a few of the most notable though seems appropriate. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== USB drive ==

The cited source does not discuss war crimes and the section should be removed. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|BilledMammal}}, I self-reverted as requested, maybe now you can look to see why material that does not mention a war crime should not be included in an article on war crimes? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::And I removed again, not only as synth, but as gov-sourced synth. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Palestine is a signatory to the [[Chemical Weapons Convention]]; any production would be a crime. I won't argue strongly for its inclusion until we see use, however. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel and allegations of genocide ==

* [https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza]
* [https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide A Textbook Case of Genocide - Raz Segal ( Holocaust and genocide studies professor at Stockholm University)]
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal - Chris McGreal (was a reporter during the Rwandan genocide)]
* [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity Gaza: UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide]
* [https://www.arabnews.com/node/2396301 Israel's Gaza war rooted in dehumanizing, genocidal language]
* [https://theintercept.com/2023/10/19/israel-gaza-biden-genocide-war-crimes/ Going all-in for Israel may make Biden complicit in genocide]

This needs to be explicitly addressed. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 06:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]]: The crime of genocide is often characterized slightly separate to other war crimes in international law, for example in the [[Rome Statute]], which places it in its own category, though the [[Genocide Convention]] obviously came first. Nevertheless, the most pertinent place for this type of material may be at [[Genocide against Palestinians]]. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] That's true, yes. But considering this still directly pertains to the 2023 war, and that genocide is still a war crime, I think something that directly addresses these allegations should be somewhere on this article, too. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== NPOV concerns ==

In my opinion, there are serious NPOV issues with this article - every segment of "By Palestinian militant groups" states the actions taken confidently in wikivoice, at times even without attribution. See "Such rocket attacks [...] constitute a war crime," "[Hamas] kidnapped approximately 200 people," "[Hamas] targeted civilians [and] carried out massacres," all stated confidently without attribution in wikivoice, as though Wikipedia is making the determination. Contrast this with the segment "By the Israeli government" every single action is "alleged," "described as," "[[WP:MRDA|denied]]," "characterized as," videos "appeared to show," etc.

These NPOV violations are so serious and so integrated with the text, I'm not sure how best to edit the content to conform to [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] without outright removing a lot of information, so I'll tag the article instead and make minor changes that do a better job of maintaining neutrality.

If we're going to observe an exception to [[MOS:DOUBT]] for this situation (something I don't see as unreasonable, as the actual determinations by the UN, ICC etc. have not occurred yet), shouldn't we also observe [[WP:NPOV]] when doing so? [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] I just addressed many of these concerns. There were huge issues with the writing, in addition to the ones you listed. Many of the assertions made in the "By militant groups" section were not supported by the sources. I included qualifying language, attributed statements to organizations and individuals, and removed material unsupported by sources. Hope this addresses the most significant concerns. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] there are really serious issues with the writing that you reverted. A lot of what I removed is NOT supported by the sources. They're serious misreadings of the sources. I think more could definitely be added with legitimate sources, but the writing there has really fundamental issues, which I don't see anybody else addressing. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree wholeheartedly, BilledMammal continues to edit under the belief that Hamas crimes must be presented with greater prominence and additionally given more space in the article. Whereas sources that cover war crimes in the conflict do exactly the opposite. He also did not deign to address '''any''' of the issues with SYNTH or V or NPOV in the revert. Ive reverted. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Nableezy, please stop these repeated personal attacks. They've both inappropriate and inaccurate - I've been very clear that I believe they should be given equal prominence, and I've presented copious evidence for this at various points.
::::Further, you've now removed sourced content, as I detail below. Please restore it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Some have merely lost their sources in various restructurings; you shouldn't be removing the content, you should be restoring the sources; for example, {{tq|The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory said that "Reports that armed groups from Gaza have gunned down hundreds of unarmed civilians are abhorrent and cannot be tolerated" and that "Taking civilian hostages and using civilians as human shields are war crimes"}}, which you removed, is sourced to [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/commission-inquiry-collecting-evidence-war-crimes-committed-all-sides-israel this article].
:::Elsewhere, you removed content that was supported by extant sources. For example, you removed {{tq|armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare"}}; this is supported by the following sources: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/israel-palestinian-armed-groups-must-be-held-accountable-for-deliberate-civilian-killings-abductions-and-indiscriminate-attacks/ Amnesty International], [https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-attack-10-08-23/h_03a000be2373619e0c7a1dcfb7732016 CNN], and [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/kidnappings-israel-hamas-photographs/675593/ the Atlantic]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The war crime is taking hostages and targeting and killing civilians. We include that part. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As simple and dry facts, without detail. If we pursued that policy throughout that article it would be appropriate to do there, but we don't - we go into considerable detail regarding the allegations against Israel.
:::::Why do you believe these details are inappropriate to include? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::The allegations regarding Israel dont include things like "the baby was incinerated by the bomb that leveled the apartment block and killed 43 members of her family". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::And neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes.
:::::::Further, we now introduce Hamas' arguments for why it isn't a war crime, such as {{tq|On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}} We don't do that for any of the allegations against Israel, despite the arguments against those being war crimes being far stronger and having received far more coverage. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::They have not received far more coverage, cribbing from a comment elsewhere: Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/ Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza]; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. As far as "neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes", um you quoted it: ''armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare''. Now as unseemly as that might be, the war crime was the targeting and killing the civilian and taking hostages. And we include that. What you want to include are the details that you decline to include for the crimes committed by Israel. Theres a whole list of them at [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza AI] if you want to go through them and add details on this family or that family wiped out in an attack on a civilian target with no evidence of military targets nearby. I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|They have not received far more coverage}} Please, read my comment fully before replying. I'm not saying the crimes as a whole have received far more coverage; I'm saying that arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes have received far more coverage than arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes. However, we only include the arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes and do not include the arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes.
:::::::::{{tq|I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way.}}
:::::::::Read the full sentence; {{tq|On 12 October, Jens David Ohlin argued Hamas's attacks potentially violated Articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute.[17] Ohlin asserted the attacks might violate Article 6, if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."[17] On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}}
:::::::::The quote from Hamas is very clearly an attempted rebuttal in this context; however, regardless of how you see it, we don't include similar Israeli justifications, despite those justifications having received far more coverage, and being given far more credence, in reliable sources. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, it is an argument against the intent ascribed to it. It certainly is not calling it not a war crime, it is saying Hamas does not view the motivation the way that Ohlin does. Im happy to add sources rebutting the accusations against Israel where they are reliably sourced and relevant. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Given that intent is part of that war crime {{tq|if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."}}, an argument against the intent is a rebuttal. Further, what is the evidence that this is [[WP:DUE]]? The only source we have is a primary source transcribing a speech by Haniyeh. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We should be including details, but we don't need to include colorful depictions of all the terrible things that happen, especially ones whose accuracy are actively in dispute, as is the case with Shani Louk.
::::::The biggest issue, in my mind, is not whether details are present, but that we are saying things like "Hamas did this and that, which is a war crime," at the same time we say "Israel miiiiiiight have done maybe something that looks kind of like this, and those nasty Palestinians said it was a war crime, but nobody really knows for sure, and Israel said they weren't war crimes too." This was the state of the article when I tagged it.
::::::Wikipedia should not be making assertions like this while things are so difficult to pick apart, when the international organizations tasked with making these determinations barely starting their processes, with new information arriving every day, and with the people of Gaza unable to even make their own case because of the communications blackout.
::::::Outside of that, we should include information proportional to their coverage in RS, as @[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] describes. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail in the Palestinian militant group section, but like I said, we should be providing simple, factual descriptions instead of parroting witness statements and random allegations and presenting them as truth. [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The difference in presentation is that it is undisputed that Hamas committed war crimes; there are no reliable sources arguing that it is not a war crime to go into a civilian settlement and deliberately massacre civilians. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have yet to see a source claim that cutting off food water and electricity to a captive population is not a war crime. Even Israel’s allies have said it not consistent with international law. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::[https://lieber.westpoint.edu/complete-siege-gaza-in-accordance-international-humanitarian-law/ Lieber Institute] and [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-war-crimes-laws-apply-israel-palestinian-conflict-2023-10-11/ Reuters] were some of the first results; given that I suspect there are many more who are not saying it is a war crime. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't see how the Reuters source supports what you say. And the Lieber source says "Because not all lines of questioning can be addressed with this post, I will limit my analysis to the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare" and says "Article 54, paragraph 1 of AP I and Article 14 of AP II prohibit using civilian starvation as a method of “warfare” or “combat” respectively." So maybe you were reading something else? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Reuters says {{tq|A siege can be considered a war crime if it targets civilians, rather than a legitimate means to undermine Hamas' military capabilities, or if found to be disproportionate.}} It's not saying it is a war crime, it's saying it is possible is one if it is found to be disproportionate or to target civilians.
:::::::::::Lieber goes further, and says {{tq|In conclusion, sieges themselves are not per se prohibited by IHL. Some military advantages are to be gained by the temporary implementation of a complete siege as ordered here. It is also clear that Hamas’s attacks within Israel’s territory and its population need not go unanswered. However, siege must be a temporary measure, dependent upon how the complete siege of the Gaza Strip is, in fact, carried out. When looking at its own interpretation of the prohibition to starve civilians, it seems likely that Israel could itself only consider the “complete siege” lawful for such time until conditions require access to humanitarian aid or the immediate evacuation of the civilian population.}} It's saying that it's not a war crime, although it may become one if Israel doesn't end the siege in a timely manner. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::The first also assumes that Gaza is not occupied, which is a minority position. The first does not in fact say it does not violate international law, it says it per se does not as a rule. It also said that Israel, even if not a state party, apparently believes the prohibition on the starvation of civilians is indeed customary international law and as such bound by it. And it is also by a PhD student. Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all. But Lieber is '''not''' saying it is not a war crime, it is saying a siege by itself may not be a war crime. It does not say that this one is not. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all.}} Reuters discusses the siege in the context of IHL, and declines to call it a war crime instead presenting a more nuanced position.
:::::::::::I think our interpretations of Lieber differ; my interpretation is that it is saying it was legal at the time of writing, and would continue to be so conditional on Israel relieving it at an appropriate time. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reuters does not say it is not. And a PhD student with no relevant publications in a non scholarly outlet is nowhere close to an established expert in the field, like [https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/ Tom Dannenbaum]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]: You appear to take up issue with {{tq|"simple and dry facts"}}. I find this a bizarre complaint to make on this platform. Another word for this is just "encyclopedic tone". [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I think it's slightly misleading to leave off the last half of that sentence; {{tq|without detail}}. I take issue because we don't do it in both parts; if we treated the allegations against Israel in the same manner I would have no issue, but doing so only for one is an NPOV violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I can try to add some more to balance things out or whatever that Wiki rule is, I am not sure I am good at Wiki voice. Here’s a list of war crimes: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Balasp cannot be used to create a false balance, it just means a balanced reporting of the sources. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Selfstudier, that makes sense. I did notice some war crimes in the Geneva list that were not explicitly listed in their own categories under the Palestinian militant groups like torture and sexual assault/ rape, but I do see rape listed under the “Massacres” section. Also, do you think you maybe want to protect the [[Criticism of Amnesty International]] page? There’s been some recent edits there that may be related to contentious topics, and I saw your username in the edit history. [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Completely Agree. this is one of the most blatant pro-zionist biases observed on wikipedia in general, not just this article. [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::Like [[Russian war crimes]] VS [[Allegations of war crimes against Israel]]. Like Lol seriously ? Try reading the first few lines of the leads in both articles, This is hilarious [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion by an author of war crimes statutes: [https://puck.news/the-israel-war-crime-complexifier/ David Scheffer interview] – [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj| +]] 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

== Are the lead pictures really necessary? ==

Not ''every '' article needs to have featured pictures as soon as the page is opened, especially when it comes to downright discomforting ones. [[User:NocheLluviosa|NocheLluviosa]] ([[User talk:NocheLluviosa|talk]]) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think in general images add a lot to an article, but I'd 100% agree about finding an image that is less discomforting to somebody just opening the page. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:The picture we currently have in the lede of the massacres is comparatively tame; to tame it down further would be whitewashing and a [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Per [[WP:SHOCK]] you are right; the more shocking image ''is'' valuable but shouldn't be the first thing you see when you open the article. Swapped the image with a less gory one from further down the page. [[User:Bnuuy|bnuuy]] ‖ [[User talk:Bnuuy|🐇💬]] ‖ 20:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

== GENEVA – The Director of the NY Office of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in protest over the organizations inability to stop the genocide in Gaza. ==

"The European colonial project has entered a final stage to destroy the remnants of indigenous Palestinian life"

"Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it,"

“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt or debate… Across the land, Apartheid rules.
The situation in Gaza “is a text-book case of genocide,” he continued, with the aim of the “expedited destruction of the last remannts of indigeous Palestinian life in Palestine”

He said.

someone add that, '''and especially''' the first quote.

Sources reported:
[https://x.com/aja_egypt/status/1719390105058648354 Aljazeera], [https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/latest-news/731924/الجزيرة-استقالة-مدير-مكتب-المفوضية-السامية-لحقوق-ا/ar LBCI Lebanon], [https://www.elbalad.news/5981915 Sada El-Balad], [https://www.jordannews.jo/Section-20/Middle-East/Director-of-NY-Office-of-UN-High-Commissioner-of-Human-Rights-resigns-31935 Jordan News], [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-live-gaza-hamas-war-invasion Middle East Eye],[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/31/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-latest-news-today-hamas-clashes-idf-gaza-aid-plan-failure?page=with:block-65412f4e8f08d9386c6936fc The Gaurdian] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

== Rocket range ==

Please update to reflect that the rockets have not only reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but have reached all the way north and south as well. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9|2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9]] ([[User talk:2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9|talk]]) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:Source? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

== Sentence in Medical Facilities ==

We have a sentence that reads, "Hamas has been documented to use hospitals and other medical facilities such as ambulances." What's the source for this? Every source I've read notes these are IDF allegations, not internationally verified reports, documents, or investigations. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

:We're also saying, "the IDF released videos showing Hamas fighters firing from the Sheikh Hamad Hospital." But it seems in dispute that these videos do actually show that. Can we really say in Wikivoice that's what the videos show? [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2023 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Red-link at the "Further information" section of the "Massacres" section of the article. The article "Hamas beheading incidents" appears to have been deleted. This link should be removed from the further info section. [[User:Frojas798|Frojas798]] ([[User talk:Frojas798|talk]]) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done''' Another editor has removed the link. [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

== Targeting of journalists ==

Currently, we say {{tq|Reporters Without Borders conducted a preliminary investigation into the killing of Issam Abdallah, a Reuters photojournalist killed in Lebanon, and found that the strike on a clearly marked vehicle marked "Press" was purposely targeted and that the fire had come from Israel}}. However, this doesn't align with the source, which outside headlines (which, per [[WP:HEADLINES]], are not considered reliable) only says is that there was {{tq|precise targeting}} and that {{tq|It is unlikely that the journalists were mistaken for combatants}}.

[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]], I see you added this; can you align it with the source? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:I’m mostly on mobile rn and it’s kinda hard to edit like that but if I made a mistake by all means correct it, I won’t call it a revert. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

== Title of the article ==

Why would we not use "Alleged war crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" for this article's title? According to [[WP:NDESC]], articles that deal with the topic of "actual accusation[s] of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law" are best titled using the word "allegations" or similar.

As I understand it, the International Criminal Court is the only body with the authority to rule on war crimes; if any other person or governmental organization decisively terms something a "war crime", that doesn't make it so. Could anyone shed some light on how a definitive ruling of what IS a war crime is made? Because unless we have such definitive rulings for this conflict, the article should probably be renamed. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war

2023-11-18T14:57:42Z

91.210.248.223: /* Child soldiers */

{{talk page}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversial}}
{{notforum}}
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{wikiproject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Human rights}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=mid |law=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y
|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=High}}
}}

== Child soldiers ==

@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] I will look for some more serious investigations into child soldiers now. I shouldn't have instantly just reverted your edits, so I apologize. I just clicked on the sources provided, and they were not reliable. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding news.com.au, while it isn't on the same level as the New York Times or the BBC it is a reliable source. However, I have to apologize; the Mirror is listed at RSP contrary to my statement - I saw the Daily Mirror listed at [[WP:RSP]] (listed as "no consensus"), but didn't realize they were the same source. I've now {{diff2|1181291733|added a note at that RSP entry}}.
:There has been a lot of coverage of this before the war; I suspect there will have been some more since it started. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::I really did look and couldn't find anything for 2023. A bunch of stuff from 2021, and a ton from 2004.. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
They are reporting that an Israeli organization is making a claim. Thats as far as the article can go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram [[WP:RUMOUR]] at present, as well as an [[WP:ECREE|exceptional claim]], so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple [[WP:RS]] supporting the material. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::And to be clear, that would be multiple [[WP:RS]] related to ''this'' conflict, i.e. [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]], not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:International law strictly prohibits the recruitment or use of '''children under the age of 15''' as soldiers or allowing them to participate in hostilities (Article 8 (2) (b) (xxvi) of the [[Rome Statute]] of the ICC). This norm has a [[Customary international humanitarian law|customary character]]

== Lede image ==

I know [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], but I think the the Be'eri massacre image might go against [[MOS:SHOCK]], which says, "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:The images that accurately represent the topic of the war crimes against Israel are going to be horrific; these were the brutal massacres and kidnappings of civilians, and the only way we can accurately represent the topic is by showing that, at least in part - we are not using the more horrific images in the lede, such as the mutilated and burnt bodies of civilians including babies. Images like [[:File:Iron Swords 141023 Kirya Bring The Home 02.jpg|this one]] are sanitized, and don't properly reflect the topic in the way that images like the two currently in the lede do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, the images here are going to be horrific. But I do think we can find an image that doesn't sanitize, while also not repulsing people away as soon as they open the page. Most of the page as it stands now are legal arguments and statements from human rights organizations. I think the most appropriate image would be one that reflects the topic, matches the page's tone, and importantly doesn't shock most readers. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

== More Israeli war crimes. ==

Israel has (a) Faked Hamas plans, conversations etc. and (b) allowed soldiers and settlers to blind, burn, beat, photograph, strip urinate on, and attempt to sodomize 3 Palestinian civilians, despite them saying "we only attack terrorists/Hamas".
The war crimes are: (a) an attack on dignity, (b) a clear attack on non-combatants, (c) blinding people, and (d) sexually assaulting citizens. Should these be added to the page? I'm not sure I should do that, so I'm instead putting this here if you want to. P.S Israel has also released a bunch of disinformation and misinformation, although I don't think those two are war crmes [[Special:Contributions/2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18]] ([[User talk:2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|talk]]) 10:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:We would need reliable sources saying those things to include them. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] • [[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]] 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Indiscriminate attacks]] ==

I believe we should remove the last four paragraphs from this section; this information is covered in the sub-articles, and it would be consistent with [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide]], where we don't add paragraphs for every one of the massacres and instead cover them in the general.

The alternative is to add such paragraphs, but I believe it would be excessive detail to do so. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Disagree. There's nothing wrong with it as it is, noting the most notable and high-profile incidents. Those two sections are off roughly similar length. Also, most of the sub-pages for both of these sections are basically joke-level in terms of quality, so we definitely shouldn't be looking to default back to the disastrous sub-pages. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think this is right. The longest paragraph of the four here is on al-Shati, but the majority of the text there is actually explaining Rome Statute policies on violations against attacks on protected categories (i.e. places of worship). For the most part, these paragraphs are just brief mentions of the most notable incidents, which we're also doing with the Re'im music festival, Be'eri, and Kfar Aza. There have been so many airstrikes in Gaza with graphic narratives and details coming out, I could absolutely write volumes about them here. Mentioning just a few of the most notable though seems appropriate. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== USB drive ==

The cited source does not discuss war crimes and the section should be removed. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|BilledMammal}}, I self-reverted as requested, maybe now you can look to see why material that does not mention a war crime should not be included in an article on war crimes? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::And I removed again, not only as synth, but as gov-sourced synth. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Palestine is a signatory to the [[Chemical Weapons Convention]]; any production would be a crime. I won't argue strongly for its inclusion until we see use, however. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel and allegations of genocide ==

* [https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza]
* [https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide A Textbook Case of Genocide - Raz Segal ( Holocaust and genocide studies professor at Stockholm University)]
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal - Chris McGreal (was a reporter during the Rwandan genocide)]
* [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity Gaza: UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide]
* [https://www.arabnews.com/node/2396301 Israel's Gaza war rooted in dehumanizing, genocidal language]
* [https://theintercept.com/2023/10/19/israel-gaza-biden-genocide-war-crimes/ Going all-in for Israel may make Biden complicit in genocide]

This needs to be explicitly addressed. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 06:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]]: The crime of genocide is often characterized slightly separate to other war crimes in international law, for example in the [[Rome Statute]], which places it in its own category, though the [[Genocide Convention]] obviously came first. Nevertheless, the most pertinent place for this type of material may be at [[Genocide against Palestinians]]. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] That's true, yes. But considering this still directly pertains to the 2023 war, and that genocide is still a war crime, I think something that directly addresses these allegations should be somewhere on this article, too. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== NPOV concerns ==

In my opinion, there are serious NPOV issues with this article - every segment of "By Palestinian militant groups" states the actions taken confidently in wikivoice, at times even without attribution. See "Such rocket attacks [...] constitute a war crime," "[Hamas] kidnapped approximately 200 people," "[Hamas] targeted civilians [and] carried out massacres," all stated confidently without attribution in wikivoice, as though Wikipedia is making the determination. Contrast this with the segment "By the Israeli government" every single action is "alleged," "described as," "[[WP:MRDA|denied]]," "characterized as," videos "appeared to show," etc.

These NPOV violations are so serious and so integrated with the text, I'm not sure how best to edit the content to conform to [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] without outright removing a lot of information, so I'll tag the article instead and make minor changes that do a better job of maintaining neutrality.

If we're going to observe an exception to [[MOS:DOUBT]] for this situation (something I don't see as unreasonable, as the actual determinations by the UN, ICC etc. have not occurred yet), shouldn't we also observe [[WP:NPOV]] when doing so? [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] I just addressed many of these concerns. There were huge issues with the writing, in addition to the ones you listed. Many of the assertions made in the "By militant groups" section were not supported by the sources. I included qualifying language, attributed statements to organizations and individuals, and removed material unsupported by sources. Hope this addresses the most significant concerns. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] there are really serious issues with the writing that you reverted. A lot of what I removed is NOT supported by the sources. They're serious misreadings of the sources. I think more could definitely be added with legitimate sources, but the writing there has really fundamental issues, which I don't see anybody else addressing. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree wholeheartedly, BilledMammal continues to edit under the belief that Hamas crimes must be presented with greater prominence and additionally given more space in the article. Whereas sources that cover war crimes in the conflict do exactly the opposite. He also did not deign to address '''any''' of the issues with SYNTH or V or NPOV in the revert. Ive reverted. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Nableezy, please stop these repeated personal attacks. They've both inappropriate and inaccurate - I've been very clear that I believe they should be given equal prominence, and I've presented copious evidence for this at various points.
::::Further, you've now removed sourced content, as I detail below. Please restore it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Some have merely lost their sources in various restructurings; you shouldn't be removing the content, you should be restoring the sources; for example, {{tq|The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory said that "Reports that armed groups from Gaza have gunned down hundreds of unarmed civilians are abhorrent and cannot be tolerated" and that "Taking civilian hostages and using civilians as human shields are war crimes"}}, which you removed, is sourced to [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/commission-inquiry-collecting-evidence-war-crimes-committed-all-sides-israel this article].
:::Elsewhere, you removed content that was supported by extant sources. For example, you removed {{tq|armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare"}}; this is supported by the following sources: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/israel-palestinian-armed-groups-must-be-held-accountable-for-deliberate-civilian-killings-abductions-and-indiscriminate-attacks/ Amnesty International], [https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-attack-10-08-23/h_03a000be2373619e0c7a1dcfb7732016 CNN], and [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/kidnappings-israel-hamas-photographs/675593/ the Atlantic]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The war crime is taking hostages and targeting and killing civilians. We include that part. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As simple and dry facts, without detail. If we pursued that policy throughout that article it would be appropriate to do there, but we don't - we go into considerable detail regarding the allegations against Israel.
:::::Why do you believe these details are inappropriate to include? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::The allegations regarding Israel dont include things like "the baby was incinerated by the bomb that leveled the apartment block and killed 43 members of her family". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::And neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes.
:::::::Further, we now introduce Hamas' arguments for why it isn't a war crime, such as {{tq|On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}} We don't do that for any of the allegations against Israel, despite the arguments against those being war crimes being far stronger and having received far more coverage. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::They have not received far more coverage, cribbing from a comment elsewhere: Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/ Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza]; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. As far as "neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes", um you quoted it: ''armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare''. Now as unseemly as that might be, the war crime was the targeting and killing the civilian and taking hostages. And we include that. What you want to include are the details that you decline to include for the crimes committed by Israel. Theres a whole list of them at [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza AI] if you want to go through them and add details on this family or that family wiped out in an attack on a civilian target with no evidence of military targets nearby. I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|They have not received far more coverage}} Please, read my comment fully before replying. I'm not saying the crimes as a whole have received far more coverage; I'm saying that arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes have received far more coverage than arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes. However, we only include the arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes and do not include the arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes.
:::::::::{{tq|I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way.}}
:::::::::Read the full sentence; {{tq|On 12 October, Jens David Ohlin argued Hamas's attacks potentially violated Articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute.[17] Ohlin asserted the attacks might violate Article 6, if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."[17] On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}}
:::::::::The quote from Hamas is very clearly an attempted rebuttal in this context; however, regardless of how you see it, we don't include similar Israeli justifications, despite those justifications having received far more coverage, and being given far more credence, in reliable sources. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, it is an argument against the intent ascribed to it. It certainly is not calling it not a war crime, it is saying Hamas does not view the motivation the way that Ohlin does. Im happy to add sources rebutting the accusations against Israel where they are reliably sourced and relevant. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Given that intent is part of that war crime {{tq|if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."}}, an argument against the intent is a rebuttal. Further, what is the evidence that this is [[WP:DUE]]? The only source we have is a primary source transcribing a speech by Haniyeh. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We should be including details, but we don't need to include colorful depictions of all the terrible things that happen, especially ones whose accuracy are actively in dispute, as is the case with Shani Louk.
::::::The biggest issue, in my mind, is not whether details are present, but that we are saying things like "Hamas did this and that, which is a war crime," at the same time we say "Israel miiiiiiight have done maybe something that looks kind of like this, and those nasty Palestinians said it was a war crime, but nobody really knows for sure, and Israel said they weren't war crimes too." This was the state of the article when I tagged it.
::::::Wikipedia should not be making assertions like this while things are so difficult to pick apart, when the international organizations tasked with making these determinations barely starting their processes, with new information arriving every day, and with the people of Gaza unable to even make their own case because of the communications blackout.
::::::Outside of that, we should include information proportional to their coverage in RS, as @[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] describes. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail in the Palestinian militant group section, but like I said, we should be providing simple, factual descriptions instead of parroting witness statements and random allegations and presenting them as truth. [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The difference in presentation is that it is undisputed that Hamas committed war crimes; there are no reliable sources arguing that it is not a war crime to go into a civilian settlement and deliberately massacre civilians. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have yet to see a source claim that cutting off food water and electricity to a captive population is not a war crime. Even Israel’s allies have said it not consistent with international law. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::[https://lieber.westpoint.edu/complete-siege-gaza-in-accordance-international-humanitarian-law/ Lieber Institute] and [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-war-crimes-laws-apply-israel-palestinian-conflict-2023-10-11/ Reuters] were some of the first results; given that I suspect there are many more who are not saying it is a war crime. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't see how the Reuters source supports what you say. And the Lieber source says "Because not all lines of questioning can be addressed with this post, I will limit my analysis to the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare" and says "Article 54, paragraph 1 of AP I and Article 14 of AP II prohibit using civilian starvation as a method of “warfare” or “combat” respectively." So maybe you were reading something else? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Reuters says {{tq|A siege can be considered a war crime if it targets civilians, rather than a legitimate means to undermine Hamas' military capabilities, or if found to be disproportionate.}} It's not saying it is a war crime, it's saying it is possible is one if it is found to be disproportionate or to target civilians.
:::::::::::Lieber goes further, and says {{tq|In conclusion, sieges themselves are not per se prohibited by IHL. Some military advantages are to be gained by the temporary implementation of a complete siege as ordered here. It is also clear that Hamas’s attacks within Israel’s territory and its population need not go unanswered. However, siege must be a temporary measure, dependent upon how the complete siege of the Gaza Strip is, in fact, carried out. When looking at its own interpretation of the prohibition to starve civilians, it seems likely that Israel could itself only consider the “complete siege” lawful for such time until conditions require access to humanitarian aid or the immediate evacuation of the civilian population.}} It's saying that it's not a war crime, although it may become one if Israel doesn't end the siege in a timely manner. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::The first also assumes that Gaza is not occupied, which is a minority position. The first does not in fact say it does not violate international law, it says it per se does not as a rule. It also said that Israel, even if not a state party, apparently believes the prohibition on the starvation of civilians is indeed customary international law and as such bound by it. And it is also by a PhD student. Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all. But Lieber is '''not''' saying it is not a war crime, it is saying a siege by itself may not be a war crime. It does not say that this one is not. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all.}} Reuters discusses the siege in the context of IHL, and declines to call it a war crime instead presenting a more nuanced position.
:::::::::::I think our interpretations of Lieber differ; my interpretation is that it is saying it was legal at the time of writing, and would continue to be so conditional on Israel relieving it at an appropriate time. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reuters does not say it is not. And a PhD student with no relevant publications in a non scholarly outlet is nowhere close to an established expert in the field, like [https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/ Tom Dannenbaum]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]: You appear to take up issue with {{tq|"simple and dry facts"}}. I find this a bizarre complaint to make on this platform. Another word for this is just "encyclopedic tone". [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I think it's slightly misleading to leave off the last half of that sentence; {{tq|without detail}}. I take issue because we don't do it in both parts; if we treated the allegations against Israel in the same manner I would have no issue, but doing so only for one is an NPOV violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I can try to add some more to balance things out or whatever that Wiki rule is, I am not sure I am good at Wiki voice. Here’s a list of war crimes: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Balasp cannot be used to create a false balance, it just means a balanced reporting of the sources. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Selfstudier, that makes sense. I did notice some war crimes in the Geneva list that were not explicitly listed in their own categories under the Palestinian militant groups like torture and sexual assault/ rape, but I do see rape listed under the “Massacres” section. Also, do you think you maybe want to protect the [[Criticism of Amnesty International]] page? There’s been some recent edits there that may be related to contentious topics, and I saw your username in the edit history. [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Completely Agree. this is one of the most blatant pro-zionist biases observed on wikipedia in general, not just this article. [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::Like [[Russian war crimes]] VS [[Allegations of war crimes against Israel]]. Like Lol seriously ? Try reading the first few lines of the leads in both articles, This is hilarious [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion by an author of war crimes statutes: [https://puck.news/the-israel-war-crime-complexifier/ David Scheffer interview] – [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj| +]] 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

== Are the lead pictures really necessary? ==

Not ''every '' article needs to have featured pictures as soon as the page is opened, especially when it comes to downright discomforting ones. [[User:NocheLluviosa|NocheLluviosa]] ([[User talk:NocheLluviosa|talk]]) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think in general images add a lot to an article, but I'd 100% agree about finding an image that is less discomforting to somebody just opening the page. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:The picture we currently have in the lede of the massacres is comparatively tame; to tame it down further would be whitewashing and a [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Per [[WP:SHOCK]] you are right; the more shocking image ''is'' valuable but shouldn't be the first thing you see when you open the article. Swapped the image with a less gory one from further down the page. [[User:Bnuuy|bnuuy]] ‖ [[User talk:Bnuuy|🐇💬]] ‖ 20:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

== GENEVA – The Director of the NY Office of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in protest over the organizations inability to stop the genocide in Gaza. ==

"The European colonial project has entered a final stage to destroy the remnants of indigenous Palestinian life"

"Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it,"

“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt or debate… Across the land, Apartheid rules.
The situation in Gaza “is a text-book case of genocide,” he continued, with the aim of the “expedited destruction of the last remannts of indigeous Palestinian life in Palestine”

He said.

someone add that, '''and especially''' the first quote.

Sources reported:
[https://x.com/aja_egypt/status/1719390105058648354 Aljazeera], [https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/latest-news/731924/الجزيرة-استقالة-مدير-مكتب-المفوضية-السامية-لحقوق-ا/ar LBCI Lebanon], [https://www.elbalad.news/5981915 Sada El-Balad], [https://www.jordannews.jo/Section-20/Middle-East/Director-of-NY-Office-of-UN-High-Commissioner-of-Human-Rights-resigns-31935 Jordan News], [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-live-gaza-hamas-war-invasion Middle East Eye],[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/31/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-latest-news-today-hamas-clashes-idf-gaza-aid-plan-failure?page=with:block-65412f4e8f08d9386c6936fc The Gaurdian] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

== Rocket range ==

Please update to reflect that the rockets have not only reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but have reached all the way north and south as well. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9|2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9]] ([[User talk:2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9|talk]]) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:Source? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

== Sentence in Medical Facilities ==

We have a sentence that reads, "Hamas has been documented to use hospitals and other medical facilities such as ambulances." What's the source for this? Every source I've read notes these are IDF allegations, not internationally verified reports, documents, or investigations. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

:We're also saying, "the IDF released videos showing Hamas fighters firing from the Sheikh Hamad Hospital." But it seems in dispute that these videos do actually show that. Can we really say in Wikivoice that's what the videos show? [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2023 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Red-link at the "Further information" section of the "Massacres" section of the article. The article "Hamas beheading incidents" appears to have been deleted. This link should be removed from the further info section. [[User:Frojas798|Frojas798]] ([[User talk:Frojas798|talk]]) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done''' Another editor has removed the link. [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

== Targeting of journalists ==

Currently, we say {{tq|Reporters Without Borders conducted a preliminary investigation into the killing of Issam Abdallah, a Reuters photojournalist killed in Lebanon, and found that the strike on a clearly marked vehicle marked "Press" was purposely targeted and that the fire had come from Israel}}. However, this doesn't align with the source, which outside headlines (which, per [[WP:HEADLINES]], are not considered reliable) only says is that there was {{tq|precise targeting}} and that {{tq|It is unlikely that the journalists were mistaken for combatants}}.

[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]], I see you added this; can you align it with the source? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:I’m mostly on mobile rn and it’s kinda hard to edit like that but if I made a mistake by all means correct it, I won’t call it a revert. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

== Title of the article ==

Why would we not use "Alleged war crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" for this article's title? According to [[WP:NDESC]], articles that deal with the topic of "actual accusation[s] of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law" are best titled using the word "allegations" or similar.

As I understand it, the International Criminal Court is the only body with the authority to rule on war crimes; if any other person or governmental organization decisively terms something a "war crime", that doesn't make it so. Could anyone shed some light on how a definitive ruling of what IS a war crime is made? Because unless we have such definitive rulings for this conflict, the article should probably be renamed. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:91.210.248.223

2023-11-04T01:36:09Z

91.210.248.223: /* November 2023 */

== September 2023 ==

[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Hello, I'm [[User:Skipple|Skipple]]. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, [[:Lynndie England]], but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|how we write about living people]], so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Skipple|my talk page]]. Thank you. [[User:Skipple|''' - Skipple''']] [[User talk:Skipple|☎]] 18:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
{{Block indent|''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself or [[Special:UserLogin|logging in with an existing account]] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''}}

== October 2023 ==
<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">Anonymous users from this IP address have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)</div></div>
: ''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by [[Special:Userlogin|logging in]]''.
::@[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] What was that? I got blocked for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1182218645&oldid=1182218288 expressing doubts and asking about evidence].--[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} see [[User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Greetings|here]] [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
::: The further the more [[User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Greetings|interesting]]. It turns out that @[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] also did not like my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1182209323 previous request] to rename the article '''[[2023 Israel–Hamas war]]''' to '''Collective punishment of the Palestinians for the act of IQB'''. I quote:
{{quote box|I suggest changing the title of the article to '''[[Collective punishment]] of [[Palestinians]] by [[Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades|IQB]]'''. During the first week of the war, it became clear that Israel was fighting not the Hamas militants who carried out the attacks, but Palestinian civilians. And now only the lazy did not say that the Israeli response was disproportionate to the damage received and went far beyond self-defense.}}
::: I very much doubt that such a person does not know what is happening in the Gaza Strip ([[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]), most likely, he deliberately chose a unipolar position and blocks the critical opinions of others.--[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 15:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

== November 2023 ==
<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">Anonymous users from this IP address have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)</div></div>
: ''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by [[Special:Userlogin|logging in]]''.
::@[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] seems to be an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWar_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1183390334&oldid=1183388196 anti-Palestinian racist]. '''If the attack is disproportionate, then the attacking party is always responsible for the death of human shields. International humanitarian law'''

User talk:91.210.248.223

2023-11-04T01:29:12Z

91.210.248.223:

Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war

2023-11-04T00:15:38Z

91.210.248.223: /* Double standards */ new section

{{talk page}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversial}}
{{notforum}}
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{wikiproject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Human rights}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=mid |law=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y
|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=High}}
}}

== Child soldiers ==

@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] I will look for some more serious investigations into child soldiers now. I shouldn't have instantly just reverted your edits, so I apologize. I just clicked on the sources provided, and they were not reliable. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding news.com.au, while it isn't on the same level as the New York Times or the BBC it is a reliable source. However, I have to apologize; the Mirror is listed at RSP contrary to my statement - I saw the Daily Mirror listed at [[WP:RSP]] (listed as "no consensus"), but didn't realize they were the same source. I've now {{diff2|1181291733|added a note at that RSP entry}}.
:There has been a lot of coverage of this before the war; I suspect there will have been some more since it started. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::I really did look and couldn't find anything for 2023. A bunch of stuff from 2021, and a ton from 2004.. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
They are reporting that an Israeli organization is making a claim. Thats as far as the article can go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram [[WP:RUMOUR]] at present, as well as an [[WP:ECREE|exceptional claim]], so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple [[WP:RS]] supporting the material. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::And to be clear, that would be multiple [[WP:RS]] related to ''this'' conflict, i.e. [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]], not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

== Lede image ==

I know [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], but I think the the Be'eri massacre image might go against [[MOS:SHOCK]], which says, "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:The images that accurately represent the topic of the war crimes against Israel are going to be horrific; these were the brutal massacres and kidnappings of civilians, and the only way we can accurately represent the topic is by showing that, at least in part - we are not using the more horrific images in the lede, such as the mutilated and burnt bodies of civilians including babies. Images like [[:File:Iron Swords 141023 Kirya Bring The Home 02.jpg|this one]] are sanitized, and don't properly reflect the topic in the way that images like the two currently in the lede do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, the images here are going to be horrific. But I do think we can find an image that doesn't sanitize, while also not repulsing people away as soon as they open the page. Most of the page as it stands now are legal arguments and statements from human rights organizations. I think the most appropriate image would be one that reflects the topic, matches the page's tone, and importantly doesn't shock most readers. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

== More Israeli war crimes. ==

Israel has (a) Faked Hamas plans, conversations etc. and (b) allowed soldiers and settlers to blind, burn, beat, photograph, strip urinate on, and attempt to sodomize 3 Palestinian civilians, despite them saying "we only attack terrorists/Hamas".
The war crimes are: (a) an attack on dignity, (b) a clear attack on non-combatants, (c) blinding people, and (d) sexually assaulting citizens. Should these be added to the page? I'm not sure I should do that, so I'm instead putting this here if you want to. P.S Israel has also released a bunch of disinformation and misinformation, although I don't think those two are war crmes [[Special:Contributions/2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18]] ([[User talk:2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18|talk]]) 10:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:We would need reliable sources saying those things to include them. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] • [[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]] 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Indiscriminate attacks]] ==

I believe we should remove the last four paragraphs from this section; this information is covered in the sub-articles, and it would be consistent with [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide]], where we don't add paragraphs for every one of the massacres and instead cover them in the general.

The alternative is to add such paragraphs, but I believe it would be excessive detail to do so. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Disagree. There's nothing wrong with it as it is, noting the most notable and high-profile incidents. Those two sections are off roughly similar length. Also, most of the sub-pages for both of these sections are basically joke-level in terms of quality, so we definitely shouldn't be looking to default back to the disastrous sub-pages. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think this is right. The longest paragraph of the four here is on al-Shati, but the majority of the text there is actually explaining Rome Statute policies on violations against attacks on protected categories (i.e. places of worship). For the most part, these paragraphs are just brief mentions of the most notable incidents, which we're also doing with the Re'im music festival, Be'eri, and Kfar Aza. There have been so many airstrikes in Gaza with graphic narratives and details coming out, I could absolutely write volumes about them here. Mentioning just a few of the most notable though seems appropriate. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== USB drive ==

The cited source does not discuss war crimes and the section should be removed. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|BilledMammal}}, I self-reverted as requested, maybe now you can look to see why material that does not mention a war crime should not be included in an article on war crimes? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::And I removed again, not only as synth, but as gov-sourced synth. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Palestine is a signatory to the [[Chemical Weapons Convention]]; any production would be a crime. I won't argue strongly for its inclusion until we see use, however. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel and allegations of genocide ==

* [https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza]
* [https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide A Textbook Case of Genocide - Raz Segal ( Holocaust and genocide studies professor at Stockholm University)]
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal - Chris McGreal (was a reporter during the Rwandan genocide)]
* [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity Gaza: UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide]
* [https://www.arabnews.com/node/2396301 Israel's Gaza war rooted in dehumanizing, genocidal language]
* [https://theintercept.com/2023/10/19/israel-gaza-biden-genocide-war-crimes/ Going all-in for Israel may make Biden complicit in genocide]

This needs to be explicitly addressed. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 06:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]]: The crime of genocide is often characterized slightly separate to other war crimes in international law, for example in the [[Rome Statute]], which places it in its own category, though the [[Genocide Convention]] obviously came first. Nevertheless, the most pertinent place for this type of material may be at [[Genocide against Palestinians]]. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] That's true, yes. But considering this still directly pertains to the 2023 war, and that genocide is still a war crime, I think something that directly addresses these allegations should be somewhere on this article, too. [[User:XTheBedrockX|XTheBedrockX]] ([[User talk:XTheBedrockX|talk]]) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== NPOV concerns ==

In my opinion, there are serious NPOV issues with this article - every segment of "By Palestinian militant groups" states the actions taken confidently in wikivoice, at times even without attribution. See "Such rocket attacks [...] constitute a war crime," "[Hamas] kidnapped approximately 200 people," "[Hamas] targeted civilians [and] carried out massacres," all stated confidently without attribution in wikivoice, as though Wikipedia is making the determination. Contrast this with the segment "By the Israeli government" every single action is "alleged," "described as," "[[WP:MRDA|denied]]," "characterized as," videos "appeared to show," etc.

These NPOV violations are so serious and so integrated with the text, I'm not sure how best to edit the content to conform to [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] without outright removing a lot of information, so I'll tag the article instead and make minor changes that do a better job of maintaining neutrality.

If we're going to observe an exception to [[MOS:DOUBT]] for this situation (something I don't see as unreasonable, as the actual determinations by the UN, ICC etc. have not occurred yet), shouldn't we also observe [[WP:NPOV]] when doing so? [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] I just addressed many of these concerns. There were huge issues with the writing, in addition to the ones you listed. Many of the assertions made in the "By militant groups" section were not supported by the sources. I included qualifying language, attributed statements to organizations and individuals, and removed material unsupported by sources. Hope this addresses the most significant concerns. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] there are really serious issues with the writing that you reverted. A lot of what I removed is NOT supported by the sources. They're serious misreadings of the sources. I think more could definitely be added with legitimate sources, but the writing there has really fundamental issues, which I don't see anybody else addressing. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree wholeheartedly, BilledMammal continues to edit under the belief that Hamas crimes must be presented with greater prominence and additionally given more space in the article. Whereas sources that cover war crimes in the conflict do exactly the opposite. He also did not deign to address '''any''' of the issues with SYNTH or V or NPOV in the revert. Ive reverted. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Nableezy, please stop these repeated personal attacks. They've both inappropriate and inaccurate - I've been very clear that I believe they should be given equal prominence, and I've presented copious evidence for this at various points.
::::Further, you've now removed sourced content, as I detail below. Please restore it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Some have merely lost their sources in various restructurings; you shouldn't be removing the content, you should be restoring the sources; for example, {{tq|The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory said that "Reports that armed groups from Gaza have gunned down hundreds of unarmed civilians are abhorrent and cannot be tolerated" and that "Taking civilian hostages and using civilians as human shields are war crimes"}}, which you removed, is sourced to [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/commission-inquiry-collecting-evidence-war-crimes-committed-all-sides-israel this article].
:::Elsewhere, you removed content that was supported by extant sources. For example, you removed {{tq|armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare"}}; this is supported by the following sources: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/israel-palestinian-armed-groups-must-be-held-accountable-for-deliberate-civilian-killings-abductions-and-indiscriminate-attacks/ Amnesty International], [https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-attack-10-08-23/h_03a000be2373619e0c7a1dcfb7732016 CNN], and [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/kidnappings-israel-hamas-photographs/675593/ the Atlantic]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The war crime is taking hostages and targeting and killing civilians. We include that part. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As simple and dry facts, without detail. If we pursued that policy throughout that article it would be appropriate to do there, but we don't - we go into considerable detail regarding the allegations against Israel.
:::::Why do you believe these details are inappropriate to include? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::The allegations regarding Israel dont include things like "the baby was incinerated by the bomb that leveled the apartment block and killed 43 members of her family". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::And neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes.
:::::::Further, we now introduce Hamas' arguments for why it isn't a war crime, such as {{tq|On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}} We don't do that for any of the allegations against Israel, despite the arguments against those being war crimes being far stronger and having received far more coverage. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::They have not received far more coverage, cribbing from a comment elsewhere: Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/ Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza]; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. As far as "neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes", um you quoted it: ''armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare''. Now as unseemly as that might be, the war crime was the targeting and killing the civilian and taking hostages. And we include that. What you want to include are the details that you decline to include for the crimes committed by Israel. Theres a whole list of them at [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza AI] if you want to go through them and add details on this family or that family wiped out in an attack on a civilian target with no evidence of military targets nearby. I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|They have not received far more coverage}} Please, read my comment fully before replying. I'm not saying the crimes as a whole have received far more coverage; I'm saying that arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes have received far more coverage than arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes. However, we only include the arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes and do not include the arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes.
:::::::::{{tq|I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way.}}
:::::::::Read the full sentence; {{tq|On 12 October, Jens David Ohlin argued Hamas's attacks potentially violated Articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute.[17] Ohlin asserted the attacks might violate Article 6, if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."[17] On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."}}
:::::::::The quote from Hamas is very clearly an attempted rebuttal in this context; however, regardless of how you see it, we don't include similar Israeli justifications, despite those justifications having received far more coverage, and being given far more credence, in reliable sources. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::No, it is an argument against the intent ascribed to it. It certainly is not calling it not a war crime, it is saying Hamas does not view the motivation the way that Ohlin does. Im happy to add sources rebutting the accusations against Israel where they are reliably sourced and relevant. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Given that intent is part of that war crime {{tq|if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."}}, an argument against the intent is a rebuttal. Further, what is the evidence that this is [[WP:DUE]]? The only source we have is a primary source transcribing a speech by Haniyeh. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We should be including details, but we don't need to include colorful depictions of all the terrible things that happen, especially ones whose accuracy are actively in dispute, as is the case with Shani Louk.
::::::The biggest issue, in my mind, is not whether details are present, but that we are saying things like "Hamas did this and that, which is a war crime," at the same time we say "Israel miiiiiiight have done maybe something that looks kind of like this, and those nasty Palestinians said it was a war crime, but nobody really knows for sure, and Israel said they weren't war crimes too." This was the state of the article when I tagged it.
::::::Wikipedia should not be making assertions like this while things are so difficult to pick apart, when the international organizations tasked with making these determinations barely starting their processes, with new information arriving every day, and with the people of Gaza unable to even make their own case because of the communications blackout.
::::::Outside of that, we should include information proportional to their coverage in RS, as @[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] describes. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail in the Palestinian militant group section, but like I said, we should be providing simple, factual descriptions instead of parroting witness statements and random allegations and presenting them as truth. [[User:PriusGod|PriusGod]] ([[User talk:PriusGod|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The difference in presentation is that it is undisputed that Hamas committed war crimes; there are no reliable sources arguing that it is not a war crime to go into a civilian settlement and deliberately massacre civilians. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have yet to see a source claim that cutting off food water and electricity to a captive population is not a war crime. Even Israel’s allies have said it not consistent with international law. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::[https://lieber.westpoint.edu/complete-siege-gaza-in-accordance-international-humanitarian-law/ Lieber Institute] and [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-war-crimes-laws-apply-israel-palestinian-conflict-2023-10-11/ Reuters] were some of the first results; given that I suspect there are many more who are not saying it is a war crime. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't see how the Reuters source supports what you say. And the Lieber source says "Because not all lines of questioning can be addressed with this post, I will limit my analysis to the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare" and says "Article 54, paragraph 1 of AP I and Article 14 of AP II prohibit using civilian starvation as a method of “warfare” or “combat” respectively." So maybe you were reading something else? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Reuters says {{tq|A siege can be considered a war crime if it targets civilians, rather than a legitimate means to undermine Hamas' military capabilities, or if found to be disproportionate.}} It's not saying it is a war crime, it's saying it is possible is one if it is found to be disproportionate or to target civilians.
:::::::::::Lieber goes further, and says {{tq|In conclusion, sieges themselves are not per se prohibited by IHL. Some military advantages are to be gained by the temporary implementation of a complete siege as ordered here. It is also clear that Hamas’s attacks within Israel’s territory and its population need not go unanswered. However, siege must be a temporary measure, dependent upon how the complete siege of the Gaza Strip is, in fact, carried out. When looking at its own interpretation of the prohibition to starve civilians, it seems likely that Israel could itself only consider the “complete siege” lawful for such time until conditions require access to humanitarian aid or the immediate evacuation of the civilian population.}} It's saying that it's not a war crime, although it may become one if Israel doesn't end the siege in a timely manner. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::The first also assumes that Gaza is not occupied, which is a minority position. The first does not in fact say it does not violate international law, it says it per se does not as a rule. It also said that Israel, even if not a state party, apparently believes the prohibition on the starvation of civilians is indeed customary international law and as such bound by it. And it is also by a PhD student. Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all. But Lieber is '''not''' saying it is not a war crime, it is saying a siege by itself may not be a war crime. It does not say that this one is not. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all.}} Reuters discusses the siege in the context of IHL, and declines to call it a war crime instead presenting a more nuanced position.
:::::::::::I think our interpretations of Lieber differ; my interpretation is that it is saying it was legal at the time of writing, and would continue to be so conditional on Israel relieving it at an appropriate time. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reuters does not say it is not. And a PhD student with no relevant publications in a non scholarly outlet is nowhere close to an established expert in the field, like [https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/ Tom Dannenbaum]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]: You appear to take up issue with {{tq|"simple and dry facts"}}. I find this a bizarre complaint to make on this platform. Another word for this is just "encyclopedic tone". [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I think it's slightly misleading to leave off the last half of that sentence; {{tq|without detail}}. I take issue because we don't do it in both parts; if we treated the allegations against Israel in the same manner I would have no issue, but doing so only for one is an NPOV violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I can try to add some more to balance things out or whatever that Wiki rule is, I am not sure I am good at Wiki voice. Here’s a list of war crimes: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Balasp cannot be used to create a false balance, it just means a balanced reporting of the sources. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Selfstudier, that makes sense. I did notice some war crimes in the Geneva list that were not explicitly listed in their own categories under the Palestinian militant groups like torture and sexual assault/ rape, but I do see rape listed under the “Massacres” section. Also, do you think you maybe want to protect the [[Criticism of Amnesty International]] page? There’s been some recent edits there that may be related to contentious topics, and I saw your username in the edit history. [[User:Wh15tL3D09N|Wh15tL3D09N]] ([[User talk:Wh15tL3D09N|talk]]) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Completely Agree. this is one of the most blatant pro-zionist biases observed on wikipedia in general, not just this article. [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::Like [[Russian war crimes]] VS [[Allegations of war crimes against Israel]]. Like Lol seriously ? Try reading the first few lines of the leads in both articles, This is hilarious [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion by an author of war crimes statutes: [https://puck.news/the-israel-war-crime-complexifier/ David Scheffer interview] – [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj| +]] 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

== Are the lead pictures really necessary? ==

Not ''every '' article needs to have featured pictures as soon as the page is opened, especially when it comes to downright discomforting ones. [[User:NocheLluviosa|NocheLluviosa]] ([[User talk:NocheLluviosa|talk]]) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think in general images add a lot to an article, but I'd 100% agree about finding an image that is less discomforting to somebody just opening the page. [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:The picture we currently have in the lede of the massacres is comparatively tame; to tame it down further would be whitewashing and a [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] violation. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

== GENEVA – The Director of the NY Office of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in protest over the organizations inability to stop the genocide in Gaza. ==

"The European colonial project has entered a final stage to destroy the remnants of indigenous Palestinian life"

"Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it,"

“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt or debate… Across the land, Apartheid rules.
The situation in Gaza “is a text-book case of genocide,” he continued, with the aim of the “expedited destruction of the last remannts of indigeous Palestinian life in Palestine”

He said.

someone add that, '''and especially''' the first quote.

Sources reported:
[https://x.com/aja_egypt/status/1719390105058648354 Aljazeera], [https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/latest-news/731924/الجزيرة-استقالة-مدير-مكتب-المفوضية-السامية-لحقوق-ا/ar LBCI Lebanon], [https://www.elbalad.news/5981915 Sada El-Balad], [https://www.jordannews.jo/Section-20/Middle-East/Director-of-NY-Office-of-UN-High-Commissioner-of-Human-Rights-resigns-31935 Jordan News], [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-live-gaza-hamas-war-invasion Middle East Eye],[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/31/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-latest-news-today-hamas-clashes-idf-gaza-aid-plan-failure?page=with:block-65412f4e8f08d9386c6936fc The Gaurdian] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

== Double standards ==

During the blockade of Kyiv in 2022, the leadership of Ukraine and the city authorities, having announced a curfew, convinced the residents of the capital to stay at home. At the time, Russia claimed that in this way the Ukrainian authorities were using the residents of the city as "'''human shields'''" for their military, which had placed artillery units and military equipment in the residential quarters of the capital, from where they were shelling Russian positions. Nevertheless, Russia was considered guilty. It is now known for certain that Israel's '''[[Indiscriminate attack|attacks are disproportionate]]''', so can you blame Hamas for the death of "'''human shields'''"? Therefore, please move the section "[[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Human shields|Human shields]]" to the war crimes committed by "[[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#By the Israeli government|By the Israeli government]]". https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/4/3/why-we-need-to-challenge-russias-human-shields-narrative [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 00:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:91.210.248.223

2023-10-28T15:43:09Z

91.210.248.223: /* October 2023 */

User talk:91.210.248.223

2023-10-27T22:35:05Z

91.210.248.223: /* October 2023 */

User talk:91.210.248.223

2023-10-27T22:31:52Z

91.210.248.223:

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

2023-10-27T22:08:14Z

91.210.248.223: /* IDF shares proof of main Hamas base built under Largest Gaza hospital(Shifa) but Hamas denies it */

{{Talk header|age=1|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|minthreadsleft=1}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversy}}
{{not a forum}}
{{censor}}
{{American English}}
{{Old move
|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict
|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|result1 = moved
|date1 = 7 October 2023
|link1 = Special:Permalink/1179550401#Requested move 7 October 2023
|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War
|result2 = not moved, [[WP:SNOW]]
|date2 = 11 October 2023
|link2 = Special:Permalink/1179788985#Requested move 11 October 2023
|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war
|result3 = not moved, no consensus
|date3 = 15 October 2023
|link3 = Special:Permalink/1181585273#Requested_move_15_October_2023
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{ITN talk|7 October|2023|oldid=1179028067}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|class=B|collapsed=y|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=Mid}}

}}
{{Top 25 Report|October 1 2023 (24th)|October 8 2023 (3rd)}}
{{page views}}
{{Section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 22
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{press|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html |title=Wikipedia Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X |author=Steven Harrison ||lang=en-US |org=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=2023-10-26}}

== Extremely violent execution video in the body section ==

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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

: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." [[User:FunLater|FunLater]] ([[User talk:FunLater|talk]]) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also there is [[WP:OM]], and that says that {{tq|the only reason for including any image in any article is [[Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content|"to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"]]}}. I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@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]]: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::"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. [[User:Ben Azura|Ben Azura]] ([[User talk:Ben Azura|talk]]) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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'': {{talk quote block|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'''|source=[[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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[WP:PLA]] is also applicable, specifically that {{tq|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 [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|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]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::'''"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:Wikipedia is not censored|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk: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: {{Tq|Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE|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 {{tq|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]]:
::::::::{{TQB|Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.}}
::::::::{{TQB|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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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, [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Lenny Marks|@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.) [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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). [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. {{pb}}An example to clarify the distinction: [[:File:Basal_cell_carcinoma.jpg|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. {{pb}}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. {{pb}}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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]], I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects [[WP:IMGCONTENT]]. You are right to say that {{talk quote inline|"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 {{talk quote inline|"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. {{talk quote block|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'''.|source= [[WP:CENSOR]]}} [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Wikipedia’s not censored, period. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:FYI, there is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm a parallel discussion] on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
: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." [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] The footage is not included in that video and you know it. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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 [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Keep it. It's important. [[Special:Contributions/2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F]] ([[User talk:2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|talk]]) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:<nowiki>'''Keep'''</nowiki>. Per [[Wikipedia:Gore]] . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] The poll is below if you are trying to !vote [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:Where is this anyways? [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:CooperGoodman|CooperGoodman]] The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm here]. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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, [[WP:CENSOR|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]]). [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:CooperGoodman|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 -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@Lenny Marks
:::I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We have the right to not watch said video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
:::::::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.
:::::::In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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 [[WP:NFC|non free content policy]]. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:Well said @[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

::Good call: I also left [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_video_depicting_extremely_violent_murders_could_benefit_from_additional_community_input|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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 [[Kibbutz|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Jon.yb093|Jon.yb093]] ([[User talk:Jon.yb093|talk]]) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jon.yb093|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Snow Rise|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.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [[WP:AFP|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". {{tq|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 [[User:Lenny Marks|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. {{tq|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"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,

:::::{{tq|"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...

:::::{{tq|"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) [[WP:NOTCOMPULSORY|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.

:::::{{tq|"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.

:::::{{tq|"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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Snow Rise}} I see you didn't even ''attempt'' to address the very valid point that [[WP:AFP|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 [[WP:DISC|content disclaimer]] which reads {{tq|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 {{tq|Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.}}
::::::{{tq|"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, [[:File:Full, unedited Kelly Thomas confrontation video (35 min.).webm|The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas]] provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that [[:File:The Lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels.jpg|the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels]] provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a [[:File:Jewish child victim of Arab riots in Hebron, 1929.jpg|photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre]] adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that [[:File:Fotothek df ps 0000047 Eine Mutter über dem Kinderwagen ihrer Zwillinge im Tode.jpg|images of the casualties]] [[:File:Sumiteru Taniguchi back.jpg|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.
::::::{{tq|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".
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180403310 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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [[WP:AN|an admin noticeboard]]. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.
::::::{{tq|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.}}
:::::[[:File:Buchenwald SS Corpses 60631.jpg|You]] [[:File:McCool shot by sniper in Iraq, 2006.webm|sure]] [[:File:Suspect Armed With Screwdriver Shot By LA Deputies.webm|about]] [[:File:LAPD Officers Kill Stabbing Suspect Holding Woman Hostage, June 2018.webm|that]]? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv on Wikimedia Commons,] which is a file repository and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_Wikipedia 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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Lethargilistic}}That's not exactly true. That video ''was'' used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Cerna|was deleted]] for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Veggies}}Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|Lethargilistic]] on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] Link? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain [[Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer|disclaimers]]. There are options to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain content]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
::: "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
::: 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.
::: In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant.
::[[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:100% well said. 100% true. I agree fully, and I will work to make sure this video is taken down. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
[[File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg|thumb|''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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

: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) [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Borgenland|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. {{talk quote block|"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"|source=[[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:
::{{talk quote block|"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'''"."|source=[[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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:And since [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is really sad . 😢😢😢 [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:::{{u|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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|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: {{tq|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).-- [[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'''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]] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:I was going to point out that on Wikipedia, we don't remove content just because of its graphic nature. If it is in a encyclopedic tone and it don't have copyright issues, then it can probably stay. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article? ===
* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Absolutely not'''</s> '''STRONG oppose''' per reasons already given (and those tellingly ''not'' given by the opposition). -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
**Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet ''another'' section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Veggies|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. [[User:IshChasidecha|IshChasidecha]] ([[User talk:IshChasidecha|talk]]) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:NFC|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::Just to point out, it has been verified now by HRW. If the video violates copyrights (I am not an expert but it seems like it does not) then that is a separate discussion to be had. This is just about the suitability of the video in this article. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove [[snuff film]]s. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*: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 [[Wikipedia:!VOTE|!poll]] will help a bit with assessing consensus. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awsome Aasim]] You say that {{talk quote inline|"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]].) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cwater1|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] I strike out the comment. <nowiki><s></nowiki> I put a new reply saying keep video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. [[User:Eduardog3000|eduardog3000]] ([[User talk:Eduardog3000|talk]]) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' citing Snow Rise. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. [[User:Yekshemesh|Yekshemesh]] ([[User talk:Yekshemesh|talk]]) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**{{re|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? -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per SnowRise. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]] 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:•'''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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*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. <s>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. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)</s> ''''Support inclusion of video'''. The video has now been authenticated by [[Human Rights Watch]], who thought it significant enough to [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified write about]. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video of Israeli casualties as well. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Ficaia|Ficaia]] the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] Given that, you would support keeping? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.{{pb}}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.''' [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**:On the flip side, {{tq|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**::The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
**: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware [[WP:Censored|Wikipedia isn't censored]] and there are ways to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain images and videos]].</s> [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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]].

*'''Keep/re-add/oppose''' but '''wait''' – alternatives may be better – Ignoring the [[c:File_talk:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm|biased file name]] and [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|possible copyright]] and verifiability issues, this video shows Hamas's attacks much better than the other image used in the article. I would prefer a less violent example (such as an image), but only if it showcases the attacks in a similar way to this video. I don't think we should readd it until the [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|copyright issue]] (see the comment) is addressed. 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - Honestly, even with the violent nature, it should not be removed, (just my personal opinion)[[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 

*'''Oppose removal''' I strike out my original comment. I agree with @[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Oppose/Keep''' per [[WP:GORE]]. '''''[[User:Hansen Sebastian|Hansen Sebastian]]'''''[[user talk:Hansen Sebastian|Talk]] 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


==== 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. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:First of all, [[WP:VOTE|nobody is voting]] here. This [[Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY|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, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180483586 executive]") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, [[WP:CON|consensus]] is [[WP:NHC|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:: 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 {{tq|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AHamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim%2C_2023.webm&diff=812338484&oldid=812334846], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&search=%5B%5BTemplate%3ALinkimage%5D%5D&ns0=1 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. {{tq|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. {{tq|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.' -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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, {{u|Veggies}}, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @[[User:Veggies|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. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Per [[WP:Offensive material]]: {{tq|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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] {{talk quote inline|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 {{talk quote inline|Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion.}} The inclusion requirements for images are clear: {{talk quote|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.|source=[[wp:IMGCONTENT]]}}
:-- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgXk_mz_8E
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g3ewJZXdsg
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67EYVdfgzo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw
:[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you, I will look through these [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::A few more:
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHydKv0_Do
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC1J4W5sd4
::[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I'm not impressed.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGbjLuZdycY] vs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_BbGc1ZhE]). 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] is correct. @[[User:EvergreenFir|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). [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Riposte97|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::While I initially was in favour of this; it's just too much. I genuinely think it's so out of place. It's brutal, violent, and in hindsight I don't think it really achieves much. Not enough to warrant it's inclusion given the issues it introduces. I get the arguments, not saying anyones arguing for it's re-inclusion in bad faith, but I really have to agree with snow here that there's no way this would ever stand long term. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree that its brutal and violent, but that doesnt affect the validity in any way [[Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED|per policy]]. I might still accept this argument if there were any issues that the video raised - But there arent. The only claim made is that the video is gratuitous (i.e. of no meaningful value) which seems rather absurd for a video about a massacre in an article about a war started by said massacre. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 10:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]]; exactly as @[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]] says. There seem to be two main arguments against inclusion here: 1) that the video has no encyclopedic value (which is just false as many on the opposition have acknowledged) and 2) that the video violates [[wp:GRATUITOUS]] due to the degree of its violence. But that very policy says that if a video ''does'' have encyclopedic value it should be included even when graphic, unless there is a less graphic but equally valuable video to replace it with. As you say, I think that (most) of the arguments against inclusion are made in good faith, but are based on a misreading of policy and this idea that though Wikipedia is not censored, it does not include things that are just ''too'' graphic. As I enumerated above, there are plenty of articles that contain extremely graphic content when appropriate (particularly articles about conflict and massacres). -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I made the close req a couple of minutes ago - [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]]. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Considered a non-admin closure, and boy howdy the poor admin that has to deal with this one. It's tied with '''14 for removal''' and '''14 against''', with 1 wait for alternative then add back. Worst part is everyone is either citing [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] or SnowRise's reasoning. Either way this is going to be a spicy one. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::: I really don't think it's a difficult close. All the admin has to do is close as a no consensus, and because no consensus was achieved for including the video, it should not be included per [[WP:ONUS]], which I think particularly applies in this case given the graphic nature of the video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Question 2: Should the video be [[MediaWiki:Bad image list|blacklisted]] from the English Wikipedia? ===
{{atop
| status =
| result = 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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' also per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''', blacklisting is discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Bad image list]] when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] I would agree, but we have [[WP:NODISCLAIMERS]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome Aasim]], just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''' as explained above -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) Wrong venue''' per @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) wrong venue''' per Kusma. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Decapitation ==

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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
: ??? {{tq|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 [https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/ the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line]. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making [[beheading video]]s, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have condensed the subsection in question. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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? --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Ashvio|Ashvio]] ([[User talk:Ashvio|talk]]) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
'''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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and reflect properly substantiated information. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I've performed an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1181629600&oldid=1181626998 initial trim] of various quotes with no weight. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Babies_beheaded?|in this section]]. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. [[Kfar Aza]] and [[Be'eri]].
::::For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:
::::<ref name="efe13oct2023">{{cite news |first=Joel |last=Gunter |date=13 October 2023 |title=Israel releases photos of babies killed by Hamas |publisher=[[EFE]] |url=https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2023-10-13/israel-releases-photos-of-babies-killed-by-hamas/ |access-date=22 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=17 October 2023 |title='Israeli Babies Decapitated': Jerusalem Official Rebuts Massacre Denial; Slams Hamas Barbarity |work=[[Hindustan Times]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6y-kdnShPQ |access-date=21 October 2023 |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=16 October 2023 |title='Many Hamas victims tortured, raped, abused' |work=The Manila Times |agency=[[Agence France-Presse]] |url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2023/10/16/world/americas-emea/many-hamas-victims-tortured-raped-abused/1914968 |access-date=17 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ari |last2=Lim |first2=Megan |last3=Dorning |first3=Courtney |date=18 October 2023 |title=Israel turns to DNA and dental imprints to identify unrecognizable bodies |work=[[NPR]] |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206506717/israel-hamas-gaza-dna-bodies-burial-tel-aviv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sokol |first=Sam |date=16 October 2023 |title=Hostages' Families Group to Red Cross: Many of Almost 200 Israelis Held in Gaza in Severe Need of Medical Treatment |work=[[Haaretz]] |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-16/ty-article/.premium/many-of-almost-200-israelis-held-in-gaza-in-severe-need-of-medical-treatment/0000018b-38b8-d0ac-a39f-b9bad3600000 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/mOVlf |archive-date=16 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Rose |first1=Emily |last2=Villarraga |first2=Herbert |date=17 October 2023 |title=Rescue workers recount horrors found in kibbutz attacked by Hamas |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rescue-workers-recount-horrors-found-kibbutz-attacked-by-hamas-2023-10-17/}}</ref>
::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{Reflist-talk}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I've read most of the accounts of this meeting from non-Israeli sources. None of them mention decapitation as included part of the 42 minute video or supplementary images. We already knew that Hamas murdered civilians including children in cold blood, so I don't really see the conference as being particularly revelatory in the way some have. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::Really?

{{cquote|Still images showed a '''decapitated''' soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities]}}

{{cquote|In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/]}}
::The BBC also described the same incident.

{{cquote|Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to '''decapitate''' someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270]}}

{{cquote|Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations of seven Hamas terrorists who were captured following the Palestinian terror group’s October 7 onslaught, in which they admitted they had been ordered to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.

In one video released by the Israel Defense Forces, a person whose face is blurred said that gunmen were given instructions to kill everyone they saw, including '''beheading victims''' and cutting off their legs.

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. '''“Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.”''' [https://www.timesofisrael.com/kill-behead-rape-interrogated-hamas-members-detail-atrocities-against-civilians/]}}

{{cquote|The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and '''decapitation''' from the southern Israel assault. [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-war-idf-posts-videos-of-hamas-terrorists-detailing-orders-to-kill-behead-and-rape/articleshow/104681563.cms]}}

::[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::: Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.
:::[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::In what way does it fail verification? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. [[Special:Contributions/98.151.160.96|98.151.160.96]] ([[User talk:98.151.160.96|talk]]) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[Graeme Wood (journalist)|Graeme Wood]] reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated."<ref name="CBC News">{{Cite news |date=25 October 2023 |title=Journalist describes footage of Hamas atrocities compiled by the IDF |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0Atcdy38g |work=[[CBC News]] |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]@[[User:Wee Curry Monster|Wee Curry Monster]]@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]@[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]]@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]]@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== How to handle the [[Battle of Zikim]] ==

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 [[2023 Hamas attack on Israel|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 {{u|The Great Mule of Eupatoria}} and {{u|BilledMammal}} disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1181452958 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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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, [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/october-9-2023-morning-rundown-rcna119434 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::Key phrase: “Israel said” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]], all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel '''by sea;''' the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{tq|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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [https://www.indiatoday.in/world/video/israeli-army-deployed-at-zikim-beach-civilians-asked-to-leave-ground-report-2449724-2023-10-16 This] is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/a-few-idf-officers-saved-90-trainees-from-hamas-terrorists-they-paid-with-their-lives/0000018b-4da2-dc3c-a5df-ddaadf370000 A new article] from [[Haaretz]] disputes the initial claims from October 7th that [[Bahad 4]] fell.
:<code>...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.</code>
:Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the [[Battle of Zikim]] article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.
:[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]] You can bypass the paywall by reading an [https://archive.ph/nWuvr archived version] here. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at [[Bahad 4]] up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the [[Bahad 4]] base ''since'' 7 October. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict ==

A new report by ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]]''[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] states that U.S. has sent a [[Lieutenant general (United States)|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 movement|Houthi]] cruise missile over the Red Sea[https://www.npr.org/2023/10/20/1207523642/yemen-missiles-intercepted] 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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

::[[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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA BBC] Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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)" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*Note, an RfC ([[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox]]) was started below to figure the content dispute out. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

SOHR has reported that several Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghani militiamen (presumably under the Popular Mobilization Units, Liwa Fatemiyoun, and National Defense Forces 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/ [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is actually reported in [[The Economist]] as well, I'll see if I can find the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Expansion to war crimes section ==

{{ping|Nableezy}} I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in {{diff2|1181344023|this diff}}. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under [[WP:BALASP]].

For editors generally, see also [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?|this discussion,]] regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of [[WP:BALASP]] is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff].
:I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.
:The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.
:My problem with this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff] is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named [[Tom Dannenbaum]]), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.
:According to [[WP:RS]], a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for [[WP:RS]] should be heightened.
:How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?
:I oppose the incorporation of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff], along with [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the [[WP:ONUS]] in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::That is called an expert view and [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Since you are relying on [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:
:::(i) Prefer secondary sources,
:::(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
:::(iii) Citation counts
:::(iv) POV and peer review
:::Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?
:::As per [[WP:ONUS]], the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.
:::You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with [[WP:RS]].
:::Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.
:::Kindly do. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::If you read [[WP:SPS]] youll see '' Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.'' You can see his [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KGysaxgAAAAJ&hl=en relevant publications]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] your removal of that content was correct.@[[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also as per [[WP:SPS]] :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::And what do you think is relevant there? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]]: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add Kazakhstan casualtie ==

add one citizen of Kazakhstan to the number of victims among foreigners and persons with dual citizenship. Ref: [https://en.inform.kz/news/kazakh-national-dies-in-gaza-strip-kazakh-mfa-2420d6/#:~:text=A%20national%20of%20Kazakhstan%20died,of%20Palestine%2C%20died%20as%20well. inform], [https://adyrna.kz/en/post/174231 adyrna], [https://www.kt.kz/eng/society/wto_countries_are_preparing_for_the_13th_wto_ministerial_1377956990.html kt] [[User:Нурасылл|Нурасылл]] ([[User talk:Нурасылл|talk]]) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Belligerents & Units involved ==

The belligerents section has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, yet the units involved section doesn't. I believe it should be changed so the belligerents section has Fatah instead of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (since Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is part of Fatah), and the units involved section then has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as was done with Hamas & Al-Qassam brigades. [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]], please see [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Fatah involved?|[1]]] and [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Extended-confirmed-edit request, October 18|[2]]] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/21/israel-hamas-conflict-palestinian-voices-censored Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== ‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense ==

According to [https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/22804 Kyiv Post] {{green|In reaction to Hamas' attacks, the IDF is deploying its new Iron Beam anti-missile system ahead of its originally planned schedule.}} "I'm unsure where to drop this info? Where's the spot for deets on the weapon systems both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:It may be too early to add it to ''this'' article. You could certainly add it to the [[Iron Beam]] article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Jprg1966}} "Iron Sting" now. [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/watch-idf-uses-new-iron-sting-weapon-system-against-hamas-X5Qc1YQbzf2IgoJs1y5p WSJ] {{green|The Israel Defense Forces have released footage that is said to depict commandos using their new "Iron Sting" weapon system against Hamas in one of its initial operational deployments. The laser and GPS-guided mortar is designed to target urban environments, as described by its manufacturer, [[Elbit Systems]].}} I'm a bit uncertain about where to place this information. Where can we include the specifics about the weapon systems that both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Article becoming too long. Suggestions. ==

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. [[User:Lafi90|Lafi90]] ([[User talk:Lafi90|talk]]) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:[[2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Reactions]] It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Someone working on [[Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]], should make a dent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the [[WP:PROSELINE]] sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per {{U|Alcibiades979}}'s suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180882394 tried] that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, [[Iraq War#Background]] and [[Iraq War#Pre-war events]], similarly [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background]] and [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude]].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1181659781 Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Chafique}} Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, {{they|Abo Yemen}} reverted his own [[Special:Diff/1181659525|edit]] from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox ==
{{atop
| status = Closing by request
| result = Closing this at the request of the RfC creator {{u|WeatherWriter}} at [[Special:Diff/1181698226]]. – [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

Should the [[United States]] be added to the infobox as a belligerent?

*'''Option 1''' — Yes (Listed as flag under Israel - No additional info - Full belligerent)
*'''Option 2''' — Yes (Listed as bullet point under Israel - No additional info)
*'''Option 3''' — Yes (Listed as a bullet point under Israel as “''United States (in Iraq and Red Sea only)'“
*'''Option 4''' — Yes (Listed under a “Supported by” subheading under Israel.)
*'''Option 5''' — Yes (Format not mentioned in option 1-4)
*'''Option 6''' — No

'''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion===
Previous discussions: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21]], [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14]]
*'''Comment''' — As RfC starter, I am going to refrain from commenting for now. This RfC was started given several content disputes and various talk page discussions around this overall topic. I attempted to look through some of the article history and I believe option 1-4 covered any previous styles of the US being added in the infobox. I added option 5 incase I missed a format style. Obviously, option 6 is for those who oppose it being added. Anyway, an RfC was for sure needed to solve all the various content disputes on this topic. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Reply|WeatherWriter}} Could you point to where #4 was deprecated? That is currently used at [[Gaza–Israel conflict]]. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:If consensus is reached on option 4, Germany should be added and Iran and Russia should be added to Hamas and its allies.[[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I am not sure. When figuring out the previous versions where the USA was listed, I saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1181544884 this edit] by {{u|Parham wiki}} saying it was deprecated. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#c-BilledMammal-20230719130800-RfC_on_%22supported_by%22_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter|If there is a consensus, it can be added.] [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|Selfstudier}}, [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict]] is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Since you are requesting ''more'' research on my end…here: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page]] & [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah]] are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' — Given the US military shooting down missiles launched believed to be going towards Israel, they are a belligerent now and deserve to be listed. Option 3 is the best as the US isn’t fully involved in the Gaza Strip conflict, but more around the region. Noting, option 3 was previously used in the article (within the last 24 hours). '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option X''' USA should be in the infox iff it is a [[belligerent]].[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - If the US is included as a belligerent, then the [[Houthi movement|Houthis]] will necessarily ''also'' have to be included. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the [[Red Sea]] shot down Yemeni [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]] and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.
:There are additional factors that ''might'' count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] 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, U.S. is reported[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.
:Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say '''Option 1''' would be the most appropriate option. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia) ==
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701201698}}
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=F55CC1A}}

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

[[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]], [[Saudi Arabia]]

'''Option 1''' – Add X 
'''Option 2''' – Do not add X 
'''Option 3''' – Neutral (no comments) on X 
(X = Country)

RfC is '''not''' to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. six different and unique discussions. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion2===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
*'''RfC Creator Comment''' – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi''', '''Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany''' – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), {{u|Ecrusized}} said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea '''shot down''' 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation Axios], the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to '''advise''' ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 reported to have] '''delivered''' 45 cargo planes loaded with '''armaments''' to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/u-s-sends-air-defense-systems-to-gulf-countries-O11ZyqKBZhIjSprR7WoN Wall Street Journal reported] the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 the new report] from the [[Wall Street Journal]] saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A new report by [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 WSJ] states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by [[Saudi Arabia]]. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I just added it to the list of options. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment 2''' [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/drone-attacks-american-bases-injured-two-dozen-us-military-personnel-rcna121961 NBC News] reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:<s>'''Comment''' Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option *''' Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are [[belligerents]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Wait {{u|Selfstudier}}, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. ''Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral?'' If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::I made my comment and I explained it as well. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:AGF|Not trying to be rude]], but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Let the closer worry about what it means. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::<s>@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], my understanding is that @[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] would respond your question ''Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent?'' with the answer ''Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no.'' I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.
:::::::[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose any being listed as belligerents''' Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.
:I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @[[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.
:It may interest other editors to peruse [[Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine]] and its archives, for an interesting case study.
:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, {{u|Parham wiki}} made the comment that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]), then it can be used. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Bermicourt}}, not sure if you made a typo, but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1181733329 current version of the article] lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — Iran has now [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-palestinians-news/card/iran-s-khamenei-accuses-u-s-of-orchestrating-israel-s-gaza-campaign-uXStycKXeGwa5XaHrDrN accused (Wall Street Journal article)] the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that '''directly supports''' that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I did in my original reasoning. The US is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 supplying Israel with weapons] and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::“'''US military equipment''' pours into Israel”[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am [[WP:COAL]]ing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
* I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions.{{tq| Countries should be added to the infobox if they are [[belligerents]],}} as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly {{tq|None of these groups are involved in active combat}}, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but ''(thank God)'', there are ''(as yet)'' no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Add''': [[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]].
:'''Do not add''': [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]]. '''[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|✉]]''' 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose all additions''' until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israeli POWs omitted from lead ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}

Please revert “Hundreds of civilian hostages, including women, children and the elderly, were abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip” to “Unarmed civilian hostages and captured Israeli soldiers were taken to the Gaza Strip, including women and children.”

The new wording, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181531570 this revision] adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/21/hamas-says-israel-refused-to-receive-2-hostages-israel-calls-it-propaganda%7C Al Jazeera]: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_10%7C the discussion] of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/hamas-launches-surprise-attack-on-israel-as-palestinian-gunmen-reported-in-south%7CThe The Guardian]: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/hamas-says-it-has-enough-israeli-captives-to-free-all-palestinian-prisoners%7CAJ%7C Al Jazeera]: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

As it stands, a reader who only sees the lead and the infobox would not know that there are any Israeli POWs. How can this be? [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Yo|Monopoly31121993(2)}} This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{Yo|WillowCity}} I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I made edits to this sentence in the article before finding this discussion. If I've inadvertently overruled the result of this discussion, please accept my apologies. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{Yo|Quantling}} In my view your edit is quite helpful for indicating the uncertainty regarding the exact ratio of civilians and soldiers among those taken captive. The prior language could be taken as implying that the 200 captives were in addition to (not including) soldiers. So I see your wording as fully consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not sure if someone might want to replace the commas with brackets, but that is purely stylistic. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As well I had previously noted in a separate discussion that the reference to "women and children" was somewhat ambiguous, as female IDF soldiers are POWs, while female civilians are not, so I have no objection to the removal of that from the lead. The identities of the captives are discussed subsequently, including demographic data, and are the subject of their own article, so I don't see it as necessary for the lead. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Massacres ==

This article has plenty of Palestinian massacres giving a one-sided impression that the only side that is making any crime are Palestinians. So far more than 6000 have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2000 children. Strikes have been proven to target bakeries, supermarkets, and probably hospitals.

I can't fathom that none of these are considered massacres. Airstrike sounds a much neutral benign word than massacre, and yet Airstrikes are much deadler than anything Hamas or other militants did. Airstrikes burn victims and cause very high collateral damage, not to mention the trauma that follows a small child who witnesses one. We can see a lot of videos of children shaking, those children will most likely spend their lives in a psychiatric institution. We need to uphold Wikipedia values and make this article a little more unbiased. [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:From what I’ve seen, the massacres here are specifically talking about what happened in the kibbutzim only on October 7 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).
:Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.
::Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.
::They also killed before on 16th of October
::https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut}} Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. {{tq|Hamas doesn't see them as civilians}}. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. {{tq|we know that hamas lied }} All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Npov tags ==

{{u|James James Morrison Morrison}}, you’ve added multiple pov section tags, can you explain them here please? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think it's safe to remove any neutrality tags that aren't associated with a specific, actionable complaint here on the talk page. Otherwise we might as well just tag every section. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah, agreed, but who wants to use a revert on that? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I have removed them, so that is my revert for today. Just adding bloat without helping our readers. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Archived talks about photos and Reactions section ==

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world
::
[[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war| international reactions] page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war. ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Asked and answered. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

The Suprise attack by hamas on Israel was done with the guide of Iran.

The war also involves Hizzbolla - an Iranian proxy and Iranian miltias in Syria.

Also adding the missle attack by the Houtis in Yemen - another Iranian proxy aimed on Israel.

there is also the case of Iraqi Millitias also guided by Iran attacking US bases in Iraq, because of US support of Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.
::Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.
::https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.
::::They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.
::::Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.
::::Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.
::::*since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.
::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.
:::::*also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.
:::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister [[Eli Cohen]] stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is [[Eli Cohen (politician, born 1972)|this one]]. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26]] ([[User talk:2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|talk]]) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel casualties ==

Israeli casualties still at 1400? We need more updates [[User:RickyBlair668|RickyBlair668]] ([[User talk:RickyBlair668|talk]]) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Updating casualities in an ongoing crisis (or war) is tricky as it can change day by day. Perhaps an update once a week would be easier, but I agree with the suggestion that the figure should be updated. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Supported by ==

@[[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]], concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181871075 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia], the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: '''Ongoing RfC''' — Please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ [[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]] ([[User talk:Tamjeed Ahmed|talk]]) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Casualty count ==

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.
:::Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."
:::https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971
:::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden is not a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Not just Biden:
:::::https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
:::::https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/
:::::The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source ''independently'' corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the [[MOS:CLAIM|policy]] on "claimed").
::::::As well, FYI, this article from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WaPo]: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. [[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Does the block also apply for the talk page? [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== United States involvement and Casualties sustained ==

A US special force and an Israeli special ops unit that entered Gaza “completely wiped out” https://www.palestinechronicle.com/shot-to-pieces-this-is-what-happened-to-us-special-forces-when-they-entered-gaza/

The U.S is now on the ground albeit not very effective as of now. We know, through the words of Douglas Mcgregor that a combined American-Israeli military unit entered Gaza and were subsequently wiped out, presumably killed and captured. We should really consider adding the U.S to the list of belligerents especially after sustaining 30+ injuries to attacks by the “Islamic Resistance of Iraq”

Alongside U.S involvement, we should also add this new “Islamic Resistance of Iraq” faction and as more information and articles surface, we can vastly improve this article. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an [[wp:extraordinary|extraordinary]] claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|A.H.T Videomapping}} please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza ==
{{atop|Withdrawn by OP. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:A discussion on this topic [[Special:PermanentLink/1181585273#Requested move 15 October 2023|concluded just two days ago]], with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Map ==

Please add a map to the article
[[File:Countries_recognizing_Hamas_as_terror_organization.svg|thumb|World map with countries that have declared [[Hamas]] a [[List of designated terrorist groups|terrorist organization]]]] [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body ==

For reasons including [[WP:COMMONNAME]], the article title is ''Israel–Hamas war''. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier; see [[Talk:2023 Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war#Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza|above]]. However, I have a follow up question.) Does that mean we should use "Hamas" when the the folks with guns and bombs from Gaza do something and should use "Israel" when the folks with guns and bombs from Israel do something? It makes it seem like the Gazan militants do not have the support of the Gazan civilians, but that the Israeli militants do have the support of the Israeli civilians. Unless we have citations to support that asymmetry, I think we are misleading the reader. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== "2,500 infiltrated Israel" ==

Under the strength section it describes 2500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel, implying that they are still within Israel right now, it is entirely likely they would have retreated back into Gaza by now. The source for this claim is from the 13th and it should either be confirmed and the source should be changed, or it should be removed [[User:Hexifi|Hexifi]] ([[User talk:Hexifi|talk]]) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Misspelling ==

UK PM Rishi Sunak's name is misspelled under the "in opposition" subheading of the "ceasefire" heading. Should be corrected & linked to the correct article (not the mispelling redirect). [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Ha. Just remembered I am extended protected now so I could change it myself. The account responsible should be found & disciplinary action should be considered. Looked like vandalism to me. [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== infobox attribution inline ==

{{u|BilledMammal}}, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Current_situation|this]] discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing ''every'' figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Per [[WP:ONUS]], {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes.html October 25th, the NYTimes] is throwing in a disclaimer, saying {{green|a number that if verified}} At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:POINT]]. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.
:::::{{tq|The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that.}} With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.
:::::So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.
:::::At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.
::::::Editor {{Re|Hovsepig}} made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;
::::::"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:
::::::"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).
::::::And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."
::::::At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.
:::::::{{tq|At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor.}} Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::One editor does not get to decide, end of. [[WP:ONUS]] doesn't work that way either. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well given it has had numbers since [[Special:Permalink/1179034824|basically the beginning of this article]] and [[Special:Permalink/1180949164|throughout]] the now [[Special:Permalink/1181985413|7519 edits]] it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again [[WP:POINT]] (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - {{tq|the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting [[WP:DE]] when I see it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus.}} If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a better idea, since we have [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WAPO OC 24 saying ] "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; {{tq|according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to the MoH in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to Israeli official sources}}. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check {{tq|both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I started an RFC below. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included ==

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Foreign_and_dual-national_casualties this table] or should they be listed separately? For example [https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/22/dutch-woman-33-killed-gaza-strip-overnight-minister-confirms a Dutch] and [https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-woman-killed-israeli-strike-135400807.html a Ukrainian] were killed in Gaza.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:And a citizen of [[Kazakhstan]]. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Small stylistic suggestion ==

The sentence "Both Israel and the U.S stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" is the first time Iran is mentioned in the article. This sentence only makes sense in the context of the lead if the reader understands that there is some Hamas-Iran connection or that people suspect Iran could have been involved in this. The uninformed reader may not understand that sentence. It would be perhaps be wise to preface the sentence with something like "Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement...." [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF]] ([[User talk:2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|talk]]) 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]] ==

{{re|RamHez}} SOHR is considered generally reliable in articles related to [[Syrian civil war]]. It is preferred over Syrian government sources who tend to shrink their casualties. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section ==

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, [https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1352614/how-many-people-has-the-hamas-israel-war-killed-so-far.html like L'Orient Today]? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

Pinging {{u| ARandomName123}} and {{u| Timeshifter}} since you were involved in current and previous incarnations of the graph. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:It's a simple chart. It can be used under [[c:Template:PD-chart]]. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: [[c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs]] --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!
::Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. There are all kinds of ways to create charts. And a variety of charts are possible to cover deaths over time. Here are some tools:
:::[[Commons:Create charts and graphs online#Free online charting sites]]
:::There is also the freeware [[LibreOffice]] and [[LibreOffice Calc]], etc..
:::--[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war ==

Please correct the [[2023 Israel–Hamas war#Foreign and dual-national casualties|table]]:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
!scope="col"|Country
!scope="col"|Deaths
!scope="col"|Kidnapped
!scope="col"|Missing
!scope="col" class="unsortable" |{{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference(s)}}
|-
|scope="row"|{{flag|Ukraine}}
|24 {{efn|Including 21 Ukrainians died in Israel and and 3 more died in the Gaza Strip}}
|Unknown
|1
|<ref>{{cite news|date=26 October 2023|title=Number of Ukrainian casualties rises in Israel|language=en|work=[[Ukrainska Pravda]]|url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/26/7425812/ |access-date=26 October 2023}}</ref>
|} [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with [[multiple citizenship]]s? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) 

:To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== RFC on infobox casualties ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701352883}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=4529BDF}}
How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?
#Attributed with an endnote as in [[Special:Permalink/1181989063|the current version as of this writing]]
#Attributed for all numbers inline as in [[Special:Permalink/1181939077|this version]]
#Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in [[Special:Permalink/1181582391|this version]]
#Not in the infobox at all
[[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
===Survey===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RFC}}
*'''1''' - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: [https://abcnews.go.com/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006 ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.]; [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza/card/latest-casualty-figures-from-israel-and-gaza-dQNSenweikTeA7YPWzOP WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.]; [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-news-hamas/ Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed.] A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ Washington Post] reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example [https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 the UN] reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2''' or '''3''', weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.
:In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of [[WP:V]], for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.
:Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.
:In general, the option of {{tq|attributed with an endnote}} is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, <s>and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them.</s> and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them.<ref name="citationengagement" /> 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{cot|Sources for Palestinian casualties}}
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/26/israel-hamas-war-live-un-ceasefire-bid-fails-as-gaza-death-toll-soars Al Jazeera: "The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli air raids in Gaza has now reached 7,028, a figure that includes 2,913 children, the health ministry in the besieged enclave says."]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67209848 BBC: "The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says almost 6,500 people have been killed in territory since then."]
#[https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/israel-palestine-war-gaza-families-wear-id-bracelets-to-avoid-burial-in-mass-graves-403292-2023-10-26 Business Today: "A total of 756 Palestinians, including 344 children, were killed in the past 24 hours, Gaza's health ministry said on Wednesday."]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-war-wednesday-intl-hnk/index.html CNN: "The warnings from senior UN officials came after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza killed more than 700 people in 24 hours, the highest daily number published since Israeli strikes against what it called Hamas targets in Gaza began two and a half weeks ago, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah on Tuesday."]
#[https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-six-key-moments-for-the-gaza-strip-216185 The Conversation: "More than 5,700 people in Gaza have been reportedly killed by Israeli airstrikes in two weeks of relentless bombardment – at least 2,000 of whom are children."]
#[https://images.dawn.com/news/1192071/how-the-watermelon-became-a-symbol-of-resistance-in-palestine Dawn: "As of today 6,546 Palestinians have been killed, including 2,704 children, and over 17,000 people have been wounded so far in ongoing Israeli retaliatory strikes."]
#[https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/israel-hamas-war-updates-day-19-oct-25-2023/article67456283.ece The Hindu: "Rapidly expanding Israeli airstrikes across the Gaza Strip has killed more than 700 people in the past day as medical facilities across the territory were forced to close because of bombing damage and a lack of power, health officials said on Tuesday."]
#[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/25/un-general-assembly-should-act-gaza Human Rights Watch: "More than 6,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2,700 children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry."]
#[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/queen-jordan-west-israel-palestine-b2435728.html The Independent: "Queen Rania’s comments came as Israel and Hamas continued bombing each other, with airstrikes in Gaza killing more than 750 people between Tuesday and Wednesday, according to the territory’s health ministry.]
#[https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/10/26/not-about-religion-the-historical-and-political-root-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ Modern Diplomacy: "Israel also counterattacked Palestine in the Gaza Strip and killed 3,478 people and injured 12,065 others"]
#[https://www.newsweek.com/israel-committing-war-crimes-gaza-us-supporting-it-opinion-1837908 Newsweek: "This was leading human rights organization Amnesty International's characterization of Israel's massive and ongoing bombing campaign in Gaza, which, two weeks in, has killed more than 6,500 Palestinians, including more than 2,300 children."]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/26/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/ff399d89-a169-5608-a2ce-e185ac895a5b?smid=url-share New York Times: "At least 7,028 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, including nearly 3,000 children, according to the latest figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry."]
#[https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/25/in-defiance-of-international-calls-to-stop-bombardment-of-gaza-israel-extends-airstrikes-to-west-bank/ People's Dispatch: "According to Palestinian officials, the total number of Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes and raids since October 7 has crossed 6,000, with over 18,000 injured."]
#[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/hezbollah-leader-meets-with-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad-officials-for-first-time-since-israel-hamas-war-erupted PBS: "The fighting, triggered by Hamas’ deadly incursion into Israel on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel, has killed more than 5,700 Palestinians in Gaza."]
#[https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/atrocity-alert-no-370-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territory-dr-congo-and-south-sudan Relief Web: "Since 7 October more than 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and over 16,297 injured by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza."]
#[https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/news/32866-israel-bombards-gaza-prepares-invasion-as-biden-urges-path-to-peace Sight Magazine: "Israeli retaliatory strikes have killed over 6,500 people, the health ministry in the Hamas-run strip said on Wednesday. Reuters has been unable to independently verify the casualty figures of either side"]
#[https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300996267/live-israeli-troops-launch-brief-raid-into-gaza Stuff: "Gaza’s Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas, said Wednesday that more than 750 people were killed over the past 24 hours, higher than the 704 killed the previous day."]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-hamas-islamic-scholars-issue-calls-fatwas-inciting-murder-of-israelis-and-jews/ Times of Israel: "The Hamas-run health ministry claimed on Thursday that at least 7,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing conflict."]
#[https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/israel-war-live-coverage-australia-deploys-forces-to-middle-east-gaza-crisis-deepens-outrage-at-un-remarks-c-12316264 The West Australian: "The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, said Israeli airstrikes killed at least 700 people over the past day, mostly women and children."]
#[https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-50-palestinians-killed-in-one-hour-in-gaza-no-aid-entered-on-tuesday-says-un-650884 WION: "The Hamas-run Health Ministry said at least 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and 16,297 injured"]
Search was done on Google News with search term "killed palestine"; a number was omitted as there is no stable figure. Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them, if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP, or if they did not quantify the number of casualties. Search was done on 26 October.
{{cob}}
{{cot|Sources for Israeli casualties}}
#[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-24/israel-launches-raids-into-gaza/103012762 ABC: The Israeli bombardment was triggered by an October 7 terrorist attack on Israeli communities by Hamas militants who killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/23/gaza-death-toll-exceeds-5000-as-israel-continues-daily-bombardments Al Jazeera: Hamas’s attack in southern Israel killed at least 1,400 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/israel-steps-up-gaza-strikes-ahead-of-ground-invasion/news-story/e7593babdd462249f79d3ca3dfb07b0d The Australian: Alarm is growing over the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel struck back following the October 7 attacks, which Israeli officials say killed more than 1,400 people who were shot, stabbed or burnt to death by militants.]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67195174 BBC: More than 1,400 Israelis were killed when Hamas attacked communities near the Gaza border, while the Israeli military says 203 soldiers and civilians, including women and children, were taken to Gaza as hostages.]
#[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/23/israel-hamas-war-updates-and-latest-news-on-gaza-conflict.html CNBC: Their transfer follows the Friday release of two American hostages. It’s been more than two weeks since Hamas launched its assault on Israel, killing at least 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostages.]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23/h_fb85cc8446e130bafa75926bc01dc0ad CNN: Hamas militants carried out a deadly attack on Israel on October 7, killing 1,400 people and kidnapping hundreds of others.]
#[https://theconversation.com/even-if-israel-can-completely-eliminate-hamas-does-it-have-a-long-term-plan-for-gaza-216161 The Conversation: In the past couple weeks, Israel has put together a huge force to mount another ground invasion in retaliation for the Hamas cross-border attacks that killed around 1,400 Israelis on October 7.]
#[https://www.ft.com/content/687873f2-0a84-409d-b8ff-3ba86e005a89 Financial Times: Israeli authorities say more than 1,400 Israelis were killed in the attack and that 222 people, including foreign nationals, were taken hostage.]
#[https://fortune.com/2023/10/23/workers-ceos-struggle-israel-hamas-war-middle-east-starbucks/ Fortune: Jewish groups have criticized tepid responses or slow reactions to the Oct. 7 Hamas rampage that killed 1,400 people in Israel and triggered the latest war.]
#[https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/october-23-israel-hamas-war Fox News: At least 5,700 people have been killed in the war on both sides, including at least 1,400 Israeli civilians and soldiers and 32 Americans.]
#[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231023-gaza-attacks-shatter-sense-of-safety-in-israel-s-tel-aviv France24: Several rockets hit the Tel Aviv area when Hamas militants launched the most deadly attack suffered by Israel since its creation, with some 1,400 killed -- most of them civilians -- according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/gaza-second-aid-convoy-rafah-crossing-israel-bombardment The Guardian: The new war – the fifth since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 – broke out after the Palestinian militants attacked southern Israeli communities on 7 October, killing 1,400 people and taking 222 into the strip as bargaining chips.]
#[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4269507-poll-what-americans-really-think-about-the-israel-hamas-war/ The Hill: As we pass two weeks since more than 1,000 Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, killed more than 1,400 Israelis...]
#[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/israelhamas-war-is-hezbollah-heading-towards-open-conflict-with-israel-101698079630416.html Hindustan Times: Hamas militants stormed into Israel from the Gaza Strip on October 7, killing at least 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/briefing/hamas-israel-war-iranian-teenager-chevron-hess-deal.html New York Times: ...when Israel began launching airstrikes in retaliation for an attack by the Hamas militant group that killed 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-borrell-backs-humanitarian-pause-israel-hamas-conflict-2023-10-23/ Reuters: Diplomats said there was consensus on the need to ramp up humanitarian aid, reflecting widespread alarm about the fate of Palestinian civilians after two weeks of Israel bombarding and blockading Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 Hamas assault that killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://time.com/6327279/israel-peace-movement-hamas-gaza/ Time: His cousin was one of the 200 Israelis abducted in the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which left 1,400 dead in Israel, and he says that his family and friends often tell him his beliefs are “too extreme.”]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shows-foreign-press-raw-hamas-bodycam-videos-of-murder-torture-decapitation/ Times of Israel: The Israeli government on Monday screened for 200 members of the foreign press some 43 minutes of harrowing scenes of murder, torture and decapitation from Hamas’s October 7 onslaught on southern Israel, in which over 1,400 people were killed, including raw videos from the terrorists’ bodycams.]
#[https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 UN News: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.]
#[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-arrests-palestinians-west-bank/ Washington Post: Israel has said its “counterterrorism” operations will prevent Hamas from being able to launch another attack like its brutal assault on Oct. 7, when gunmen killed over 1,400 people in southern Israel and took more than 200 hostages.]
Search was done on Google News with search term "1400 killed israel". Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them or if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP. Search was done on 24 October.
{{cob}}
:[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' or '''2''' this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support '''4''' with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes ''are'' sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' For reasons said by [[User:AquilaFasciata|AquilaFasciata]]. [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: {{tq|In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes.}} According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes.<ref name="citationengagement">{{cite journal |last1=Piccardi |first1=Tiziano |last2=Redi |first2=Miriam |last3=Colavizza |first3=Giovanni |last4=West |first4=Robert |title=Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia |date=20 April 2020 |pages=2365–2376 |doi=10.1145/3366423.3380300}}</ref> Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?] [[The Guardian]] 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: Other sources, like [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/explainer-gazas-ministry-health-calculate-wars-death-toll-104374157 this one], say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Succinct and reasonable, well said. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" ([[WP:WTA]]); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2'''. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': per [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]]. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]] 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. [[User:MicrobiologyMarcus|microbiologyMarcus]] (''[[User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus|petri dish]]'') 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''4''' per [[User:Meeepmep]] [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], which should be fixed to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''. Also OK with <s>'''3.5'''</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this '''2''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text'''. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' Per Joseph Biden, [https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-cast-doubt-gazas-death-194208480.html here], "But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." Me neither. With those doubts, especially from the guy who is not me, we need to be as clear as possible as to the source. Maybe a bit more clutter than some would like, but we're being straight with our readers.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Previous discussions ===
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_21#Casualties_infobox]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_22#"Per_the_Gaza_Health_Ministry"]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#infobox_attribution_inline]]

===Discussion3===
Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Infinity Knight|Vice regent|Graeme Bartlett|Mistamystery|WillowCity|JM2023|Hovsepig}} Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::You missed one off the top of my head, {{u|Jayen466}}. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're right, I did; I overlooked them at [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).
:::Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.
::I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.
::I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.
::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23#h_e1333a829d60ba8528ad93a27303e5af] {{tq|As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported.}} '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources:-
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?]
[https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/ Time 26 Oct]"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."[https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?"] "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:In a war, it's common to take the casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both sides with a grain of salt. For example, the Russians claim to have destroyed more [[M142 HIMARS]] systems in Ukraine than were actually provided to Ukraine has turned into a meme. It's important to note that numbers provided by both Israel and Hamas are often marked as "not verified," so attribution is essential when using them. What complicates things further is that Hamas is among the well-known international players. During this war, especially in incidents like the one at the hospital, independent sources had varying results when trying to confirm the numbers. As a result, news outlets like AP began using "disputed" since the hospital count was included in the overall figure. That's why we can't hide the disclaimer in the footnotes. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Discuss it in the article. If GHM were up at RSN for analysis, a generally reliable (which does not mean always reliable) result is likely based on the sources above. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinian-gaza-war-hamas-hostages-macron-c2482817f230580c20b898bd65e5a4c3 Recent AP] [[John Kirby]] said: “The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, and I think that all needs to be factored into anything that they put out publicly.”
:::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The NSC spokesman is a reliable source for the public position of the United States, thats it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Is [https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-ed6875f15ea0d2bc196e4033b54b7194 AP] a reliable source? {{green|, according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week.}}
:::::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I dont think anybody has suggested no attribution. See [[straw man]]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::You have seen my !vote? That's what I am saying viz a viz the RFC, the generally reliable is based on my own analysis of the recent RS (those above + WAPO) debating the question of reliability of GHM in general, not news snippets where there is no consistency, I can easily find articles where they don't say. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-doubts-humanitarian-agencies-consider-gaza-toll-reliable-2023-10-27/ Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::See [https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::When incorporating figures from each side into our text, it's important to openly specify the source of these numbers rather than burying the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::As suggested by {{u|Meeepmep}} [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], I would appreciate the modification of
::::::::* '''4''' change to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''
::::::::<s>* '''3.5''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text''' seems like a reasonable choice to me.</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this
::::::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
{{u|Wehwalt}}, Joe Biden isnt a reliable source, whereas reliable sources have said they do have confidence in the numbers. But regardless, is there a reason you think we should attribute only one set of numbers in text but not the other set? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict ==

In addition to points made in previous move discussions - namely that multiple Palestinian factions and indeed the general population have been involved in this conflict - over the past 10 days since the last move discussion, other Arab countries (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt) have been directly involved in the conflict. Moreover, the name (Arab-Israeli conflict) is long established and well understood by the reader. The current title goes beyond inadequate at this point, it is outright misleading, making it wholly unsuitable. [[User:عبد المؤمن|عبد المؤمن]] ([[User talk:عبد المؤمن|talk]]) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under [[WP:COMMONNAME]]; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this ''specific'' situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. [[User:Feliiformia|Feliiformia]] ([[User talk:Feliiformia|talk]]) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add one Uruguayan national to the list of hostages kidnapped by Hamas. ==

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to [https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/cancilleria-otorgo-nacionalidad-a-nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-por-hamas-y-pide-su-liberacion-20231024134034 El Observador]

Other sources in Spanish: [https://www.semanariohebreojai.com/articulo/7253 Semanario Hebreo Jai], [https://www.telenoche.com.uy/nacionales/embajada-confirmo-que-rehen-es-nacionalidad-uruguaya-n5357159 Telenoche], [https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/10/24/nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-hamas-israel-orix/ CNN], [https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2023/10/25/uruguay-le-otorgo-la-nacionalidad-a-la-joven-israeli-secuestrada-por-hamas/ Infobae] and [https://ladiaria.com.uy/politica/articulo/2023/10/la-embajada-uruguaya-en-israel-solicito-a-ese-pais-que-trabaje-en-la-liberacion-de-una-nieta-de-uruguayos/ La Diaria].

The Uruguayan government asked the Israeli government, through the Uruguayan embassy in Israel, to make every effort to secure the release of the 29-year-old woman. [[User:Accuratelibrarian|Accuratelibrarian]] ([[User talk:Accuratelibrarian|talk]]) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Why are Hamas fighters and PIJ fighters listed under Lebanon casualties? ==

In the infobox under the h note there are 3 PIJ and 3 Hamas fighters listed along the Hezbollah fighters and civilians, and I ask why? In the sources I've only found they've been murdered close to Lebanon but not that they are lebanese, so why include them there and not in the "Murdered in Israel" group of dead? [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Simply because they were killed while participating in the Lebanese border clashes under the Hezbollah banner. As a quick question, why did you use the word "murdered" in your post? They were combat deaths after all, and it just seems a little unusual to use that word in such a context. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Well I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if that sounded odd, alright I understand and thanks. [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Thats alright, thanks for letting me know. Something that should be mentioned that in English, "murder" has a very specifically tailored definition that pertains to killings deliberately done in cold blood. That is why it initially came across as strange (and honestly a little inflammatory) to use it regarding enemy combatants. One can make an argument about civilian victims from Israeli bombing campaigns, but that is another can of worms I'm not going to open here.
:::In my personal opinion, it seems like a better and more neutral sounding alternative regarding that specific situation would be simply be "killed", as it doesn't have the same exact baggage as "murder." Normally, this is just a trivial bit of semantics, but it is a very important distinction in regarding armed conflicts, especially ones as politicized and controversial as the Israel-Palestinian wars. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh that makes sense, I personally would use it to desribe the dead palestinian civilians, well I will be more careful in the future, thanks for letting me know! [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Adding a new subsection ==

Should there be a subsection for war crimes committed during this conflict, or is there already one? [[User:Iminyourwalls72|Iminyourwalls72]] ([[User talk:Iminyourwalls72|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:There is a page about the war crimes. [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. Is it mentioned in the current page? [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Additional Relevant Information ==

'''Unbiased Admins/Editors Please take a look into this and add this information in appropriate sections ,if relevant to the topic:

'''
'''1.) IDF Officer is Told by Gazan How Hamas Prevents Civilian Evacuations:''' . Total causalities claimed by Hamas-run gaza health ministry may not be just the result of Israeli's strikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaK4muqkRBE

''''''2.) Recorded: Hamas Millitants Calls Father With Murdered Woman's Phone to Celebrate The Oct. 7''' Massacre''':https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bACNYtaLBQI

'''3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:''': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg
:The practice of "[[:ru:Начальная военная подготовка|initial military training]]" is also used in Russia in [[Secondary school|secondary]] [[comprehensive school]]s in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:see [[whataboutery]]. also not going to debate on the legal age, legal framework, motives,volutary participation, ideology, and other differences between the two. just provided the information. editors/admins will decide if its relevant or not. if not, it will be discarded like many other critical info.no issues. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit requests like these are archived in Wikipedia very soon so also keep an eye on that) [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I cannot find a [[WP:RS|reliable secondary source]] for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::we can write as per idf produced evidence. also are reliable secondry sources in business of evaluating evidences? for eg:if a public video is produced of hamas decapitating people , why would you need other sources to report it too? by your logic, all the claims and evidences gaza ministry makes and shows should also be removed, which are not evaluated by secondry sources. for eg: list of 7000 people died with their id. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Countries ready to take Gaza refugees ==

As many countries are showcasing solidarity with gaza,their should be a section(or atleast a mention) for countries who are ready to take in gaza refugees/displaced people.
i only came accross scotland:
Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, has offered to welcome refugees from Gaza and treat wounded civilians in Scottish hospitals.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/10/17/scotlands-first-minister-humza-yousaf-says-uk-should-offer-sanctuary-for-gaza-refugees/

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358422/scotland-first-minister-pledges-readiness-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4262981-scotlands-first-minister-says-country-willing-to-take-gaza-refugees/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-19/ty-article/scotlands-leader-calls-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees-to-the-u-k-amid-hamas-israel-war/0000018b-4776-d614-abcf-ef7760540000

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/scotland-minister-humza-yousaf-offers-to-invite-gaza-refugees-to-scotland-faces-backlash-101697604233670.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/willing-to-be-a-place-of-sanctuary-scotland-first-minister-says-ready-to-welcome-gaza-refugees-402497-2023-10-18 [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas infiltrators ==

The article states :

* "Simultaneously, around 2,500 Hamas militants[5] infiltrated Israel from Gaza using trucks, ..."

Source talks about :

* "2500 militants and civilians"

[[User:RadXman|RadXman]] ([[User talk:RadXman|talk]]) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

: In infobox, it is also necessary to correct the information from "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed". According to the [https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-475427-00.html source], "approximately 2,500 terrorists and civilians entered Israel from Gaza, of which approximately 1,500 returned to the Strip." --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 13:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Fixed it. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Censor ==

censors
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130805
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130882
[[User:Baratiiman|Baratiiman]] ([[User talk:Baratiiman|talk]]) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:So what are you trying to say here? The material removed removed was not directly related, but did show Iran's opposition to Israel. Not every statement made needs to be included. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Possible [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] drones falling on Egypt ==

The Egyptian towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] near Israel were hit by projectiles this morning.[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosion-heard-egyptian-red-sea-town-near-israeli-border-witness-2023-10-27/] Last week, U.S. Navy[https://abcnews.go.com/International/security-incident-involving-us-navy-destroyer-red-sea/story?id=104147141] and Saudi Arabia[https://allarab.news/saudi-arabia-shoots-down-houthi-missile-from-yemen-heading-towards-israel/] had reportedly intercepted 4 missiles and 50 drones fired by Houthis at the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]].[[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/]] [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] are located at a distance of 200 km and 250 km, respectively, from the [[Gaza Strip]]. Does [[Hamas]] have such long-range weapons? The [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] are based even further, in [[Yemen]], 1,600 km from the city of [[Eilat]]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Bakeries? Barber shops? ==

Tareq S. Haijaj, [https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/they-let-humanitarian-aid-in-then-they-bombed-it-so-that-gaza-would-starve/ They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve]. [[Mondoweiss]] 26 October 2023 [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:This would require independent confirmation preferably from the aid agencies providing these food supplies. It is a remarkable claim, on the face of it, and therefore one would expect wider coverage, despite the general systemic bias in reportage. So too with the suggestion any battery-charging agency like barbershops are being regularly targeted.
:The empirical description of a new kind of weapon is worth pursuing, because people on the ground in wars learn to distinguish types of rocketry so they may take precautions, depending on the noise profile (innumerable WW1/WW2 histories confirm that practice).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

Please add an explanation in the infobox about the over 40 percent of Palestinian deaths being children, which explains the extremely low median age of the Gaza Strip population ([[Demographics of the State of Palestine|16-17 years old]]). Otherwise, one gets the impression that Israel is specifically bombing children. [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: While I understand the motivation behind this, [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] points out that the infobox is to summarize the information. Adding an explanation like that would be too much. That said, I think it would warrant inclusion in the article itself if you can provide some [[WP:Reliable Sources]] for it. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Replace Citation 365 with the actual document released by the Gaza Health Ministry. ==

https://www.aljazeera.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-2.pdf

The document hasn't been translated yet but it seems better to cite the public document than a newspaper article talking about the document. [[User:Oshaboy2|Oshaboy2]] ([[User talk:Oshaboy2|talk]]) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Usually we prefer secondary sources (like news orgs) of which I have seen more than a few. To "cite" the primary article, we would need a translation. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox ==

Why is Hezbollah listed as a belligerent in the infobox and why are Lebanon and Syria listed as locations? That 'incidents' have occurred involving all three is cited and covered in the body, but none of the sources used comes anywhere near the [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claim that Hezbollah is now actively fighting as part of the war or that the war is taking place outside Gaza/Southern Israel. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-carrying-out-artillery-strikes-in-syria-after-mortar-fire/ This two sentence article] is employed to justify the claim that Syria is now one of the war locations, although it does not even mention Hamas or the 'main' conflict anywhere.

Sources should be clear, unambiguous and near universal to claim that any other group are active participants in the war, whether we are talking about the US or Syria. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 ==

Why is "2023" in the title? There is no other article called [[Israel–Hamas war]] to disambiguate from. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Conflicts in the region have been going on since 1948. Although the names of the countries and the political parties that run them can be used to differentiate the various conflicts in some cases, a little redundancy can be helpful for clarity. In this case, I think "2023" helps to distinguish this article from the many others. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Commanders and leaders flags in infobox ==

I think it's fair and logical to add {{flagicon|PLE}} palestinian (and {{flagicon|LIB}} lebanese) flags to commanders and leaders in infobox like those of israeli commanders and leaders. No ? [[User:Faycal.09|Fayçal.09]] ([[User talk:Faycal.09|talk]]) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Yes that’s fine IMO [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:I agree. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Near-total internet and cellular blackout hits Gaza as Israel ramps up strikes ==

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/internet-blackout-hits-gaza-israel-ramps-strikes-rcna122531 [[Special:Contributions/102.45.250.20|102.45.250.20]] ([[User talk:102.45.250.20|talk]]) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:added. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Smallpox/chicken pox ==

The article says that there is a smallpox outbreak in Gaza. As smallpox has been eradicated, this mention appears to be a mistranslation in the Al Jazeera article. The UN report (https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142732) mentions chicken pox instead. See also https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/10/24/fact-check-smallpox-has-not-broken-out-in-gaza/ (not sure whether this counts as a reliable source). [[User:Oryf|Oryf]] ([[User talk:Oryf|talk]]) 19:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Change article title from 2023 Israel-Hamas War to 2023 Palestinian Genocide [[User:Elsliquor|Elsliquor]] ([[User talk:Elsliquor|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 (2) ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Add the Houthi movement on the left for the belligerents box. [[User:Sirswiss1|Sirswiss1]] ([[User talk:Sirswiss1|talk]]) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*{{notdone}} - Please refer to the '''[[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]]''' related to this edit request. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Shortening article ==

After another editor added the template pointing out the article length, I wanted to write down some suggestions along with an area for other editors to add ideas and mark down when they are done.
*Israeli response probably doesn't need to be a day-by-day account.
*Humanitarian situation could get trimmed down to a few paragraphs and get a separate article
*Reactions likely deserve their own article. Maybe trim it down to Israel, Palestine (combine Gaza and West Bank), Middle East, and International.
Feel free to add on and strikethrough anything that is completed; I will do what I can but I'm not the fastest editor of all time. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== IDF shares proof of main Hamas base built under Largest Gaza hospital(Shifa) but Hamas denies it ==

Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari claimed in a briefing for international reporters that Hamas’s main base of operations is under Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.“When medical facilities are used for terror purposes, they are liable to lose their protection from attack in accordance with international law,” Hagari warned.

Hamas uses Al-Shifa with its 1,500 beds and 4,000 staff members, as well as other strategic and sensitive areas - other hospitals, mosques, UNRWA centers, and more - as shields for its underground tunnel network, Hagari explained. Moreover, he added, in Al-Shifa specifically, Hamas runs parts of its command and control center in different departments, carrying out rocket attacks against Israel and other terror activities.
“Hamas also has an entrance to its terror tunnels from inside hospital wards,” he said. “From different places inside the hospital, you can enter underground tunnels.

sources:https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-army-spokesman-hamas-military-base-is-under-shifa-hospital/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamass-main-operations-base-is-under-shifa-hospital-in-gaza-city-says-idf/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-hamas-hiding-tunnels-operations-centres-gaza-hospital-2023-10-27/

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-770484

However,Hamas rejects Israeli claim over installations under al-Shifa hospital

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/27/hamas-rejects-israeli-claim-over-installations-under-al-shifa-hospital [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:In all the above sources, the IDF only makes a statement. And where is the actual proofs?--[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 22:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

2023-10-27T22:06:42Z

91.210.248.223: /* IDF shares proof of main Hamas base built under Largest Gaza hospital(Shifa) but Hamas denies it */

{{Talk header|age=1|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|minthreadsleft=1}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversy}}
{{not a forum}}
{{censor}}
{{American English}}
{{Old move
|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict
|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|result1 = moved
|date1 = 7 October 2023
|link1 = Special:Permalink/1179550401#Requested move 7 October 2023
|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War
|result2 = not moved, [[WP:SNOW]]
|date2 = 11 October 2023
|link2 = Special:Permalink/1179788985#Requested move 11 October 2023
|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war
|result3 = not moved, no consensus
|date3 = 15 October 2023
|link3 = Special:Permalink/1181585273#Requested_move_15_October_2023
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{ITN talk|7 October|2023|oldid=1179028067}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|class=B|collapsed=y|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=Mid}}

}}
{{Top 25 Report|October 1 2023 (24th)|October 8 2023 (3rd)}}
{{page views}}
{{Section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 22
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{press|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html |title=Wikipedia Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X |author=Steven Harrison ||lang=en-US |org=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=2023-10-26}}

== Extremely violent execution video in the body section ==

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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

: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." [[User:FunLater|FunLater]] ([[User talk:FunLater|talk]]) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also there is [[WP:OM]], and that says that {{tq|the only reason for including any image in any article is [[Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content|"to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"]]}}. I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@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]]: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::"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. [[User:Ben Azura|Ben Azura]] ([[User talk:Ben Azura|talk]]) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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'': {{talk quote block|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'''|source=[[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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[WP:PLA]] is also applicable, specifically that {{tq|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 [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|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]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::'''"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:Wikipedia is not censored|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk: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: {{Tq|Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE|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 {{tq|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]]:
::::::::{{TQB|Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.}}
::::::::{{TQB|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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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, [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Lenny Marks|@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.) [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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). [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. {{pb}}An example to clarify the distinction: [[:File:Basal_cell_carcinoma.jpg|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. {{pb}}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. {{pb}}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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]], I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects [[WP:IMGCONTENT]]. You are right to say that {{talk quote inline|"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 {{talk quote inline|"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. {{talk quote block|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'''.|source= [[WP:CENSOR]]}} [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Wikipedia’s not censored, period. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:FYI, there is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm a parallel discussion] on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
: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." [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] The footage is not included in that video and you know it. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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 [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Keep it. It's important. [[Special:Contributions/2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F]] ([[User talk:2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|talk]]) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:<nowiki>'''Keep'''</nowiki>. Per [[Wikipedia:Gore]] . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] The poll is below if you are trying to !vote [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:Where is this anyways? [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:CooperGoodman|CooperGoodman]] The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm here]. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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, [[WP:CENSOR|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]]). [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:CooperGoodman|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 -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@Lenny Marks
:::I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We have the right to not watch said video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
:::::::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.
:::::::In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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 [[WP:NFC|non free content policy]]. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:Well said @[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

::Good call: I also left [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_video_depicting_extremely_violent_murders_could_benefit_from_additional_community_input|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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 [[Kibbutz|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Jon.yb093|Jon.yb093]] ([[User talk:Jon.yb093|talk]]) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jon.yb093|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Snow Rise|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.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [[WP:AFP|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". {{tq|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 [[User:Lenny Marks|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. {{tq|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"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,

:::::{{tq|"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...

:::::{{tq|"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) [[WP:NOTCOMPULSORY|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.

:::::{{tq|"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.

:::::{{tq|"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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Snow Rise}} I see you didn't even ''attempt'' to address the very valid point that [[WP:AFP|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 [[WP:DISC|content disclaimer]] which reads {{tq|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 {{tq|Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.}}
::::::{{tq|"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, [[:File:Full, unedited Kelly Thomas confrontation video (35 min.).webm|The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas]] provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that [[:File:The Lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels.jpg|the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels]] provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a [[:File:Jewish child victim of Arab riots in Hebron, 1929.jpg|photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre]] adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that [[:File:Fotothek df ps 0000047 Eine Mutter über dem Kinderwagen ihrer Zwillinge im Tode.jpg|images of the casualties]] [[:File:Sumiteru Taniguchi back.jpg|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.
::::::{{tq|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".
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180403310 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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [[WP:AN|an admin noticeboard]]. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.
::::::{{tq|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.}}
:::::[[:File:Buchenwald SS Corpses 60631.jpg|You]] [[:File:McCool shot by sniper in Iraq, 2006.webm|sure]] [[:File:Suspect Armed With Screwdriver Shot By LA Deputies.webm|about]] [[:File:LAPD Officers Kill Stabbing Suspect Holding Woman Hostage, June 2018.webm|that]]? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv on Wikimedia Commons,] which is a file repository and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_Wikipedia 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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Lethargilistic}}That's not exactly true. That video ''was'' used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Cerna|was deleted]] for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Veggies}}Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|Lethargilistic]] on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] Link? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain [[Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer|disclaimers]]. There are options to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain content]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
::: "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
::: 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.
::: In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant.
::[[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:100% well said. 100% true. I agree fully, and I will work to make sure this video is taken down. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
[[File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg|thumb|''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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

: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) [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Borgenland|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. {{talk quote block|"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"|source=[[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:
::{{talk quote block|"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'''"."|source=[[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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:And since [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is really sad . 😢😢😢 [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:::{{u|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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|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: {{tq|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).-- [[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'''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]] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:I was going to point out that on Wikipedia, we don't remove content just because of its graphic nature. If it is in a encyclopedic tone and it don't have copyright issues, then it can probably stay. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article? ===
* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Absolutely not'''</s> '''STRONG oppose''' per reasons already given (and those tellingly ''not'' given by the opposition). -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
**Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet ''another'' section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Veggies|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. [[User:IshChasidecha|IshChasidecha]] ([[User talk:IshChasidecha|talk]]) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:NFC|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::Just to point out, it has been verified now by HRW. If the video violates copyrights (I am not an expert but it seems like it does not) then that is a separate discussion to be had. This is just about the suitability of the video in this article. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove [[snuff film]]s. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*: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 [[Wikipedia:!VOTE|!poll]] will help a bit with assessing consensus. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awsome Aasim]] You say that {{talk quote inline|"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]].) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cwater1|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] I strike out the comment. <nowiki><s></nowiki> I put a new reply saying keep video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. [[User:Eduardog3000|eduardog3000]] ([[User talk:Eduardog3000|talk]]) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' citing Snow Rise. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. [[User:Yekshemesh|Yekshemesh]] ([[User talk:Yekshemesh|talk]]) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**{{re|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? -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per SnowRise. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]] 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:•'''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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*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. <s>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. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)</s> ''''Support inclusion of video'''. The video has now been authenticated by [[Human Rights Watch]], who thought it significant enough to [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified write about]. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video of Israeli casualties as well. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Ficaia|Ficaia]] the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] Given that, you would support keeping? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.{{pb}}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.''' [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**:On the flip side, {{tq|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**::The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
**: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware [[WP:Censored|Wikipedia isn't censored]] and there are ways to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain images and videos]].</s> [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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]].

*'''Keep/re-add/oppose''' but '''wait''' – alternatives may be better – Ignoring the [[c:File_talk:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm|biased file name]] and [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|possible copyright]] and verifiability issues, this video shows Hamas's attacks much better than the other image used in the article. I would prefer a less violent example (such as an image), but only if it showcases the attacks in a similar way to this video. I don't think we should readd it until the [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|copyright issue]] (see the comment) is addressed. 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - Honestly, even with the violent nature, it should not be removed, (just my personal opinion)[[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 

*'''Oppose removal''' I strike out my original comment. I agree with @[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Oppose/Keep''' per [[WP:GORE]]. '''''[[User:Hansen Sebastian|Hansen Sebastian]]'''''[[user talk:Hansen Sebastian|Talk]] 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


==== 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. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:First of all, [[WP:VOTE|nobody is voting]] here. This [[Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY|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, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180483586 executive]") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, [[WP:CON|consensus]] is [[WP:NHC|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:: 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 {{tq|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AHamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim%2C_2023.webm&diff=812338484&oldid=812334846], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&search=%5B%5BTemplate%3ALinkimage%5D%5D&ns0=1 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. {{tq|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. {{tq|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.' -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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, {{u|Veggies}}, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @[[User:Veggies|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. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Per [[WP:Offensive material]]: {{tq|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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] {{talk quote inline|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 {{talk quote inline|Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion.}} The inclusion requirements for images are clear: {{talk quote|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.|source=[[wp:IMGCONTENT]]}}
:-- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgXk_mz_8E
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g3ewJZXdsg
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67EYVdfgzo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw
:[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you, I will look through these [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::A few more:
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHydKv0_Do
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC1J4W5sd4
::[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I'm not impressed.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGbjLuZdycY] vs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_BbGc1ZhE]). 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] is correct. @[[User:EvergreenFir|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). [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Riposte97|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::While I initially was in favour of this; it's just too much. I genuinely think it's so out of place. It's brutal, violent, and in hindsight I don't think it really achieves much. Not enough to warrant it's inclusion given the issues it introduces. I get the arguments, not saying anyones arguing for it's re-inclusion in bad faith, but I really have to agree with snow here that there's no way this would ever stand long term. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree that its brutal and violent, but that doesnt affect the validity in any way [[Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED|per policy]]. I might still accept this argument if there were any issues that the video raised - But there arent. The only claim made is that the video is gratuitous (i.e. of no meaningful value) which seems rather absurd for a video about a massacre in an article about a war started by said massacre. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 10:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]]; exactly as @[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]] says. There seem to be two main arguments against inclusion here: 1) that the video has no encyclopedic value (which is just false as many on the opposition have acknowledged) and 2) that the video violates [[wp:GRATUITOUS]] due to the degree of its violence. But that very policy says that if a video ''does'' have encyclopedic value it should be included even when graphic, unless there is a less graphic but equally valuable video to replace it with. As you say, I think that (most) of the arguments against inclusion are made in good faith, but are based on a misreading of policy and this idea that though Wikipedia is not censored, it does not include things that are just ''too'' graphic. As I enumerated above, there are plenty of articles that contain extremely graphic content when appropriate (particularly articles about conflict and massacres). -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I made the close req a couple of minutes ago - [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]]. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Considered a non-admin closure, and boy howdy the poor admin that has to deal with this one. It's tied with '''14 for removal''' and '''14 against''', with 1 wait for alternative then add back. Worst part is everyone is either citing [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] or SnowRise's reasoning. Either way this is going to be a spicy one. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::: I really don't think it's a difficult close. All the admin has to do is close as a no consensus, and because no consensus was achieved for including the video, it should not be included per [[WP:ONUS]], which I think particularly applies in this case given the graphic nature of the video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Question 2: Should the video be [[MediaWiki:Bad image list|blacklisted]] from the English Wikipedia? ===
{{atop
| status =
| result = 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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' also per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''', blacklisting is discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Bad image list]] when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] I would agree, but we have [[WP:NODISCLAIMERS]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome Aasim]], just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''' as explained above -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) Wrong venue''' per @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) wrong venue''' per Kusma. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Decapitation ==

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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
: ??? {{tq|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 [https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/ the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line]. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making [[beheading video]]s, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have condensed the subsection in question. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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? --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Ashvio|Ashvio]] ([[User talk:Ashvio|talk]]) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
'''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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and reflect properly substantiated information. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I've performed an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1181629600&oldid=1181626998 initial trim] of various quotes with no weight. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Babies_beheaded?|in this section]]. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. [[Kfar Aza]] and [[Be'eri]].
::::For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:
::::<ref name="efe13oct2023">{{cite news |first=Joel |last=Gunter |date=13 October 2023 |title=Israel releases photos of babies killed by Hamas |publisher=[[EFE]] |url=https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2023-10-13/israel-releases-photos-of-babies-killed-by-hamas/ |access-date=22 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=17 October 2023 |title='Israeli Babies Decapitated': Jerusalem Official Rebuts Massacre Denial; Slams Hamas Barbarity |work=[[Hindustan Times]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6y-kdnShPQ |access-date=21 October 2023 |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=16 October 2023 |title='Many Hamas victims tortured, raped, abused' |work=The Manila Times |agency=[[Agence France-Presse]] |url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2023/10/16/world/americas-emea/many-hamas-victims-tortured-raped-abused/1914968 |access-date=17 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ari |last2=Lim |first2=Megan |last3=Dorning |first3=Courtney |date=18 October 2023 |title=Israel turns to DNA and dental imprints to identify unrecognizable bodies |work=[[NPR]] |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206506717/israel-hamas-gaza-dna-bodies-burial-tel-aviv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sokol |first=Sam |date=16 October 2023 |title=Hostages' Families Group to Red Cross: Many of Almost 200 Israelis Held in Gaza in Severe Need of Medical Treatment |work=[[Haaretz]] |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-16/ty-article/.premium/many-of-almost-200-israelis-held-in-gaza-in-severe-need-of-medical-treatment/0000018b-38b8-d0ac-a39f-b9bad3600000 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/mOVlf |archive-date=16 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Rose |first1=Emily |last2=Villarraga |first2=Herbert |date=17 October 2023 |title=Rescue workers recount horrors found in kibbutz attacked by Hamas |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rescue-workers-recount-horrors-found-kibbutz-attacked-by-hamas-2023-10-17/}}</ref>
::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{Reflist-talk}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I've read most of the accounts of this meeting from non-Israeli sources. None of them mention decapitation as included part of the 42 minute video or supplementary images. We already knew that Hamas murdered civilians including children in cold blood, so I don't really see the conference as being particularly revelatory in the way some have. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::Really?

{{cquote|Still images showed a '''decapitated''' soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities]}}

{{cquote|In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/]}}
::The BBC also described the same incident.

{{cquote|Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to '''decapitate''' someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270]}}

{{cquote|Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations of seven Hamas terrorists who were captured following the Palestinian terror group’s October 7 onslaught, in which they admitted they had been ordered to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.

In one video released by the Israel Defense Forces, a person whose face is blurred said that gunmen were given instructions to kill everyone they saw, including '''beheading victims''' and cutting off their legs.

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. '''“Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.”''' [https://www.timesofisrael.com/kill-behead-rape-interrogated-hamas-members-detail-atrocities-against-civilians/]}}

{{cquote|The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and '''decapitation''' from the southern Israel assault. [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-war-idf-posts-videos-of-hamas-terrorists-detailing-orders-to-kill-behead-and-rape/articleshow/104681563.cms]}}

::[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::: Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.
:::[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::In what way does it fail verification? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. [[Special:Contributions/98.151.160.96|98.151.160.96]] ([[User talk:98.151.160.96|talk]]) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[Graeme Wood (journalist)|Graeme Wood]] reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated."<ref name="CBC News">{{Cite news |date=25 October 2023 |title=Journalist describes footage of Hamas atrocities compiled by the IDF |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0Atcdy38g |work=[[CBC News]] |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]@[[User:Wee Curry Monster|Wee Curry Monster]]@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]@[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]]@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]]@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== How to handle the [[Battle of Zikim]] ==

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 [[2023 Hamas attack on Israel|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 {{u|The Great Mule of Eupatoria}} and {{u|BilledMammal}} disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1181452958 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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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, [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/october-9-2023-morning-rundown-rcna119434 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::Key phrase: “Israel said” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]], all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel '''by sea;''' the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{tq|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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [https://www.indiatoday.in/world/video/israeli-army-deployed-at-zikim-beach-civilians-asked-to-leave-ground-report-2449724-2023-10-16 This] is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/a-few-idf-officers-saved-90-trainees-from-hamas-terrorists-they-paid-with-their-lives/0000018b-4da2-dc3c-a5df-ddaadf370000 A new article] from [[Haaretz]] disputes the initial claims from October 7th that [[Bahad 4]] fell.
:<code>...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.</code>
:Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the [[Battle of Zikim]] article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.
:[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]] You can bypass the paywall by reading an [https://archive.ph/nWuvr archived version] here. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at [[Bahad 4]] up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the [[Bahad 4]] base ''since'' 7 October. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict ==

A new report by ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]]''[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] states that U.S. has sent a [[Lieutenant general (United States)|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 movement|Houthi]] cruise missile over the Red Sea[https://www.npr.org/2023/10/20/1207523642/yemen-missiles-intercepted] 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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

::[[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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA BBC] Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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)" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*Note, an RfC ([[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox]]) was started below to figure the content dispute out. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

SOHR has reported that several Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghani militiamen (presumably under the Popular Mobilization Units, Liwa Fatemiyoun, and National Defense Forces 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/ [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is actually reported in [[The Economist]] as well, I'll see if I can find the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Expansion to war crimes section ==

{{ping|Nableezy}} I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in {{diff2|1181344023|this diff}}. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under [[WP:BALASP]].

For editors generally, see also [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?|this discussion,]] regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of [[WP:BALASP]] is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff].
:I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.
:The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.
:My problem with this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff] is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named [[Tom Dannenbaum]]), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.
:According to [[WP:RS]], a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for [[WP:RS]] should be heightened.
:How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?
:I oppose the incorporation of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff], along with [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the [[WP:ONUS]] in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::That is called an expert view and [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Since you are relying on [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:
:::(i) Prefer secondary sources,
:::(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
:::(iii) Citation counts
:::(iv) POV and peer review
:::Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?
:::As per [[WP:ONUS]], the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.
:::You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with [[WP:RS]].
:::Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.
:::Kindly do. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::If you read [[WP:SPS]] youll see '' Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.'' You can see his [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KGysaxgAAAAJ&hl=en relevant publications]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] your removal of that content was correct.@[[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also as per [[WP:SPS]] :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::And what do you think is relevant there? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]]: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add Kazakhstan casualtie ==

add one citizen of Kazakhstan to the number of victims among foreigners and persons with dual citizenship. Ref: [https://en.inform.kz/news/kazakh-national-dies-in-gaza-strip-kazakh-mfa-2420d6/#:~:text=A%20national%20of%20Kazakhstan%20died,of%20Palestine%2C%20died%20as%20well. inform], [https://adyrna.kz/en/post/174231 adyrna], [https://www.kt.kz/eng/society/wto_countries_are_preparing_for_the_13th_wto_ministerial_1377956990.html kt] [[User:Нурасылл|Нурасылл]] ([[User talk:Нурасылл|talk]]) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Belligerents & Units involved ==

The belligerents section has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, yet the units involved section doesn't. I believe it should be changed so the belligerents section has Fatah instead of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (since Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is part of Fatah), and the units involved section then has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as was done with Hamas & Al-Qassam brigades. [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]], please see [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Fatah involved?|[1]]] and [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Extended-confirmed-edit request, October 18|[2]]] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/21/israel-hamas-conflict-palestinian-voices-censored Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== ‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense ==

According to [https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/22804 Kyiv Post] {{green|In reaction to Hamas' attacks, the IDF is deploying its new Iron Beam anti-missile system ahead of its originally planned schedule.}} "I'm unsure where to drop this info? Where's the spot for deets on the weapon systems both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:It may be too early to add it to ''this'' article. You could certainly add it to the [[Iron Beam]] article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Jprg1966}} "Iron Sting" now. [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/watch-idf-uses-new-iron-sting-weapon-system-against-hamas-X5Qc1YQbzf2IgoJs1y5p WSJ] {{green|The Israel Defense Forces have released footage that is said to depict commandos using their new "Iron Sting" weapon system against Hamas in one of its initial operational deployments. The laser and GPS-guided mortar is designed to target urban environments, as described by its manufacturer, [[Elbit Systems]].}} I'm a bit uncertain about where to place this information. Where can we include the specifics about the weapon systems that both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Article becoming too long. Suggestions. ==

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. [[User:Lafi90|Lafi90]] ([[User talk:Lafi90|talk]]) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:[[2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Reactions]] It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Someone working on [[Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]], should make a dent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the [[WP:PROSELINE]] sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per {{U|Alcibiades979}}'s suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180882394 tried] that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, [[Iraq War#Background]] and [[Iraq War#Pre-war events]], similarly [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background]] and [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude]].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1181659781 Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Chafique}} Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, {{they|Abo Yemen}} reverted his own [[Special:Diff/1181659525|edit]] from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox ==
{{atop
| status = Closing by request
| result = Closing this at the request of the RfC creator {{u|WeatherWriter}} at [[Special:Diff/1181698226]]. – [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

Should the [[United States]] be added to the infobox as a belligerent?

*'''Option 1''' — Yes (Listed as flag under Israel - No additional info - Full belligerent)
*'''Option 2''' — Yes (Listed as bullet point under Israel - No additional info)
*'''Option 3''' — Yes (Listed as a bullet point under Israel as “''United States (in Iraq and Red Sea only)'“
*'''Option 4''' — Yes (Listed under a “Supported by” subheading under Israel.)
*'''Option 5''' — Yes (Format not mentioned in option 1-4)
*'''Option 6''' — No

'''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion===
Previous discussions: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21]], [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14]]
*'''Comment''' — As RfC starter, I am going to refrain from commenting for now. This RfC was started given several content disputes and various talk page discussions around this overall topic. I attempted to look through some of the article history and I believe option 1-4 covered any previous styles of the US being added in the infobox. I added option 5 incase I missed a format style. Obviously, option 6 is for those who oppose it being added. Anyway, an RfC was for sure needed to solve all the various content disputes on this topic. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Reply|WeatherWriter}} Could you point to where #4 was deprecated? That is currently used at [[Gaza–Israel conflict]]. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:If consensus is reached on option 4, Germany should be added and Iran and Russia should be added to Hamas and its allies.[[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I am not sure. When figuring out the previous versions where the USA was listed, I saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1181544884 this edit] by {{u|Parham wiki}} saying it was deprecated. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#c-BilledMammal-20230719130800-RfC_on_%22supported_by%22_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter|If there is a consensus, it can be added.] [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|Selfstudier}}, [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict]] is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Since you are requesting ''more'' research on my end…here: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page]] & [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah]] are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' — Given the US military shooting down missiles launched believed to be going towards Israel, they are a belligerent now and deserve to be listed. Option 3 is the best as the US isn’t fully involved in the Gaza Strip conflict, but more around the region. Noting, option 3 was previously used in the article (within the last 24 hours). '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option X''' USA should be in the infox iff it is a [[belligerent]].[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - If the US is included as a belligerent, then the [[Houthi movement|Houthis]] will necessarily ''also'' have to be included. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the [[Red Sea]] shot down Yemeni [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]] and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.
:There are additional factors that ''might'' count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] 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, U.S. is reported[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.
:Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say '''Option 1''' would be the most appropriate option. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia) ==
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701201698}}
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=F55CC1A}}

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

[[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]], [[Saudi Arabia]]

'''Option 1''' – Add X 
'''Option 2''' – Do not add X 
'''Option 3''' – Neutral (no comments) on X 
(X = Country)

RfC is '''not''' to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. six different and unique discussions. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion2===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
*'''RfC Creator Comment''' – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi''', '''Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany''' – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), {{u|Ecrusized}} said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea '''shot down''' 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation Axios], the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to '''advise''' ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 reported to have] '''delivered''' 45 cargo planes loaded with '''armaments''' to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/u-s-sends-air-defense-systems-to-gulf-countries-O11ZyqKBZhIjSprR7WoN Wall Street Journal reported] the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 the new report] from the [[Wall Street Journal]] saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A new report by [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 WSJ] states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by [[Saudi Arabia]]. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I just added it to the list of options. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment 2''' [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/drone-attacks-american-bases-injured-two-dozen-us-military-personnel-rcna121961 NBC News] reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:<s>'''Comment''' Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option *''' Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are [[belligerents]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Wait {{u|Selfstudier}}, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. ''Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral?'' If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::I made my comment and I explained it as well. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:AGF|Not trying to be rude]], but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Let the closer worry about what it means. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::<s>@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], my understanding is that @[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] would respond your question ''Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent?'' with the answer ''Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no.'' I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.
:::::::[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose any being listed as belligerents''' Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.
:I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @[[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.
:It may interest other editors to peruse [[Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine]] and its archives, for an interesting case study.
:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, {{u|Parham wiki}} made the comment that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]), then it can be used. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Bermicourt}}, not sure if you made a typo, but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1181733329 current version of the article] lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — Iran has now [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-palestinians-news/card/iran-s-khamenei-accuses-u-s-of-orchestrating-israel-s-gaza-campaign-uXStycKXeGwa5XaHrDrN accused (Wall Street Journal article)] the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that '''directly supports''' that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I did in my original reasoning. The US is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 supplying Israel with weapons] and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::“'''US military equipment''' pours into Israel”[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am [[WP:COAL]]ing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
* I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions.{{tq| Countries should be added to the infobox if they are [[belligerents]],}} as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly {{tq|None of these groups are involved in active combat}}, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but ''(thank God)'', there are ''(as yet)'' no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Add''': [[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]].
:'''Do not add''': [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]]. '''[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|✉]]''' 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose all additions''' until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israeli POWs omitted from lead ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}

Please revert “Hundreds of civilian hostages, including women, children and the elderly, were abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip” to “Unarmed civilian hostages and captured Israeli soldiers were taken to the Gaza Strip, including women and children.”

The new wording, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181531570 this revision] adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/21/hamas-says-israel-refused-to-receive-2-hostages-israel-calls-it-propaganda%7C Al Jazeera]: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_10%7C the discussion] of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/hamas-launches-surprise-attack-on-israel-as-palestinian-gunmen-reported-in-south%7CThe The Guardian]: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/hamas-says-it-has-enough-israeli-captives-to-free-all-palestinian-prisoners%7CAJ%7C Al Jazeera]: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

As it stands, a reader who only sees the lead and the infobox would not know that there are any Israeli POWs. How can this be? [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Yo|Monopoly31121993(2)}} This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{Yo|WillowCity}} I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I made edits to this sentence in the article before finding this discussion. If I've inadvertently overruled the result of this discussion, please accept my apologies. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{Yo|Quantling}} In my view your edit is quite helpful for indicating the uncertainty regarding the exact ratio of civilians and soldiers among those taken captive. The prior language could be taken as implying that the 200 captives were in addition to (not including) soldiers. So I see your wording as fully consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not sure if someone might want to replace the commas with brackets, but that is purely stylistic. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As well I had previously noted in a separate discussion that the reference to "women and children" was somewhat ambiguous, as female IDF soldiers are POWs, while female civilians are not, so I have no objection to the removal of that from the lead. The identities of the captives are discussed subsequently, including demographic data, and are the subject of their own article, so I don't see it as necessary for the lead. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Massacres ==

This article has plenty of Palestinian massacres giving a one-sided impression that the only side that is making any crime are Palestinians. So far more than 6000 have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2000 children. Strikes have been proven to target bakeries, supermarkets, and probably hospitals.

I can't fathom that none of these are considered massacres. Airstrike sounds a much neutral benign word than massacre, and yet Airstrikes are much deadler than anything Hamas or other militants did. Airstrikes burn victims and cause very high collateral damage, not to mention the trauma that follows a small child who witnesses one. We can see a lot of videos of children shaking, those children will most likely spend their lives in a psychiatric institution. We need to uphold Wikipedia values and make this article a little more unbiased. [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:From what I’ve seen, the massacres here are specifically talking about what happened in the kibbutzim only on October 7 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).
:Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.
::Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.
::They also killed before on 16th of October
::https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut}} Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. {{tq|Hamas doesn't see them as civilians}}. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. {{tq|we know that hamas lied }} All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Npov tags ==

{{u|James James Morrison Morrison}}, you’ve added multiple pov section tags, can you explain them here please? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think it's safe to remove any neutrality tags that aren't associated with a specific, actionable complaint here on the talk page. Otherwise we might as well just tag every section. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah, agreed, but who wants to use a revert on that? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I have removed them, so that is my revert for today. Just adding bloat without helping our readers. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Archived talks about photos and Reactions section ==

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world
::
[[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war| international reactions] page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war. ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Asked and answered. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

The Suprise attack by hamas on Israel was done with the guide of Iran.

The war also involves Hizzbolla - an Iranian proxy and Iranian miltias in Syria.

Also adding the missle attack by the Houtis in Yemen - another Iranian proxy aimed on Israel.

there is also the case of Iraqi Millitias also guided by Iran attacking US bases in Iraq, because of US support of Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.
::Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.
::https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.
::::They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.
::::Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.
::::Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.
::::*since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.
::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.
:::::*also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.
:::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister [[Eli Cohen]] stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is [[Eli Cohen (politician, born 1972)|this one]]. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26]] ([[User talk:2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|talk]]) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel casualties ==

Israeli casualties still at 1400? We need more updates [[User:RickyBlair668|RickyBlair668]] ([[User talk:RickyBlair668|talk]]) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Updating casualities in an ongoing crisis (or war) is tricky as it can change day by day. Perhaps an update once a week would be easier, but I agree with the suggestion that the figure should be updated. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Supported by ==

@[[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]], concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181871075 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia], the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: '''Ongoing RfC''' — Please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ [[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]] ([[User talk:Tamjeed Ahmed|talk]]) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Casualty count ==

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.
:::Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."
:::https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971
:::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden is not a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Not just Biden:
:::::https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
:::::https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/
:::::The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source ''independently'' corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the [[MOS:CLAIM|policy]] on "claimed").
::::::As well, FYI, this article from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WaPo]: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. [[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Does the block also apply for the talk page? [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== United States involvement and Casualties sustained ==

A US special force and an Israeli special ops unit that entered Gaza “completely wiped out” https://www.palestinechronicle.com/shot-to-pieces-this-is-what-happened-to-us-special-forces-when-they-entered-gaza/

The U.S is now on the ground albeit not very effective as of now. We know, through the words of Douglas Mcgregor that a combined American-Israeli military unit entered Gaza and were subsequently wiped out, presumably killed and captured. We should really consider adding the U.S to the list of belligerents especially after sustaining 30+ injuries to attacks by the “Islamic Resistance of Iraq”

Alongside U.S involvement, we should also add this new “Islamic Resistance of Iraq” faction and as more information and articles surface, we can vastly improve this article. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an [[wp:extraordinary|extraordinary]] claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|A.H.T Videomapping}} please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza ==
{{atop|Withdrawn by OP. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:A discussion on this topic [[Special:PermanentLink/1181585273#Requested move 15 October 2023|concluded just two days ago]], with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Map ==

Please add a map to the article
[[File:Countries_recognizing_Hamas_as_terror_organization.svg|thumb|World map with countries that have declared [[Hamas]] a [[List of designated terrorist groups|terrorist organization]]]] [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body ==

For reasons including [[WP:COMMONNAME]], the article title is ''Israel–Hamas war''. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier; see [[Talk:2023 Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war#Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza|above]]. However, I have a follow up question.) Does that mean we should use "Hamas" when the the folks with guns and bombs from Gaza do something and should use "Israel" when the folks with guns and bombs from Israel do something? It makes it seem like the Gazan militants do not have the support of the Gazan civilians, but that the Israeli militants do have the support of the Israeli civilians. Unless we have citations to support that asymmetry, I think we are misleading the reader. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== "2,500 infiltrated Israel" ==

Under the strength section it describes 2500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel, implying that they are still within Israel right now, it is entirely likely they would have retreated back into Gaza by now. The source for this claim is from the 13th and it should either be confirmed and the source should be changed, or it should be removed [[User:Hexifi|Hexifi]] ([[User talk:Hexifi|talk]]) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Misspelling ==

UK PM Rishi Sunak's name is misspelled under the "in opposition" subheading of the "ceasefire" heading. Should be corrected & linked to the correct article (not the mispelling redirect). [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Ha. Just remembered I am extended protected now so I could change it myself. The account responsible should be found & disciplinary action should be considered. Looked like vandalism to me. [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== infobox attribution inline ==

{{u|BilledMammal}}, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Current_situation|this]] discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing ''every'' figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Per [[WP:ONUS]], {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes.html October 25th, the NYTimes] is throwing in a disclaimer, saying {{green|a number that if verified}} At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:POINT]]. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.
:::::{{tq|The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that.}} With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.
:::::So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.
:::::At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.
::::::Editor {{Re|Hovsepig}} made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;
::::::"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:
::::::"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).
::::::And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."
::::::At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.
:::::::{{tq|At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor.}} Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::One editor does not get to decide, end of. [[WP:ONUS]] doesn't work that way either. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well given it has had numbers since [[Special:Permalink/1179034824|basically the beginning of this article]] and [[Special:Permalink/1180949164|throughout]] the now [[Special:Permalink/1181985413|7519 edits]] it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again [[WP:POINT]] (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - {{tq|the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting [[WP:DE]] when I see it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus.}} If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a better idea, since we have [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WAPO OC 24 saying ] "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; {{tq|according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to the MoH in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to Israeli official sources}}. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check {{tq|both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I started an RFC below. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included ==

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Foreign_and_dual-national_casualties this table] or should they be listed separately? For example [https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/22/dutch-woman-33-killed-gaza-strip-overnight-minister-confirms a Dutch] and [https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-woman-killed-israeli-strike-135400807.html a Ukrainian] were killed in Gaza.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:And a citizen of [[Kazakhstan]]. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Small stylistic suggestion ==

The sentence "Both Israel and the U.S stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" is the first time Iran is mentioned in the article. This sentence only makes sense in the context of the lead if the reader understands that there is some Hamas-Iran connection or that people suspect Iran could have been involved in this. The uninformed reader may not understand that sentence. It would be perhaps be wise to preface the sentence with something like "Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement...." [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF]] ([[User talk:2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|talk]]) 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]] ==

{{re|RamHez}} SOHR is considered generally reliable in articles related to [[Syrian civil war]]. It is preferred over Syrian government sources who tend to shrink their casualties. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section ==

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, [https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1352614/how-many-people-has-the-hamas-israel-war-killed-so-far.html like L'Orient Today]? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

Pinging {{u| ARandomName123}} and {{u| Timeshifter}} since you were involved in current and previous incarnations of the graph. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:It's a simple chart. It can be used under [[c:Template:PD-chart]]. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: [[c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs]] --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!
::Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. There are all kinds of ways to create charts. And a variety of charts are possible to cover deaths over time. Here are some tools:
:::[[Commons:Create charts and graphs online#Free online charting sites]]
:::There is also the freeware [[LibreOffice]] and [[LibreOffice Calc]], etc..
:::--[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war ==

Please correct the [[2023 Israel–Hamas war#Foreign and dual-national casualties|table]]:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
!scope="col"|Country
!scope="col"|Deaths
!scope="col"|Kidnapped
!scope="col"|Missing
!scope="col" class="unsortable" |{{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference(s)}}
|-
|scope="row"|{{flag|Ukraine}}
|24 {{efn|Including 21 Ukrainians died in Israel and and 3 more died in the Gaza Strip}}
|Unknown
|1
|<ref>{{cite news|date=26 October 2023|title=Number of Ukrainian casualties rises in Israel|language=en|work=[[Ukrainska Pravda]]|url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/26/7425812/ |access-date=26 October 2023}}</ref>
|} [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with [[multiple citizenship]]s? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) 

:To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== RFC on infobox casualties ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701352883}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=4529BDF}}
How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?
#Attributed with an endnote as in [[Special:Permalink/1181989063|the current version as of this writing]]
#Attributed for all numbers inline as in [[Special:Permalink/1181939077|this version]]
#Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in [[Special:Permalink/1181582391|this version]]
#Not in the infobox at all
[[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
===Survey===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RFC}}
*'''1''' - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: [https://abcnews.go.com/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006 ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.]; [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza/card/latest-casualty-figures-from-israel-and-gaza-dQNSenweikTeA7YPWzOP WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.]; [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-news-hamas/ Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed.] A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ Washington Post] reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example [https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 the UN] reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2''' or '''3''', weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.
:In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of [[WP:V]], for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.
:Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.
:In general, the option of {{tq|attributed with an endnote}} is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, <s>and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them.</s> and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them.<ref name="citationengagement" /> 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{cot|Sources for Palestinian casualties}}
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/26/israel-hamas-war-live-un-ceasefire-bid-fails-as-gaza-death-toll-soars Al Jazeera: "The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli air raids in Gaza has now reached 7,028, a figure that includes 2,913 children, the health ministry in the besieged enclave says."]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67209848 BBC: "The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says almost 6,500 people have been killed in territory since then."]
#[https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/israel-palestine-war-gaza-families-wear-id-bracelets-to-avoid-burial-in-mass-graves-403292-2023-10-26 Business Today: "A total of 756 Palestinians, including 344 children, were killed in the past 24 hours, Gaza's health ministry said on Wednesday."]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-war-wednesday-intl-hnk/index.html CNN: "The warnings from senior UN officials came after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza killed more than 700 people in 24 hours, the highest daily number published since Israeli strikes against what it called Hamas targets in Gaza began two and a half weeks ago, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah on Tuesday."]
#[https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-six-key-moments-for-the-gaza-strip-216185 The Conversation: "More than 5,700 people in Gaza have been reportedly killed by Israeli airstrikes in two weeks of relentless bombardment – at least 2,000 of whom are children."]
#[https://images.dawn.com/news/1192071/how-the-watermelon-became-a-symbol-of-resistance-in-palestine Dawn: "As of today 6,546 Palestinians have been killed, including 2,704 children, and over 17,000 people have been wounded so far in ongoing Israeli retaliatory strikes."]
#[https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/israel-hamas-war-updates-day-19-oct-25-2023/article67456283.ece The Hindu: "Rapidly expanding Israeli airstrikes across the Gaza Strip has killed more than 700 people in the past day as medical facilities across the territory were forced to close because of bombing damage and a lack of power, health officials said on Tuesday."]
#[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/25/un-general-assembly-should-act-gaza Human Rights Watch: "More than 6,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2,700 children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry."]
#[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/queen-jordan-west-israel-palestine-b2435728.html The Independent: "Queen Rania’s comments came as Israel and Hamas continued bombing each other, with airstrikes in Gaza killing more than 750 people between Tuesday and Wednesday, according to the territory’s health ministry.]
#[https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/10/26/not-about-religion-the-historical-and-political-root-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ Modern Diplomacy: "Israel also counterattacked Palestine in the Gaza Strip and killed 3,478 people and injured 12,065 others"]
#[https://www.newsweek.com/israel-committing-war-crimes-gaza-us-supporting-it-opinion-1837908 Newsweek: "This was leading human rights organization Amnesty International's characterization of Israel's massive and ongoing bombing campaign in Gaza, which, two weeks in, has killed more than 6,500 Palestinians, including more than 2,300 children."]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/26/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/ff399d89-a169-5608-a2ce-e185ac895a5b?smid=url-share New York Times: "At least 7,028 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, including nearly 3,000 children, according to the latest figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry."]
#[https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/25/in-defiance-of-international-calls-to-stop-bombardment-of-gaza-israel-extends-airstrikes-to-west-bank/ People's Dispatch: "According to Palestinian officials, the total number of Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes and raids since October 7 has crossed 6,000, with over 18,000 injured."]
#[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/hezbollah-leader-meets-with-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad-officials-for-first-time-since-israel-hamas-war-erupted PBS: "The fighting, triggered by Hamas’ deadly incursion into Israel on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel, has killed more than 5,700 Palestinians in Gaza."]
#[https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/atrocity-alert-no-370-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territory-dr-congo-and-south-sudan Relief Web: "Since 7 October more than 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and over 16,297 injured by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza."]
#[https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/news/32866-israel-bombards-gaza-prepares-invasion-as-biden-urges-path-to-peace Sight Magazine: "Israeli retaliatory strikes have killed over 6,500 people, the health ministry in the Hamas-run strip said on Wednesday. Reuters has been unable to independently verify the casualty figures of either side"]
#[https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300996267/live-israeli-troops-launch-brief-raid-into-gaza Stuff: "Gaza’s Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas, said Wednesday that more than 750 people were killed over the past 24 hours, higher than the 704 killed the previous day."]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-hamas-islamic-scholars-issue-calls-fatwas-inciting-murder-of-israelis-and-jews/ Times of Israel: "The Hamas-run health ministry claimed on Thursday that at least 7,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing conflict."]
#[https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/israel-war-live-coverage-australia-deploys-forces-to-middle-east-gaza-crisis-deepens-outrage-at-un-remarks-c-12316264 The West Australian: "The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, said Israeli airstrikes killed at least 700 people over the past day, mostly women and children."]
#[https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-50-palestinians-killed-in-one-hour-in-gaza-no-aid-entered-on-tuesday-says-un-650884 WION: "The Hamas-run Health Ministry said at least 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and 16,297 injured"]
Search was done on Google News with search term "killed palestine"; a number was omitted as there is no stable figure. Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them, if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP, or if they did not quantify the number of casualties. Search was done on 26 October.
{{cob}}
{{cot|Sources for Israeli casualties}}
#[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-24/israel-launches-raids-into-gaza/103012762 ABC: The Israeli bombardment was triggered by an October 7 terrorist attack on Israeli communities by Hamas militants who killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/23/gaza-death-toll-exceeds-5000-as-israel-continues-daily-bombardments Al Jazeera: Hamas’s attack in southern Israel killed at least 1,400 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/israel-steps-up-gaza-strikes-ahead-of-ground-invasion/news-story/e7593babdd462249f79d3ca3dfb07b0d The Australian: Alarm is growing over the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel struck back following the October 7 attacks, which Israeli officials say killed more than 1,400 people who were shot, stabbed or burnt to death by militants.]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67195174 BBC: More than 1,400 Israelis were killed when Hamas attacked communities near the Gaza border, while the Israeli military says 203 soldiers and civilians, including women and children, were taken to Gaza as hostages.]
#[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/23/israel-hamas-war-updates-and-latest-news-on-gaza-conflict.html CNBC: Their transfer follows the Friday release of two American hostages. It’s been more than two weeks since Hamas launched its assault on Israel, killing at least 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostages.]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23/h_fb85cc8446e130bafa75926bc01dc0ad CNN: Hamas militants carried out a deadly attack on Israel on October 7, killing 1,400 people and kidnapping hundreds of others.]
#[https://theconversation.com/even-if-israel-can-completely-eliminate-hamas-does-it-have-a-long-term-plan-for-gaza-216161 The Conversation: In the past couple weeks, Israel has put together a huge force to mount another ground invasion in retaliation for the Hamas cross-border attacks that killed around 1,400 Israelis on October 7.]
#[https://www.ft.com/content/687873f2-0a84-409d-b8ff-3ba86e005a89 Financial Times: Israeli authorities say more than 1,400 Israelis were killed in the attack and that 222 people, including foreign nationals, were taken hostage.]
#[https://fortune.com/2023/10/23/workers-ceos-struggle-israel-hamas-war-middle-east-starbucks/ Fortune: Jewish groups have criticized tepid responses or slow reactions to the Oct. 7 Hamas rampage that killed 1,400 people in Israel and triggered the latest war.]
#[https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/october-23-israel-hamas-war Fox News: At least 5,700 people have been killed in the war on both sides, including at least 1,400 Israeli civilians and soldiers and 32 Americans.]
#[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231023-gaza-attacks-shatter-sense-of-safety-in-israel-s-tel-aviv France24: Several rockets hit the Tel Aviv area when Hamas militants launched the most deadly attack suffered by Israel since its creation, with some 1,400 killed -- most of them civilians -- according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/gaza-second-aid-convoy-rafah-crossing-israel-bombardment The Guardian: The new war – the fifth since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 – broke out after the Palestinian militants attacked southern Israeli communities on 7 October, killing 1,400 people and taking 222 into the strip as bargaining chips.]
#[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4269507-poll-what-americans-really-think-about-the-israel-hamas-war/ The Hill: As we pass two weeks since more than 1,000 Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, killed more than 1,400 Israelis...]
#[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/israelhamas-war-is-hezbollah-heading-towards-open-conflict-with-israel-101698079630416.html Hindustan Times: Hamas militants stormed into Israel from the Gaza Strip on October 7, killing at least 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/briefing/hamas-israel-war-iranian-teenager-chevron-hess-deal.html New York Times: ...when Israel began launching airstrikes in retaliation for an attack by the Hamas militant group that killed 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-borrell-backs-humanitarian-pause-israel-hamas-conflict-2023-10-23/ Reuters: Diplomats said there was consensus on the need to ramp up humanitarian aid, reflecting widespread alarm about the fate of Palestinian civilians after two weeks of Israel bombarding and blockading Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 Hamas assault that killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://time.com/6327279/israel-peace-movement-hamas-gaza/ Time: His cousin was one of the 200 Israelis abducted in the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which left 1,400 dead in Israel, and he says that his family and friends often tell him his beliefs are “too extreme.”]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shows-foreign-press-raw-hamas-bodycam-videos-of-murder-torture-decapitation/ Times of Israel: The Israeli government on Monday screened for 200 members of the foreign press some 43 minutes of harrowing scenes of murder, torture and decapitation from Hamas’s October 7 onslaught on southern Israel, in which over 1,400 people were killed, including raw videos from the terrorists’ bodycams.]
#[https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 UN News: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.]
#[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-arrests-palestinians-west-bank/ Washington Post: Israel has said its “counterterrorism” operations will prevent Hamas from being able to launch another attack like its brutal assault on Oct. 7, when gunmen killed over 1,400 people in southern Israel and took more than 200 hostages.]
Search was done on Google News with search term "1400 killed israel". Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them or if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP. Search was done on 24 October.
{{cob}}
:[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' or '''2''' this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support '''4''' with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes ''are'' sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' For reasons said by [[User:AquilaFasciata|AquilaFasciata]]. [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: {{tq|In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes.}} According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes.<ref name="citationengagement">{{cite journal |last1=Piccardi |first1=Tiziano |last2=Redi |first2=Miriam |last3=Colavizza |first3=Giovanni |last4=West |first4=Robert |title=Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia |date=20 April 2020 |pages=2365–2376 |doi=10.1145/3366423.3380300}}</ref> Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?] [[The Guardian]] 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: Other sources, like [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/explainer-gazas-ministry-health-calculate-wars-death-toll-104374157 this one], say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Succinct and reasonable, well said. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" ([[WP:WTA]]); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2'''. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': per [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]]. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]] 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. [[User:MicrobiologyMarcus|microbiologyMarcus]] (''[[User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus|petri dish]]'') 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''4''' per [[User:Meeepmep]] [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], which should be fixed to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''. Also OK with <s>'''3.5'''</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this '''2''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text'''. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' Per Joseph Biden, [https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-cast-doubt-gazas-death-194208480.html here], "But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." Me neither. With those doubts, especially from the guy who is not me, we need to be as clear as possible as to the source. Maybe a bit more clutter than some would like, but we're being straight with our readers.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Previous discussions ===
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_21#Casualties_infobox]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_22#"Per_the_Gaza_Health_Ministry"]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#infobox_attribution_inline]]

===Discussion3===
Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Infinity Knight|Vice regent|Graeme Bartlett|Mistamystery|WillowCity|JM2023|Hovsepig}} Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::You missed one off the top of my head, {{u|Jayen466}}. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're right, I did; I overlooked them at [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).
:::Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.
::I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.
::I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.
::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23#h_e1333a829d60ba8528ad93a27303e5af] {{tq|As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported.}} '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources:-
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?]
[https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/ Time 26 Oct]"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."[https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?"] "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:In a war, it's common to take the casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both sides with a grain of salt. For example, the Russians claim to have destroyed more [[M142 HIMARS]] systems in Ukraine than were actually provided to Ukraine has turned into a meme. It's important to note that numbers provided by both Israel and Hamas are often marked as "not verified," so attribution is essential when using them. What complicates things further is that Hamas is among the well-known international players. During this war, especially in incidents like the one at the hospital, independent sources had varying results when trying to confirm the numbers. As a result, news outlets like AP began using "disputed" since the hospital count was included in the overall figure. That's why we can't hide the disclaimer in the footnotes. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Discuss it in the article. If GHM were up at RSN for analysis, a generally reliable (which does not mean always reliable) result is likely based on the sources above. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinian-gaza-war-hamas-hostages-macron-c2482817f230580c20b898bd65e5a4c3 Recent AP] [[John Kirby]] said: “The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, and I think that all needs to be factored into anything that they put out publicly.”
:::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The NSC spokesman is a reliable source for the public position of the United States, thats it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Is [https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-ed6875f15ea0d2bc196e4033b54b7194 AP] a reliable source? {{green|, according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week.}}
:::::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I dont think anybody has suggested no attribution. See [[straw man]]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::You have seen my !vote? That's what I am saying viz a viz the RFC, the generally reliable is based on my own analysis of the recent RS (those above + WAPO) debating the question of reliability of GHM in general, not news snippets where there is no consistency, I can easily find articles where they don't say. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-doubts-humanitarian-agencies-consider-gaza-toll-reliable-2023-10-27/ Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::See [https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::When incorporating figures from each side into our text, it's important to openly specify the source of these numbers rather than burying the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::As suggested by {{u|Meeepmep}} [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], I would appreciate the modification of
::::::::* '''4''' change to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''
::::::::<s>* '''3.5''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text''' seems like a reasonable choice to me.</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this
::::::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
{{u|Wehwalt}}, Joe Biden isnt a reliable source, whereas reliable sources have said they do have confidence in the numbers. But regardless, is there a reason you think we should attribute only one set of numbers in text but not the other set? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict ==

In addition to points made in previous move discussions - namely that multiple Palestinian factions and indeed the general population have been involved in this conflict - over the past 10 days since the last move discussion, other Arab countries (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt) have been directly involved in the conflict. Moreover, the name (Arab-Israeli conflict) is long established and well understood by the reader. The current title goes beyond inadequate at this point, it is outright misleading, making it wholly unsuitable. [[User:عبد المؤمن|عبد المؤمن]] ([[User talk:عبد المؤمن|talk]]) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under [[WP:COMMONNAME]]; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this ''specific'' situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. [[User:Feliiformia|Feliiformia]] ([[User talk:Feliiformia|talk]]) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add one Uruguayan national to the list of hostages kidnapped by Hamas. ==

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to [https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/cancilleria-otorgo-nacionalidad-a-nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-por-hamas-y-pide-su-liberacion-20231024134034 El Observador]

Other sources in Spanish: [https://www.semanariohebreojai.com/articulo/7253 Semanario Hebreo Jai], [https://www.telenoche.com.uy/nacionales/embajada-confirmo-que-rehen-es-nacionalidad-uruguaya-n5357159 Telenoche], [https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/10/24/nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-hamas-israel-orix/ CNN], [https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2023/10/25/uruguay-le-otorgo-la-nacionalidad-a-la-joven-israeli-secuestrada-por-hamas/ Infobae] and [https://ladiaria.com.uy/politica/articulo/2023/10/la-embajada-uruguaya-en-israel-solicito-a-ese-pais-que-trabaje-en-la-liberacion-de-una-nieta-de-uruguayos/ La Diaria].

The Uruguayan government asked the Israeli government, through the Uruguayan embassy in Israel, to make every effort to secure the release of the 29-year-old woman. [[User:Accuratelibrarian|Accuratelibrarian]] ([[User talk:Accuratelibrarian|talk]]) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Why are Hamas fighters and PIJ fighters listed under Lebanon casualties? ==

In the infobox under the h note there are 3 PIJ and 3 Hamas fighters listed along the Hezbollah fighters and civilians, and I ask why? In the sources I've only found they've been murdered close to Lebanon but not that they are lebanese, so why include them there and not in the "Murdered in Israel" group of dead? [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Simply because they were killed while participating in the Lebanese border clashes under the Hezbollah banner. As a quick question, why did you use the word "murdered" in your post? They were combat deaths after all, and it just seems a little unusual to use that word in such a context. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Well I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if that sounded odd, alright I understand and thanks. [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Thats alright, thanks for letting me know. Something that should be mentioned that in English, "murder" has a very specifically tailored definition that pertains to killings deliberately done in cold blood. That is why it initially came across as strange (and honestly a little inflammatory) to use it regarding enemy combatants. One can make an argument about civilian victims from Israeli bombing campaigns, but that is another can of worms I'm not going to open here.
:::In my personal opinion, it seems like a better and more neutral sounding alternative regarding that specific situation would be simply be "killed", as it doesn't have the same exact baggage as "murder." Normally, this is just a trivial bit of semantics, but it is a very important distinction in regarding armed conflicts, especially ones as politicized and controversial as the Israel-Palestinian wars. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh that makes sense, I personally would use it to desribe the dead palestinian civilians, well I will be more careful in the future, thanks for letting me know! [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Adding a new subsection ==

Should there be a subsection for war crimes committed during this conflict, or is there already one? [[User:Iminyourwalls72|Iminyourwalls72]] ([[User talk:Iminyourwalls72|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:There is a page about the war crimes. [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. Is it mentioned in the current page? [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Additional Relevant Information ==

'''Unbiased Admins/Editors Please take a look into this and add this information in appropriate sections ,if relevant to the topic:

'''
'''1.) IDF Officer is Told by Gazan How Hamas Prevents Civilian Evacuations:''' . Total causalities claimed by Hamas-run gaza health ministry may not be just the result of Israeli's strikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaK4muqkRBE

''''''2.) Recorded: Hamas Millitants Calls Father With Murdered Woman's Phone to Celebrate The Oct. 7''' Massacre''':https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bACNYtaLBQI

'''3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:''': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg
:The practice of "[[:ru:Начальная военная подготовка|initial military training]]" is also used in Russia in [[Secondary school|secondary]] [[comprehensive school]]s in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:see [[whataboutery]]. also not going to debate on the legal age, legal framework, motives,volutary participation, ideology, and other differences between the two. just provided the information. editors/admins will decide if its relevant or not. if not, it will be discarded like many other critical info.no issues. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit requests like these are archived in Wikipedia very soon so also keep an eye on that) [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I cannot find a [[WP:RS|reliable secondary source]] for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::we can write as per idf produced evidence. also are reliable secondry sources in business of evaluating evidences? for eg:if a public video is produced of hamas decapitating people , why would you need other sources to report it too? by your logic, all the claims and evidences gaza ministry makes and shows should also be removed, which are not evaluated by secondry sources. for eg: list of 7000 people died with their id. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Countries ready to take Gaza refugees ==

As many countries are showcasing solidarity with gaza,their should be a section(or atleast a mention) for countries who are ready to take in gaza refugees/displaced people.
i only came accross scotland:
Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, has offered to welcome refugees from Gaza and treat wounded civilians in Scottish hospitals.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/10/17/scotlands-first-minister-humza-yousaf-says-uk-should-offer-sanctuary-for-gaza-refugees/

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358422/scotland-first-minister-pledges-readiness-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4262981-scotlands-first-minister-says-country-willing-to-take-gaza-refugees/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-19/ty-article/scotlands-leader-calls-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees-to-the-u-k-amid-hamas-israel-war/0000018b-4776-d614-abcf-ef7760540000

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/scotland-minister-humza-yousaf-offers-to-invite-gaza-refugees-to-scotland-faces-backlash-101697604233670.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/willing-to-be-a-place-of-sanctuary-scotland-first-minister-says-ready-to-welcome-gaza-refugees-402497-2023-10-18 [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas infiltrators ==

The article states :

* "Simultaneously, around 2,500 Hamas militants[5] infiltrated Israel from Gaza using trucks, ..."

Source talks about :

* "2500 militants and civilians"

[[User:RadXman|RadXman]] ([[User talk:RadXman|talk]]) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

: In infobox, it is also necessary to correct the information from "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed". According to the [https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-475427-00.html source], "approximately 2,500 terrorists and civilians entered Israel from Gaza, of which approximately 1,500 returned to the Strip." --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 13:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Fixed it. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Censor ==

censors
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130805
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130882
[[User:Baratiiman|Baratiiman]] ([[User talk:Baratiiman|talk]]) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:So what are you trying to say here? The material removed removed was not directly related, but did show Iran's opposition to Israel. Not every statement made needs to be included. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Possible [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] drones falling on Egypt ==

The Egyptian towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] near Israel were hit by projectiles this morning.[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosion-heard-egyptian-red-sea-town-near-israeli-border-witness-2023-10-27/] Last week, U.S. Navy[https://abcnews.go.com/International/security-incident-involving-us-navy-destroyer-red-sea/story?id=104147141] and Saudi Arabia[https://allarab.news/saudi-arabia-shoots-down-houthi-missile-from-yemen-heading-towards-israel/] had reportedly intercepted 4 missiles and 50 drones fired by Houthis at the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]].[[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/]] [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] are located at a distance of 200 km and 250 km, respectively, from the [[Gaza Strip]]. Does [[Hamas]] have such long-range weapons? The [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] are based even further, in [[Yemen]], 1,600 km from the city of [[Eilat]]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Bakeries? Barber shops? ==

Tareq S. Haijaj, [https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/they-let-humanitarian-aid-in-then-they-bombed-it-so-that-gaza-would-starve/ They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve]. [[Mondoweiss]] 26 October 2023 [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:This would require independent confirmation preferably from the aid agencies providing these food supplies. It is a remarkable claim, on the face of it, and therefore one would expect wider coverage, despite the general systemic bias in reportage. So too with the suggestion any battery-charging agency like barbershops are being regularly targeted.
:The empirical description of a new kind of weapon is worth pursuing, because people on the ground in wars learn to distinguish types of rocketry so they may take precautions, depending on the noise profile (innumerable WW1/WW2 histories confirm that practice).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

Please add an explanation in the infobox about the over 40 percent of Palestinian deaths being children, which explains the extremely low median age of the Gaza Strip population ([[Demographics of the State of Palestine|16-17 years old]]). Otherwise, one gets the impression that Israel is specifically bombing children. [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: While I understand the motivation behind this, [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] points out that the infobox is to summarize the information. Adding an explanation like that would be too much. That said, I think it would warrant inclusion in the article itself if you can provide some [[WP:Reliable Sources]] for it. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Replace Citation 365 with the actual document released by the Gaza Health Ministry. ==

https://www.aljazeera.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-2.pdf

The document hasn't been translated yet but it seems better to cite the public document than a newspaper article talking about the document. [[User:Oshaboy2|Oshaboy2]] ([[User talk:Oshaboy2|talk]]) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Usually we prefer secondary sources (like news orgs) of which I have seen more than a few. To "cite" the primary article, we would need a translation. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox ==

Why is Hezbollah listed as a belligerent in the infobox and why are Lebanon and Syria listed as locations? That 'incidents' have occurred involving all three is cited and covered in the body, but none of the sources used comes anywhere near the [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claim that Hezbollah is now actively fighting as part of the war or that the war is taking place outside Gaza/Southern Israel. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-carrying-out-artillery-strikes-in-syria-after-mortar-fire/ This two sentence article] is employed to justify the claim that Syria is now one of the war locations, although it does not even mention Hamas or the 'main' conflict anywhere.

Sources should be clear, unambiguous and near universal to claim that any other group are active participants in the war, whether we are talking about the US or Syria. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 ==

Why is "2023" in the title? There is no other article called [[Israel–Hamas war]] to disambiguate from. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Conflicts in the region have been going on since 1948. Although the names of the countries and the political parties that run them can be used to differentiate the various conflicts in some cases, a little redundancy can be helpful for clarity. In this case, I think "2023" helps to distinguish this article from the many others. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Commanders and leaders flags in infobox ==

I think it's fair and logical to add {{flagicon|PLE}} palestinian (and {{flagicon|LIB}} lebanese) flags to commanders and leaders in infobox like those of israeli commanders and leaders. No ? [[User:Faycal.09|Fayçal.09]] ([[User talk:Faycal.09|talk]]) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Yes that’s fine IMO [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:I agree. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Near-total internet and cellular blackout hits Gaza as Israel ramps up strikes ==

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/internet-blackout-hits-gaza-israel-ramps-strikes-rcna122531 [[Special:Contributions/102.45.250.20|102.45.250.20]] ([[User talk:102.45.250.20|talk]]) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:added. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Smallpox/chicken pox ==

The article says that there is a smallpox outbreak in Gaza. As smallpox has been eradicated, this mention appears to be a mistranslation in the Al Jazeera article. The UN report (https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142732) mentions chicken pox instead. See also https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/10/24/fact-check-smallpox-has-not-broken-out-in-gaza/ (not sure whether this counts as a reliable source). [[User:Oryf|Oryf]] ([[User talk:Oryf|talk]]) 19:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Change article title from 2023 Israel-Hamas War to 2023 Palestinian Genocide [[User:Elsliquor|Elsliquor]] ([[User talk:Elsliquor|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 (2) ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Add the Houthi movement on the left for the belligerents box. [[User:Sirswiss1|Sirswiss1]] ([[User talk:Sirswiss1|talk]]) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*{{notdone}} - Please refer to the '''[[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]]''' related to this edit request. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Shortening article ==

After another editor added the template pointing out the article length, I wanted to write down some suggestions along with an area for other editors to add ideas and mark down when they are done.
*Israeli response probably doesn't need to be a day-by-day account.
*Humanitarian situation could get trimmed down to a few paragraphs and get a separate article
*Reactions likely deserve their own article. Maybe trim it down to Israel, Palestine (combine Gaza and West Bank), Middle East, and International.
Feel free to add on and strikethrough anything that is completed; I will do what I can but I'm not the fastest editor of all time. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== IDF shares proof of main Hamas base built under Largest Gaza hospital(Shifa) but Hamas denies it ==

Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari claimed in a briefing for international reporters that Hamas’s main base of operations is under Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.“When medical facilities are used for terror purposes, they are liable to lose their protection from attack in accordance with international law,” Hagari warned.

Hamas uses Al-Shifa with its 1,500 beds and 4,000 staff members, as well as other strategic and sensitive areas - other hospitals, mosques, UNRWA centers, and more - as shields for its underground tunnel network, Hagari explained. Moreover, he added, in Al-Shifa specifically, Hamas runs parts of its command and control center in different departments, carrying out rocket attacks against Israel and other terror activities.
“Hamas also has an entrance to its terror tunnels from inside hospital wards,” he said. “From different places inside the hospital, you can enter underground tunnels.

sources:https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-army-spokesman-hamas-military-base-is-under-shifa-hospital/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamass-main-operations-base-is-under-shifa-hospital-in-gaza-city-says-idf/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-hamas-hiding-tunnels-operations-centres-gaza-hospital-2023-10-27/

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-770484

However,Hamas rejects Israeli claim over installations under al-Shifa hospital

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/27/hamas-rejects-israeli-claim-over-installations-under-al-shifa-hospital [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:In all the above sources, the IDF only makes a statement. And where is the actual evidence?--[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 22:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

2023-10-27T20:54:00Z

91.210.248.223: /* Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 */

{{Talk header|age=1|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|minthreadsleft=1}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversy}}
{{not a forum}}
{{censor}}
{{American English}}
{{Old move
|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict
|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|result1 = moved
|date1 = 7 October 2023
|link1 = Special:Permalink/1179550401#Requested move 7 October 2023
|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War
|result2 = not moved, [[WP:SNOW]]
|date2 = 11 October 2023
|link2 = Special:Permalink/1179788985#Requested move 11 October 2023
|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war
|result3 = not moved, no consensus
|date3 = 15 October 2023
|link3 = Special:Permalink/1181585273#Requested_move_15_October_2023
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{ITN talk|7 October|2023|oldid=1179028067}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|class=B|collapsed=y|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=Mid}}

}}
{{Top 25 Report|October 1 2023 (24th)|October 8 2023 (3rd)}}
{{page views}}
{{Section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 22
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{press|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html |title=Wikipedia Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X |author=Steven Harrison ||lang=en-US |org=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=2023-10-26}}

== Extremely violent execution video in the body section ==

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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

: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." [[User:FunLater|FunLater]] ([[User talk:FunLater|talk]]) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also there is [[WP:OM]], and that says that {{tq|the only reason for including any image in any article is [[Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content|"to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"]]}}. I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@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]]: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::"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. [[User:Ben Azura|Ben Azura]] ([[User talk:Ben Azura|talk]]) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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'': {{talk quote block|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'''|source=[[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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[WP:PLA]] is also applicable, specifically that {{tq|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 [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|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]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::'''"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:Wikipedia is not censored|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk: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: {{Tq|Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE|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 {{tq|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]]:
::::::::{{TQB|Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.}}
::::::::{{TQB|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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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, [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Lenny Marks|@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.) [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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). [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. {{pb}}An example to clarify the distinction: [[:File:Basal_cell_carcinoma.jpg|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. {{pb}}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. {{pb}}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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]], I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects [[WP:IMGCONTENT]]. You are right to say that {{talk quote inline|"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 {{talk quote inline|"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. {{talk quote block|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'''.|source= [[WP:CENSOR]]}} [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Wikipedia’s not censored, period. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:FYI, there is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm a parallel discussion] on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
: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." [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] The footage is not included in that video and you know it. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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 [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Keep it. It's important. [[Special:Contributions/2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F]] ([[User talk:2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|talk]]) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:<nowiki>'''Keep'''</nowiki>. Per [[Wikipedia:Gore]] . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] The poll is below if you are trying to !vote [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:Where is this anyways? [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:CooperGoodman|CooperGoodman]] The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm here]. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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, [[WP:CENSOR|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]]). [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:CooperGoodman|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 -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@Lenny Marks
:::I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We have the right to not watch said video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
:::::::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.
:::::::In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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 [[WP:NFC|non free content policy]]. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:Well said @[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

::Good call: I also left [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_video_depicting_extremely_violent_murders_could_benefit_from_additional_community_input|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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 [[Kibbutz|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Jon.yb093|Jon.yb093]] ([[User talk:Jon.yb093|talk]]) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jon.yb093|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Snow Rise|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.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [[WP:AFP|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". {{tq|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 [[User:Lenny Marks|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. {{tq|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"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,

:::::{{tq|"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...

:::::{{tq|"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) [[WP:NOTCOMPULSORY|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.

:::::{{tq|"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.

:::::{{tq|"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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Snow Rise}} I see you didn't even ''attempt'' to address the very valid point that [[WP:AFP|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 [[WP:DISC|content disclaimer]] which reads {{tq|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 {{tq|Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.}}
::::::{{tq|"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, [[:File:Full, unedited Kelly Thomas confrontation video (35 min.).webm|The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas]] provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that [[:File:The Lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels.jpg|the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels]] provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a [[:File:Jewish child victim of Arab riots in Hebron, 1929.jpg|photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre]] adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that [[:File:Fotothek df ps 0000047 Eine Mutter über dem Kinderwagen ihrer Zwillinge im Tode.jpg|images of the casualties]] [[:File:Sumiteru Taniguchi back.jpg|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.
::::::{{tq|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".
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180403310 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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [[WP:AN|an admin noticeboard]]. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.
::::::{{tq|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.}}
:::::[[:File:Buchenwald SS Corpses 60631.jpg|You]] [[:File:McCool shot by sniper in Iraq, 2006.webm|sure]] [[:File:Suspect Armed With Screwdriver Shot By LA Deputies.webm|about]] [[:File:LAPD Officers Kill Stabbing Suspect Holding Woman Hostage, June 2018.webm|that]]? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv on Wikimedia Commons,] which is a file repository and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_Wikipedia 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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Lethargilistic}}That's not exactly true. That video ''was'' used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Cerna|was deleted]] for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Veggies}}Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|Lethargilistic]] on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] Link? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain [[Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer|disclaimers]]. There are options to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain content]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
::: "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
::: 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.
::: In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant.
::[[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:100% well said. 100% true. I agree fully, and I will work to make sure this video is taken down. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
[[File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg|thumb|''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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

: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) [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Borgenland|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. {{talk quote block|"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"|source=[[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:
::{{talk quote block|"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'''"."|source=[[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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:And since [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is really sad . 😢😢😢 [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:::{{u|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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|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: {{tq|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).-- [[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'''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]] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:I was going to point out that on Wikipedia, we don't remove content just because of its graphic nature. If it is in a encyclopedic tone and it don't have copyright issues, then it can probably stay. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article? ===
* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Absolutely not'''</s> '''STRONG oppose''' per reasons already given (and those tellingly ''not'' given by the opposition). -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
**Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet ''another'' section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Veggies|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. [[User:IshChasidecha|IshChasidecha]] ([[User talk:IshChasidecha|talk]]) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:NFC|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::Just to point out, it has been verified now by HRW. If the video violates copyrights (I am not an expert but it seems like it does not) then that is a separate discussion to be had. This is just about the suitability of the video in this article. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove [[snuff film]]s. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*: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 [[Wikipedia:!VOTE|!poll]] will help a bit with assessing consensus. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awsome Aasim]] You say that {{talk quote inline|"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]].) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cwater1|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] I strike out the comment. <nowiki><s></nowiki> I put a new reply saying keep video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. [[User:Eduardog3000|eduardog3000]] ([[User talk:Eduardog3000|talk]]) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' citing Snow Rise. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. [[User:Yekshemesh|Yekshemesh]] ([[User talk:Yekshemesh|talk]]) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**{{re|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? -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per SnowRise. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]] 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:•'''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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*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. <s>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. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)</s> ''''Support inclusion of video'''. The video has now been authenticated by [[Human Rights Watch]], who thought it significant enough to [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified write about]. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video of Israeli casualties as well. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Ficaia|Ficaia]] the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] Given that, you would support keeping? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.{{pb}}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.''' [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**:On the flip side, {{tq|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**::The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
**: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware [[WP:Censored|Wikipedia isn't censored]] and there are ways to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain images and videos]].</s> [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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]].

*'''Keep/re-add/oppose''' but '''wait''' – alternatives may be better – Ignoring the [[c:File_talk:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm|biased file name]] and [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|possible copyright]] and verifiability issues, this video shows Hamas's attacks much better than the other image used in the article. I would prefer a less violent example (such as an image), but only if it showcases the attacks in a similar way to this video. I don't think we should readd it until the [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|copyright issue]] (see the comment) is addressed. 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - Honestly, even with the violent nature, it should not be removed, (just my personal opinion)[[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 

*'''Oppose removal''' I strike out my original comment. I agree with @[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Oppose/Keep''' per [[WP:GORE]]. '''''[[User:Hansen Sebastian|Hansen Sebastian]]'''''[[user talk:Hansen Sebastian|Talk]] 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


==== 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. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:First of all, [[WP:VOTE|nobody is voting]] here. This [[Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY|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, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180483586 executive]") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, [[WP:CON|consensus]] is [[WP:NHC|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:: 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 {{tq|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AHamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim%2C_2023.webm&diff=812338484&oldid=812334846], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&search=%5B%5BTemplate%3ALinkimage%5D%5D&ns0=1 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. {{tq|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. {{tq|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.' -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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, {{u|Veggies}}, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @[[User:Veggies|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. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Per [[WP:Offensive material]]: {{tq|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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] {{talk quote inline|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 {{talk quote inline|Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion.}} The inclusion requirements for images are clear: {{talk quote|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.|source=[[wp:IMGCONTENT]]}}
:-- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgXk_mz_8E
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g3ewJZXdsg
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67EYVdfgzo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw
:[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you, I will look through these [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::A few more:
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHydKv0_Do
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC1J4W5sd4
::[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I'm not impressed.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGbjLuZdycY] vs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_BbGc1ZhE]). 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] is correct. @[[User:EvergreenFir|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). [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Riposte97|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::While I initially was in favour of this; it's just too much. I genuinely think it's so out of place. It's brutal, violent, and in hindsight I don't think it really achieves much. Not enough to warrant it's inclusion given the issues it introduces. I get the arguments, not saying anyones arguing for it's re-inclusion in bad faith, but I really have to agree with snow here that there's no way this would ever stand long term. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree that its brutal and violent, but that doesnt affect the validity in any way [[Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED|per policy]]. I might still accept this argument if there were any issues that the video raised - But there arent. The only claim made is that the video is gratuitous (i.e. of no meaningful value) which seems rather absurd for a video about a massacre in an article about a war started by said massacre. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 10:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]]; exactly as @[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]] says. There seem to be two main arguments against inclusion here: 1) that the video has no encyclopedic value (which is just false as many on the opposition have acknowledged) and 2) that the video violates [[wp:GRATUITOUS]] due to the degree of its violence. But that very policy says that if a video ''does'' have encyclopedic value it should be included even when graphic, unless there is a less graphic but equally valuable video to replace it with. As you say, I think that (most) of the arguments against inclusion are made in good faith, but are based on a misreading of policy and this idea that though Wikipedia is not censored, it does not include things that are just ''too'' graphic. As I enumerated above, there are plenty of articles that contain extremely graphic content when appropriate (particularly articles about conflict and massacres). -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I made the close req a couple of minutes ago - [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]]. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Considered a non-admin closure, and boy howdy the poor admin that has to deal with this one. It's tied with '''14 for removal''' and '''14 against''', with 1 wait for alternative then add back. Worst part is everyone is either citing [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] or SnowRise's reasoning. Either way this is going to be a spicy one. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::: I really don't think it's a difficult close. All the admin has to do is close as a no consensus, and because no consensus was achieved for including the video, it should not be included per [[WP:ONUS]], which I think particularly applies in this case given the graphic nature of the video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Question 2: Should the video be [[MediaWiki:Bad image list|blacklisted]] from the English Wikipedia? ===
{{atop
| status =
| result = 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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' also per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''', blacklisting is discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Bad image list]] when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] I would agree, but we have [[WP:NODISCLAIMERS]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome Aasim]], just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''' as explained above -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) Wrong venue''' per @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) wrong venue''' per Kusma. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Decapitation ==

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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
: ??? {{tq|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 [https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/ the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line]. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making [[beheading video]]s, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have condensed the subsection in question. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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? --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Ashvio|Ashvio]] ([[User talk:Ashvio|talk]]) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
'''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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and reflect properly substantiated information. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I've performed an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1181629600&oldid=1181626998 initial trim] of various quotes with no weight. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Babies_beheaded?|in this section]]. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. [[Kfar Aza]] and [[Be'eri]].
::::For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:
::::<ref name="efe13oct2023">{{cite news |first=Joel |last=Gunter |date=13 October 2023 |title=Israel releases photos of babies killed by Hamas |publisher=[[EFE]] |url=https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2023-10-13/israel-releases-photos-of-babies-killed-by-hamas/ |access-date=22 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=17 October 2023 |title='Israeli Babies Decapitated': Jerusalem Official Rebuts Massacre Denial; Slams Hamas Barbarity |work=[[Hindustan Times]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6y-kdnShPQ |access-date=21 October 2023 |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=16 October 2023 |title='Many Hamas victims tortured, raped, abused' |work=The Manila Times |agency=[[Agence France-Presse]] |url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2023/10/16/world/americas-emea/many-hamas-victims-tortured-raped-abused/1914968 |access-date=17 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ari |last2=Lim |first2=Megan |last3=Dorning |first3=Courtney |date=18 October 2023 |title=Israel turns to DNA and dental imprints to identify unrecognizable bodies |work=[[NPR]] |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206506717/israel-hamas-gaza-dna-bodies-burial-tel-aviv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sokol |first=Sam |date=16 October 2023 |title=Hostages' Families Group to Red Cross: Many of Almost 200 Israelis Held in Gaza in Severe Need of Medical Treatment |work=[[Haaretz]] |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-16/ty-article/.premium/many-of-almost-200-israelis-held-in-gaza-in-severe-need-of-medical-treatment/0000018b-38b8-d0ac-a39f-b9bad3600000 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/mOVlf |archive-date=16 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Rose |first1=Emily |last2=Villarraga |first2=Herbert |date=17 October 2023 |title=Rescue workers recount horrors found in kibbutz attacked by Hamas |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rescue-workers-recount-horrors-found-kibbutz-attacked-by-hamas-2023-10-17/}}</ref>
::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{Reflist-talk}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I've read most of the accounts of this meeting from non-Israeli sources. None of them mention decapitation as included part of the 42 minute video or supplementary images. We already knew that Hamas murdered civilians including children in cold blood, so I don't really see the conference as being particularly revelatory in the way some have. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::Really?

{{cquote|Still images showed a '''decapitated''' soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities]}}

{{cquote|In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/]}}
::The BBC also described the same incident.

{{cquote|Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to '''decapitate''' someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270]}}

{{cquote|Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations of seven Hamas terrorists who were captured following the Palestinian terror group’s October 7 onslaught, in which they admitted they had been ordered to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.

In one video released by the Israel Defense Forces, a person whose face is blurred said that gunmen were given instructions to kill everyone they saw, including '''beheading victims''' and cutting off their legs.

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. '''“Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.”''' [https://www.timesofisrael.com/kill-behead-rape-interrogated-hamas-members-detail-atrocities-against-civilians/]}}

{{cquote|The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and '''decapitation''' from the southern Israel assault. [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-war-idf-posts-videos-of-hamas-terrorists-detailing-orders-to-kill-behead-and-rape/articleshow/104681563.cms]}}

::[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::: Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.
:::[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::In what way does it fail verification? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. [[Special:Contributions/98.151.160.96|98.151.160.96]] ([[User talk:98.151.160.96|talk]]) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[Graeme Wood (journalist)|Graeme Wood]] reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated."<ref name="CBC News">{{Cite news |date=25 October 2023 |title=Journalist describes footage of Hamas atrocities compiled by the IDF |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0Atcdy38g |work=[[CBC News]] |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]@[[User:Wee Curry Monster|Wee Curry Monster]]@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]@[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]]@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]]@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== How to handle the [[Battle of Zikim]] ==

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 [[2023 Hamas attack on Israel|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 {{u|The Great Mule of Eupatoria}} and {{u|BilledMammal}} disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1181452958 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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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, [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/october-9-2023-morning-rundown-rcna119434 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::Key phrase: “Israel said” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]], all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel '''by sea;''' the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{tq|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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [https://www.indiatoday.in/world/video/israeli-army-deployed-at-zikim-beach-civilians-asked-to-leave-ground-report-2449724-2023-10-16 This] is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/a-few-idf-officers-saved-90-trainees-from-hamas-terrorists-they-paid-with-their-lives/0000018b-4da2-dc3c-a5df-ddaadf370000 A new article] from [[Haaretz]] disputes the initial claims from October 7th that [[Bahad 4]] fell.
:<code>...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.</code>
:Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the [[Battle of Zikim]] article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.
:[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]] You can bypass the paywall by reading an [https://archive.ph/nWuvr archived version] here. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at [[Bahad 4]] up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the [[Bahad 4]] base ''since'' 7 October. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict ==

A new report by ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]]''[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] states that U.S. has sent a [[Lieutenant general (United States)|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 movement|Houthi]] cruise missile over the Red Sea[https://www.npr.org/2023/10/20/1207523642/yemen-missiles-intercepted] 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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

::[[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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA BBC] Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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)" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*Note, an RfC ([[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox]]) was started below to figure the content dispute out. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

SOHR has reported that several Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghani militiamen (presumably under the Popular Mobilization Units, Liwa Fatemiyoun, and National Defense Forces 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/ [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is actually reported in [[The Economist]] as well, I'll see if I can find the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Expansion to war crimes section ==

{{ping|Nableezy}} I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in {{diff2|1181344023|this diff}}. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under [[WP:BALASP]].

For editors generally, see also [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?|this discussion,]] regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of [[WP:BALASP]] is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff].
:I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.
:The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.
:My problem with this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff] is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named [[Tom Dannenbaum]]), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.
:According to [[WP:RS]], a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for [[WP:RS]] should be heightened.
:How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?
:I oppose the incorporation of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff], along with [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the [[WP:ONUS]] in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::That is called an expert view and [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Since you are relying on [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:
:::(i) Prefer secondary sources,
:::(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
:::(iii) Citation counts
:::(iv) POV and peer review
:::Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?
:::As per [[WP:ONUS]], the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.
:::You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with [[WP:RS]].
:::Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.
:::Kindly do. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::If you read [[WP:SPS]] youll see '' Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.'' You can see his [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KGysaxgAAAAJ&hl=en relevant publications]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] your removal of that content was correct.@[[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also as per [[WP:SPS]] :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::And what do you think is relevant there? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]]: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add Kazakhstan casualtie ==

add one citizen of Kazakhstan to the number of victims among foreigners and persons with dual citizenship. Ref: [https://en.inform.kz/news/kazakh-national-dies-in-gaza-strip-kazakh-mfa-2420d6/#:~:text=A%20national%20of%20Kazakhstan%20died,of%20Palestine%2C%20died%20as%20well. inform], [https://adyrna.kz/en/post/174231 adyrna], [https://www.kt.kz/eng/society/wto_countries_are_preparing_for_the_13th_wto_ministerial_1377956990.html kt] [[User:Нурасылл|Нурасылл]] ([[User talk:Нурасылл|talk]]) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Belligerents & Units involved ==

The belligerents section has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, yet the units involved section doesn't. I believe it should be changed so the belligerents section has Fatah instead of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (since Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is part of Fatah), and the units involved section then has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as was done with Hamas & Al-Qassam brigades. [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]], please see [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Fatah involved?|[1]]] and [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Extended-confirmed-edit request, October 18|[2]]] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/21/israel-hamas-conflict-palestinian-voices-censored Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== ‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense ==

According to [https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/22804 Kyiv Post] {{green|In reaction to Hamas' attacks, the IDF is deploying its new Iron Beam anti-missile system ahead of its originally planned schedule.}} "I'm unsure where to drop this info? Where's the spot for deets on the weapon systems both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:It may be too early to add it to ''this'' article. You could certainly add it to the [[Iron Beam]] article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Jprg1966}} "Iron Sting" now. [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/watch-idf-uses-new-iron-sting-weapon-system-against-hamas-X5Qc1YQbzf2IgoJs1y5p WSJ] {{green|The Israel Defense Forces have released footage that is said to depict commandos using their new "Iron Sting" weapon system against Hamas in one of its initial operational deployments. The laser and GPS-guided mortar is designed to target urban environments, as described by its manufacturer, [[Elbit Systems]].}} I'm a bit uncertain about where to place this information. Where can we include the specifics about the weapon systems that both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Article becoming too long. Suggestions. ==

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. [[User:Lafi90|Lafi90]] ([[User talk:Lafi90|talk]]) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:[[2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Reactions]] It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Someone working on [[Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]], should make a dent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the [[WP:PROSELINE]] sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per {{U|Alcibiades979}}'s suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180882394 tried] that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, [[Iraq War#Background]] and [[Iraq War#Pre-war events]], similarly [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background]] and [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude]].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1181659781 Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Chafique}} Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, {{they|Abo Yemen}} reverted his own [[Special:Diff/1181659525|edit]] from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox ==
{{atop
| status = Closing by request
| result = Closing this at the request of the RfC creator {{u|WeatherWriter}} at [[Special:Diff/1181698226]]. – [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

Should the [[United States]] be added to the infobox as a belligerent?

*'''Option 1''' — Yes (Listed as flag under Israel - No additional info - Full belligerent)
*'''Option 2''' — Yes (Listed as bullet point under Israel - No additional info)
*'''Option 3''' — Yes (Listed as a bullet point under Israel as “''United States (in Iraq and Red Sea only)'“
*'''Option 4''' — Yes (Listed under a “Supported by” subheading under Israel.)
*'''Option 5''' — Yes (Format not mentioned in option 1-4)
*'''Option 6''' — No

'''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion===
Previous discussions: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21]], [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14]]
*'''Comment''' — As RfC starter, I am going to refrain from commenting for now. This RfC was started given several content disputes and various talk page discussions around this overall topic. I attempted to look through some of the article history and I believe option 1-4 covered any previous styles of the US being added in the infobox. I added option 5 incase I missed a format style. Obviously, option 6 is for those who oppose it being added. Anyway, an RfC was for sure needed to solve all the various content disputes on this topic. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Reply|WeatherWriter}} Could you point to where #4 was deprecated? That is currently used at [[Gaza–Israel conflict]]. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:If consensus is reached on option 4, Germany should be added and Iran and Russia should be added to Hamas and its allies.[[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I am not sure. When figuring out the previous versions where the USA was listed, I saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1181544884 this edit] by {{u|Parham wiki}} saying it was deprecated. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#c-BilledMammal-20230719130800-RfC_on_%22supported_by%22_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter|If there is a consensus, it can be added.] [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|Selfstudier}}, [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict]] is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Since you are requesting ''more'' research on my end…here: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page]] & [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah]] are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' — Given the US military shooting down missiles launched believed to be going towards Israel, they are a belligerent now and deserve to be listed. Option 3 is the best as the US isn’t fully involved in the Gaza Strip conflict, but more around the region. Noting, option 3 was previously used in the article (within the last 24 hours). '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option X''' USA should be in the infox iff it is a [[belligerent]].[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - If the US is included as a belligerent, then the [[Houthi movement|Houthis]] will necessarily ''also'' have to be included. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the [[Red Sea]] shot down Yemeni [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]] and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.
:There are additional factors that ''might'' count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] 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, U.S. is reported[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.
:Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say '''Option 1''' would be the most appropriate option. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia) ==
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701201698}}
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=F55CC1A}}

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

[[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]], [[Saudi Arabia]]

'''Option 1''' – Add X 
'''Option 2''' – Do not add X 
'''Option 3''' – Neutral (no comments) on X 
(X = Country)

RfC is '''not''' to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. six different and unique discussions. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion2===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
*'''RfC Creator Comment''' – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi''', '''Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany''' – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), {{u|Ecrusized}} said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea '''shot down''' 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation Axios], the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to '''advise''' ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 reported to have] '''delivered''' 45 cargo planes loaded with '''armaments''' to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/u-s-sends-air-defense-systems-to-gulf-countries-O11ZyqKBZhIjSprR7WoN Wall Street Journal reported] the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 the new report] from the [[Wall Street Journal]] saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A new report by [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 WSJ] states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by [[Saudi Arabia]]. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I just added it to the list of options. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment 2''' [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/drone-attacks-american-bases-injured-two-dozen-us-military-personnel-rcna121961 NBC News] reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:<s>'''Comment''' Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option *''' Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are [[belligerents]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Wait {{u|Selfstudier}}, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. ''Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral?'' If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::I made my comment and I explained it as well. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:AGF|Not trying to be rude]], but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Let the closer worry about what it means. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::<s>@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], my understanding is that @[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] would respond your question ''Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent?'' with the answer ''Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no.'' I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.
:::::::[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose any being listed as belligerents''' Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.
:I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @[[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.
:It may interest other editors to peruse [[Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine]] and its archives, for an interesting case study.
:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, {{u|Parham wiki}} made the comment that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]), then it can be used. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Bermicourt}}, not sure if you made a typo, but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1181733329 current version of the article] lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — Iran has now [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-palestinians-news/card/iran-s-khamenei-accuses-u-s-of-orchestrating-israel-s-gaza-campaign-uXStycKXeGwa5XaHrDrN accused (Wall Street Journal article)] the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that '''directly supports''' that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I did in my original reasoning. The US is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 supplying Israel with weapons] and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::“'''US military equipment''' pours into Israel”[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am [[WP:COAL]]ing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
* I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions.{{tq| Countries should be added to the infobox if they are [[belligerents]],}} as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly {{tq|None of these groups are involved in active combat}}, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but ''(thank God)'', there are ''(as yet)'' no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Add''': [[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]].
:'''Do not add''': [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]]. '''[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|✉]]''' 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose all additions''' until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israeli POWs omitted from lead ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}

Please revert “Hundreds of civilian hostages, including women, children and the elderly, were abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip” to “Unarmed civilian hostages and captured Israeli soldiers were taken to the Gaza Strip, including women and children.”

The new wording, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181531570 this revision] adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/21/hamas-says-israel-refused-to-receive-2-hostages-israel-calls-it-propaganda%7C Al Jazeera]: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_10%7C the discussion] of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/hamas-launches-surprise-attack-on-israel-as-palestinian-gunmen-reported-in-south%7CThe The Guardian]: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/hamas-says-it-has-enough-israeli-captives-to-free-all-palestinian-prisoners%7CAJ%7C Al Jazeera]: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

As it stands, a reader who only sees the lead and the infobox would not know that there are any Israeli POWs. How can this be? [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Yo|Monopoly31121993(2)}} This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{Yo|WillowCity}} I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I made edits to this sentence in the article before finding this discussion. If I've inadvertently overruled the result of this discussion, please accept my apologies. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{Yo|Quantling}} In my view your edit is quite helpful for indicating the uncertainty regarding the exact ratio of civilians and soldiers among those taken captive. The prior language could be taken as implying that the 200 captives were in addition to (not including) soldiers. So I see your wording as fully consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not sure if someone might want to replace the commas with brackets, but that is purely stylistic. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As well I had previously noted in a separate discussion that the reference to "women and children" was somewhat ambiguous, as female IDF soldiers are POWs, while female civilians are not, so I have no objection to the removal of that from the lead. The identities of the captives are discussed subsequently, including demographic data, and are the subject of their own article, so I don't see it as necessary for the lead. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Massacres ==

This article has plenty of Palestinian massacres giving a one-sided impression that the only side that is making any crime are Palestinians. So far more than 6000 have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2000 children. Strikes have been proven to target bakeries, supermarkets, and probably hospitals.

I can't fathom that none of these are considered massacres. Airstrike sounds a much neutral benign word than massacre, and yet Airstrikes are much deadler than anything Hamas or other militants did. Airstrikes burn victims and cause very high collateral damage, not to mention the trauma that follows a small child who witnesses one. We can see a lot of videos of children shaking, those children will most likely spend their lives in a psychiatric institution. We need to uphold Wikipedia values and make this article a little more unbiased. [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:From what I’ve seen, the massacres here are specifically talking about what happened in the kibbutzim only on October 7 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).
:Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.
::Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.
::They also killed before on 16th of October
::https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut}} Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. {{tq|Hamas doesn't see them as civilians}}. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. {{tq|we know that hamas lied }} All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Npov tags ==

{{u|James James Morrison Morrison}}, you’ve added multiple pov section tags, can you explain them here please? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think it's safe to remove any neutrality tags that aren't associated with a specific, actionable complaint here on the talk page. Otherwise we might as well just tag every section. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah, agreed, but who wants to use a revert on that? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I have removed them, so that is my revert for today. Just adding bloat without helping our readers. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Archived talks about photos and Reactions section ==

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world
::
[[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war| international reactions] page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war. ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Asked and answered. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

The Suprise attack by hamas on Israel was done with the guide of Iran.

The war also involves Hizzbolla - an Iranian proxy and Iranian miltias in Syria.

Also adding the missle attack by the Houtis in Yemen - another Iranian proxy aimed on Israel.

there is also the case of Iraqi Millitias also guided by Iran attacking US bases in Iraq, because of US support of Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.
::Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.
::https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.
::::They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.
::::Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.
::::Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.
::::*since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.
::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.
:::::*also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.
:::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister [[Eli Cohen]] stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is [[Eli Cohen (politician, born 1972)|this one]]. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26]] ([[User talk:2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|talk]]) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel casualties ==

Israeli casualties still at 1400? We need more updates [[User:RickyBlair668|RickyBlair668]] ([[User talk:RickyBlair668|talk]]) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Updating casualities in an ongoing crisis (or war) is tricky as it can change day by day. Perhaps an update once a week would be easier, but I agree with the suggestion that the figure should be updated. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Supported by ==

@[[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]], concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181871075 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia], the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: '''Ongoing RfC''' — Please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ [[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]] ([[User talk:Tamjeed Ahmed|talk]]) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Casualty count ==

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.
:::Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."
:::https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971
:::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden is not a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Not just Biden:
:::::https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
:::::https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/
:::::The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source ''independently'' corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the [[MOS:CLAIM|policy]] on "claimed").
::::::As well, FYI, this article from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WaPo]: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. [[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Does the block also apply for the talk page? [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== United States involvement and Casualties sustained ==

A US special force and an Israeli special ops unit that entered Gaza “completely wiped out” https://www.palestinechronicle.com/shot-to-pieces-this-is-what-happened-to-us-special-forces-when-they-entered-gaza/

The U.S is now on the ground albeit not very effective as of now. We know, through the words of Douglas Mcgregor that a combined American-Israeli military unit entered Gaza and were subsequently wiped out, presumably killed and captured. We should really consider adding the U.S to the list of belligerents especially after sustaining 30+ injuries to attacks by the “Islamic Resistance of Iraq”

Alongside U.S involvement, we should also add this new “Islamic Resistance of Iraq” faction and as more information and articles surface, we can vastly improve this article. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an [[wp:extraordinary|extraordinary]] claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|A.H.T Videomapping}} please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza ==
{{atop|Withdrawn by OP. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:A discussion on this topic [[Special:PermanentLink/1181585273#Requested move 15 October 2023|concluded just two days ago]], with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Map ==

Please add a map to the article
[[File:Countries_recognizing_Hamas_as_terror_organization.svg|thumb|World map with countries that have declared [[Hamas]] a [[List of designated terrorist groups|terrorist organization]]]] [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body ==

For reasons including [[WP:COMMONNAME]], the article title is ''Israel–Hamas war''. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier; see [[Talk:2023 Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war#Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza|above]]. However, I have a follow up question.) Does that mean we should use "Hamas" when the the folks with guns and bombs from Gaza do something and should use "Israel" when the folks with guns and bombs from Israel do something? It makes it seem like the Gazan militants do not have the support of the Gazan civilians, but that the Israeli militants do have the support of the Israeli civilians. Unless we have citations to support that asymmetry, I think we are misleading the reader. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== "2,500 infiltrated Israel" ==

Under the strength section it describes 2500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel, implying that they are still within Israel right now, it is entirely likely they would have retreated back into Gaza by now. The source for this claim is from the 13th and it should either be confirmed and the source should be changed, or it should be removed [[User:Hexifi|Hexifi]] ([[User talk:Hexifi|talk]]) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Misspelling ==

UK PM Rishi Sunak's name is misspelled under the "in opposition" subheading of the "ceasefire" heading. Should be corrected & linked to the correct article (not the mispelling redirect). [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Ha. Just remembered I am extended protected now so I could change it myself. The account responsible should be found & disciplinary action should be considered. Looked like vandalism to me. [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== infobox attribution inline ==

{{u|BilledMammal}}, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Current_situation|this]] discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing ''every'' figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Per [[WP:ONUS]], {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes.html October 25th, the NYTimes] is throwing in a disclaimer, saying {{green|a number that if verified}} At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:POINT]]. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.
:::::{{tq|The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that.}} With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.
:::::So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.
:::::At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.
::::::Editor {{Re|Hovsepig}} made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;
::::::"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:
::::::"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).
::::::And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."
::::::At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.
:::::::{{tq|At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor.}} Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::One editor does not get to decide, end of. [[WP:ONUS]] doesn't work that way either. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well given it has had numbers since [[Special:Permalink/1179034824|basically the beginning of this article]] and [[Special:Permalink/1180949164|throughout]] the now [[Special:Permalink/1181985413|7519 edits]] it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again [[WP:POINT]] (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - {{tq|the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting [[WP:DE]] when I see it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus.}} If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a better idea, since we have [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WAPO OC 24 saying ] "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; {{tq|according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to the MoH in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to Israeli official sources}}. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check {{tq|both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I started an RFC below. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included ==

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Foreign_and_dual-national_casualties this table] or should they be listed separately? For example [https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/22/dutch-woman-33-killed-gaza-strip-overnight-minister-confirms a Dutch] and [https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-woman-killed-israeli-strike-135400807.html a Ukrainian] were killed in Gaza.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:And a citizen of [[Kazakhstan]]. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Small stylistic suggestion ==

The sentence "Both Israel and the U.S stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" is the first time Iran is mentioned in the article. This sentence only makes sense in the context of the lead if the reader understands that there is some Hamas-Iran connection or that people suspect Iran could have been involved in this. The uninformed reader may not understand that sentence. It would be perhaps be wise to preface the sentence with something like "Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement...." [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF]] ([[User talk:2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|talk]]) 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]] ==

{{re|RamHez}} SOHR is considered generally reliable in articles related to [[Syrian civil war]]. It is preferred over Syrian government sources who tend to shrink their casualties. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section ==

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, [https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1352614/how-many-people-has-the-hamas-israel-war-killed-so-far.html like L'Orient Today]? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

Pinging {{u| ARandomName123}} and {{u| Timeshifter}} since you were involved in current and previous incarnations of the graph. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:It's a simple chart. It can be used under [[c:Template:PD-chart]]. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: [[c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs]] --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!
::Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. There are all kinds of ways to create charts. And a variety of charts are possible to cover deaths over time. Here are some tools:
:::[[Commons:Create charts and graphs online#Free online charting sites]]
:::There is also the freeware [[LibreOffice]] and [[LibreOffice Calc]], etc..
:::--[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war ==

Please correct the [[2023 Israel–Hamas war#Foreign and dual-national casualties|table]]:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
!scope="col"|Country
!scope="col"|Deaths
!scope="col"|Kidnapped
!scope="col"|Missing
!scope="col" class="unsortable" |{{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference(s)}}
|-
|scope="row"|{{flag|Ukraine}}
|24 {{efn|Including 21 Ukrainians died in Israel and and 3 more died in the Gaza Strip}}
|Unknown
|1
|<ref>{{cite news|date=26 October 2023|title=Number of Ukrainian casualties rises in Israel|language=en|work=[[Ukrainska Pravda]]|url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/26/7425812/ |access-date=26 October 2023}}</ref>
|} [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with [[multiple citizenship]]s? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) 

:To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== RFC on infobox casualties ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701352883}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=4529BDF}}
How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?
#Attributed with an endnote as in [[Special:Permalink/1181989063|the current version as of this writing]]
#Attributed for all numbers inline as in [[Special:Permalink/1181939077|this version]]
#Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in [[Special:Permalink/1181582391|this version]]
#Not in the infobox at all
[[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
===Survey===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RFC}}
*'''1''' - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: [https://abcnews.go.com/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006 ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.]; [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza/card/latest-casualty-figures-from-israel-and-gaza-dQNSenweikTeA7YPWzOP WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.]; [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-news-hamas/ Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed.] A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ Washington Post] reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example [https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 the UN] reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2''' or '''3''', weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.
:In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of [[WP:V]], for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.
:Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.
:In general, the option of {{tq|attributed with an endnote}} is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, <s>and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them.</s> and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them.<ref name="citationengagement" /> 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{cot|Sources for Palestinian casualties}}
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/26/israel-hamas-war-live-un-ceasefire-bid-fails-as-gaza-death-toll-soars Al Jazeera: "The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli air raids in Gaza has now reached 7,028, a figure that includes 2,913 children, the health ministry in the besieged enclave says."]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67209848 BBC: "The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says almost 6,500 people have been killed in territory since then."]
#[https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/israel-palestine-war-gaza-families-wear-id-bracelets-to-avoid-burial-in-mass-graves-403292-2023-10-26 Business Today: "A total of 756 Palestinians, including 344 children, were killed in the past 24 hours, Gaza's health ministry said on Wednesday."]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-war-wednesday-intl-hnk/index.html CNN: "The warnings from senior UN officials came after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza killed more than 700 people in 24 hours, the highest daily number published since Israeli strikes against what it called Hamas targets in Gaza began two and a half weeks ago, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah on Tuesday."]
#[https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-six-key-moments-for-the-gaza-strip-216185 The Conversation: "More than 5,700 people in Gaza have been reportedly killed by Israeli airstrikes in two weeks of relentless bombardment – at least 2,000 of whom are children."]
#[https://images.dawn.com/news/1192071/how-the-watermelon-became-a-symbol-of-resistance-in-palestine Dawn: "As of today 6,546 Palestinians have been killed, including 2,704 children, and over 17,000 people have been wounded so far in ongoing Israeli retaliatory strikes."]
#[https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/israel-hamas-war-updates-day-19-oct-25-2023/article67456283.ece The Hindu: "Rapidly expanding Israeli airstrikes across the Gaza Strip has killed more than 700 people in the past day as medical facilities across the territory were forced to close because of bombing damage and a lack of power, health officials said on Tuesday."]
#[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/25/un-general-assembly-should-act-gaza Human Rights Watch: "More than 6,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2,700 children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry."]
#[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/queen-jordan-west-israel-palestine-b2435728.html The Independent: "Queen Rania’s comments came as Israel and Hamas continued bombing each other, with airstrikes in Gaza killing more than 750 people between Tuesday and Wednesday, according to the territory’s health ministry.]
#[https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/10/26/not-about-religion-the-historical-and-political-root-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ Modern Diplomacy: "Israel also counterattacked Palestine in the Gaza Strip and killed 3,478 people and injured 12,065 others"]
#[https://www.newsweek.com/israel-committing-war-crimes-gaza-us-supporting-it-opinion-1837908 Newsweek: "This was leading human rights organization Amnesty International's characterization of Israel's massive and ongoing bombing campaign in Gaza, which, two weeks in, has killed more than 6,500 Palestinians, including more than 2,300 children."]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/26/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/ff399d89-a169-5608-a2ce-e185ac895a5b?smid=url-share New York Times: "At least 7,028 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, including nearly 3,000 children, according to the latest figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry."]
#[https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/25/in-defiance-of-international-calls-to-stop-bombardment-of-gaza-israel-extends-airstrikes-to-west-bank/ People's Dispatch: "According to Palestinian officials, the total number of Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes and raids since October 7 has crossed 6,000, with over 18,000 injured."]
#[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/hezbollah-leader-meets-with-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad-officials-for-first-time-since-israel-hamas-war-erupted PBS: "The fighting, triggered by Hamas’ deadly incursion into Israel on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel, has killed more than 5,700 Palestinians in Gaza."]
#[https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/atrocity-alert-no-370-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territory-dr-congo-and-south-sudan Relief Web: "Since 7 October more than 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and over 16,297 injured by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza."]
#[https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/news/32866-israel-bombards-gaza-prepares-invasion-as-biden-urges-path-to-peace Sight Magazine: "Israeli retaliatory strikes have killed over 6,500 people, the health ministry in the Hamas-run strip said on Wednesday. Reuters has been unable to independently verify the casualty figures of either side"]
#[https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300996267/live-israeli-troops-launch-brief-raid-into-gaza Stuff: "Gaza’s Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas, said Wednesday that more than 750 people were killed over the past 24 hours, higher than the 704 killed the previous day."]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-hamas-islamic-scholars-issue-calls-fatwas-inciting-murder-of-israelis-and-jews/ Times of Israel: "The Hamas-run health ministry claimed on Thursday that at least 7,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing conflict."]
#[https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/israel-war-live-coverage-australia-deploys-forces-to-middle-east-gaza-crisis-deepens-outrage-at-un-remarks-c-12316264 The West Australian: "The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, said Israeli airstrikes killed at least 700 people over the past day, mostly women and children."]
#[https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-50-palestinians-killed-in-one-hour-in-gaza-no-aid-entered-on-tuesday-says-un-650884 WION: "The Hamas-run Health Ministry said at least 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and 16,297 injured"]
Search was done on Google News with search term "killed palestine"; a number was omitted as there is no stable figure. Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them, if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP, or if they did not quantify the number of casualties. Search was done on 26 October.
{{cob}}
{{cot|Sources for Israeli casualties}}
#[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-24/israel-launches-raids-into-gaza/103012762 ABC: The Israeli bombardment was triggered by an October 7 terrorist attack on Israeli communities by Hamas militants who killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/23/gaza-death-toll-exceeds-5000-as-israel-continues-daily-bombardments Al Jazeera: Hamas’s attack in southern Israel killed at least 1,400 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/israel-steps-up-gaza-strikes-ahead-of-ground-invasion/news-story/e7593babdd462249f79d3ca3dfb07b0d The Australian: Alarm is growing over the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel struck back following the October 7 attacks, which Israeli officials say killed more than 1,400 people who were shot, stabbed or burnt to death by militants.]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67195174 BBC: More than 1,400 Israelis were killed when Hamas attacked communities near the Gaza border, while the Israeli military says 203 soldiers and civilians, including women and children, were taken to Gaza as hostages.]
#[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/23/israel-hamas-war-updates-and-latest-news-on-gaza-conflict.html CNBC: Their transfer follows the Friday release of two American hostages. It’s been more than two weeks since Hamas launched its assault on Israel, killing at least 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostages.]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23/h_fb85cc8446e130bafa75926bc01dc0ad CNN: Hamas militants carried out a deadly attack on Israel on October 7, killing 1,400 people and kidnapping hundreds of others.]
#[https://theconversation.com/even-if-israel-can-completely-eliminate-hamas-does-it-have-a-long-term-plan-for-gaza-216161 The Conversation: In the past couple weeks, Israel has put together a huge force to mount another ground invasion in retaliation for the Hamas cross-border attacks that killed around 1,400 Israelis on October 7.]
#[https://www.ft.com/content/687873f2-0a84-409d-b8ff-3ba86e005a89 Financial Times: Israeli authorities say more than 1,400 Israelis were killed in the attack and that 222 people, including foreign nationals, were taken hostage.]
#[https://fortune.com/2023/10/23/workers-ceos-struggle-israel-hamas-war-middle-east-starbucks/ Fortune: Jewish groups have criticized tepid responses or slow reactions to the Oct. 7 Hamas rampage that killed 1,400 people in Israel and triggered the latest war.]
#[https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/october-23-israel-hamas-war Fox News: At least 5,700 people have been killed in the war on both sides, including at least 1,400 Israeli civilians and soldiers and 32 Americans.]
#[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231023-gaza-attacks-shatter-sense-of-safety-in-israel-s-tel-aviv France24: Several rockets hit the Tel Aviv area when Hamas militants launched the most deadly attack suffered by Israel since its creation, with some 1,400 killed -- most of them civilians -- according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/gaza-second-aid-convoy-rafah-crossing-israel-bombardment The Guardian: The new war – the fifth since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 – broke out after the Palestinian militants attacked southern Israeli communities on 7 October, killing 1,400 people and taking 222 into the strip as bargaining chips.]
#[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4269507-poll-what-americans-really-think-about-the-israel-hamas-war/ The Hill: As we pass two weeks since more than 1,000 Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, killed more than 1,400 Israelis...]
#[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/israelhamas-war-is-hezbollah-heading-towards-open-conflict-with-israel-101698079630416.html Hindustan Times: Hamas militants stormed into Israel from the Gaza Strip on October 7, killing at least 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/briefing/hamas-israel-war-iranian-teenager-chevron-hess-deal.html New York Times: ...when Israel began launching airstrikes in retaliation for an attack by the Hamas militant group that killed 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-borrell-backs-humanitarian-pause-israel-hamas-conflict-2023-10-23/ Reuters: Diplomats said there was consensus on the need to ramp up humanitarian aid, reflecting widespread alarm about the fate of Palestinian civilians after two weeks of Israel bombarding and blockading Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 Hamas assault that killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://time.com/6327279/israel-peace-movement-hamas-gaza/ Time: His cousin was one of the 200 Israelis abducted in the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which left 1,400 dead in Israel, and he says that his family and friends often tell him his beliefs are “too extreme.”]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shows-foreign-press-raw-hamas-bodycam-videos-of-murder-torture-decapitation/ Times of Israel: The Israeli government on Monday screened for 200 members of the foreign press some 43 minutes of harrowing scenes of murder, torture and decapitation from Hamas’s October 7 onslaught on southern Israel, in which over 1,400 people were killed, including raw videos from the terrorists’ bodycams.]
#[https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 UN News: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.]
#[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-arrests-palestinians-west-bank/ Washington Post: Israel has said its “counterterrorism” operations will prevent Hamas from being able to launch another attack like its brutal assault on Oct. 7, when gunmen killed over 1,400 people in southern Israel and took more than 200 hostages.]
Search was done on Google News with search term "1400 killed israel". Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them or if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP. Search was done on 24 October.
{{cob}}
:[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' or '''2''' this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support '''4''' with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes ''are'' sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' For reasons said by [[User:AquilaFasciata|AquilaFasciata]]. [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: {{tq|In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes.}} According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes.<ref name="citationengagement">{{cite journal |last1=Piccardi |first1=Tiziano |last2=Redi |first2=Miriam |last3=Colavizza |first3=Giovanni |last4=West |first4=Robert |title=Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia |date=20 April 2020 |pages=2365–2376 |doi=10.1145/3366423.3380300}}</ref> Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?] [[The Guardian]] 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: Other sources, like [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/explainer-gazas-ministry-health-calculate-wars-death-toll-104374157 this one], say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Succinct and reasonable, well said. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" ([[WP:WTA]]); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2'''. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': per [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]]. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]] 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. [[User:MicrobiologyMarcus|microbiologyMarcus]] (''[[User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus|petri dish]]'') 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''4''' per [[User:Meeepmep]] [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], which should be fixed to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''. Also OK with <s>'''3.5'''</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this '''2''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text'''. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Previous discussions ===
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_21#Casualties_infobox]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_22#"Per_the_Gaza_Health_Ministry"]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#infobox_attribution_inline]]

===Discussion3===
Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Infinity Knight|Vice regent|Graeme Bartlett|Mistamystery|WillowCity|JM2023|Hovsepig}} Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::You missed one off the top of my head, {{u|Jayen466}}. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're right, I did; I overlooked them at [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).
:::Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.
::I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.
::I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.
::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23#h_e1333a829d60ba8528ad93a27303e5af] {{tq|As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported.}} '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources:-
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?]
[https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/ Time 26 Oct]"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."[https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?"] "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:In a war, it's common to take the casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both sides with a grain of salt. For example, the Russians claim to have destroyed more [[M142 HIMARS]] systems in Ukraine than were actually provided to Ukraine has turned into a meme. It's important to note that numbers provided by both Israel and Hamas are often marked as "not verified," so attribution is essential when using them. What complicates things further is that Hamas is among the well-known international players. During this war, especially in incidents like the one at the hospital, independent sources had varying results when trying to confirm the numbers. As a result, news outlets like AP began using "disputed" since the hospital count was included in the overall figure. That's why we can't hide the disclaimer in the footnotes. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Discuss it in the article. If GHM were up at RSN for analysis, a generally reliable (which does not mean always reliable) result is likely based on the sources above. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinian-gaza-war-hamas-hostages-macron-c2482817f230580c20b898bd65e5a4c3 Recent AP] [[John Kirby]] said: “The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, and I think that all needs to be factored into anything that they put out publicly.”
:::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The NSC spokesman is a reliable source for the public position of the United States, thats it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Is [https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-ed6875f15ea0d2bc196e4033b54b7194 AP] a reliable source? {{green|, according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week.}}
:::::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I dont think anybody has suggested no attribution. See [[straw man]]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::You have seen my !vote? That's what I am saying viz a viz the RFC, the generally reliable is based on my own analysis of the recent RS (those above + WAPO) debating the question of reliability of GHM in general, not news snippets where there is no consistency, I can easily find articles where they don't say. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-doubts-humanitarian-agencies-consider-gaza-toll-reliable-2023-10-27/ Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::See [https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::When incorporating figures from each side into our text, it's important to openly specify the source of these numbers rather than burying the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::As suggested by {{u|Meeepmep}} [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], I would appreciate the modification of
::::::::* '''4''' change to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''
::::::::<s>* '''3.5''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text''' seems like a reasonable choice to me.</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this
::::::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict ==

In addition to points made in previous move discussions - namely that multiple Palestinian factions and indeed the general population have been involved in this conflict - over the past 10 days since the last move discussion, other Arab countries (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt) have been directly involved in the conflict. Moreover, the name (Arab-Israeli conflict) is long established and well understood by the reader. The current title goes beyond inadequate at this point, it is outright misleading, making it wholly unsuitable. [[User:عبد المؤمن|عبد المؤمن]] ([[User talk:عبد المؤمن|talk]]) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under [[WP:COMMONNAME]]; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this ''specific'' situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. [[User:Feliiformia|Feliiformia]] ([[User talk:Feliiformia|talk]]) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add one Uruguayan national to the list of hostages kidnapped by Hamas. ==

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to [https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/cancilleria-otorgo-nacionalidad-a-nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-por-hamas-y-pide-su-liberacion-20231024134034 El Observador]

Other sources in Spanish: [https://www.semanariohebreojai.com/articulo/7253 Semanario Hebreo Jai], [https://www.telenoche.com.uy/nacionales/embajada-confirmo-que-rehen-es-nacionalidad-uruguaya-n5357159 Telenoche], [https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/10/24/nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-hamas-israel-orix/ CNN], [https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2023/10/25/uruguay-le-otorgo-la-nacionalidad-a-la-joven-israeli-secuestrada-por-hamas/ Infobae] and [https://ladiaria.com.uy/politica/articulo/2023/10/la-embajada-uruguaya-en-israel-solicito-a-ese-pais-que-trabaje-en-la-liberacion-de-una-nieta-de-uruguayos/ La Diaria].

The Uruguayan government asked the Israeli government, through the Uruguayan embassy in Israel, to make every effort to secure the release of the 29-year-old woman. [[User:Accuratelibrarian|Accuratelibrarian]] ([[User talk:Accuratelibrarian|talk]]) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Why are Hamas fighters and PIJ fighters listed under Lebanon casualties? ==

In the infobox under the h note there are 3 PIJ and 3 Hamas fighters listed along the Hezbollah fighters and civilians, and I ask why? In the sources I've only found they've been murdered close to Lebanon but not that they are lebanese, so why include them there and not in the "Murdered in Israel" group of dead? [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Simply because they were killed while participating in the Lebanese border clashes under the Hezbollah banner. As a quick question, why did you use the word "murdered" in your post? They were combat deaths after all, and it just seems a little unusual to use that word in such a context. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Well I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if that sounded odd, alright I understand and thanks. [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Thats alright, thanks for letting me know. Something that should be mentioned that in English, "murder" has a very specifically tailored definition that pertains to killings deliberately done in cold blood. That is why it initially came across as strange (and honestly a little inflammatory) to use it regarding enemy combatants. One can make an argument about civilian victims from Israeli bombing campaigns, but that is another can of worms I'm not going to open here.
:::In my personal opinion, it seems like a better and more neutral sounding alternative regarding that specific situation would be simply be "killed", as it doesn't have the same exact baggage as "murder." Normally, this is just a trivial bit of semantics, but it is a very important distinction in regarding armed conflicts, especially ones as politicized and controversial as the Israel-Palestinian wars. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh that makes sense, I personally would use it to desribe the dead palestinian civilians, well I will be more careful in the future, thanks for letting me know! [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Adding a new subsection ==

Should there be a subsection for war crimes committed during this conflict, or is there already one? [[User:Iminyourwalls72|Iminyourwalls72]] ([[User talk:Iminyourwalls72|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:There is a page about the war crimes. [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. Is it mentioned in the current page? [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Additional Relevant Information ==

'''Unbiased Admins/Editors Please take a look into this and add this information in appropriate sections ,if relevant to the topic:

'''
'''1.) IDF Officer is Told by Gazan How Hamas Prevents Civilian Evacuations:''' . Total causalities claimed by Hamas-run gaza health ministry may not be just the result of Israeli's strikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaK4muqkRBE

''''''2.) Recorded: Hamas Millitants Calls Father With Murdered Woman's Phone to Celebrate The Oct. 7''' Massacre''':https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bACNYtaLBQI

'''3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:''': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg
:The practice of "[[:ru:Начальная военная подготовка|initial military training]]" is also used in Russia in [[Secondary school|secondary]] [[comprehensive school]]s in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:see [[whataboutery]]. also not going to debate on the legal age, legal framework, motives,volutary participation, ideology, and other differences between the two. just provided the information. editors/admins will decide if its relevant or not. if not, it will be discarded like many other critical info.no issues. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit requests like these are archived in Wikipedia very soon so also keep an eye on that) [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I cannot find a [[WP:RS|reliable secondary source]] for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::we can write as per idf produced evidence. also are reliable secondry sources in business of evaluating evidences? for eg:if a public video is produced of hamas decapitating people , why would you need other sources to report it too? by your logic, all the claims and evidences gaza ministry makes and shows should also be removed, which are not evaluated by secondry sources. for eg: list of 7000 people died with their id. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Countries ready to take Gaza refugees ==

As many countries are showcasing solidarity with gaza,their should be a section(or atleast a mention) for countries who are ready to take in gaza refugees/displaced people.
i only came accross scotland:
Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, has offered to welcome refugees from Gaza and treat wounded civilians in Scottish hospitals.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/10/17/scotlands-first-minister-humza-yousaf-says-uk-should-offer-sanctuary-for-gaza-refugees/

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358422/scotland-first-minister-pledges-readiness-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4262981-scotlands-first-minister-says-country-willing-to-take-gaza-refugees/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-19/ty-article/scotlands-leader-calls-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees-to-the-u-k-amid-hamas-israel-war/0000018b-4776-d614-abcf-ef7760540000

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/scotland-minister-humza-yousaf-offers-to-invite-gaza-refugees-to-scotland-faces-backlash-101697604233670.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/willing-to-be-a-place-of-sanctuary-scotland-first-minister-says-ready-to-welcome-gaza-refugees-402497-2023-10-18 [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas infiltrators ==

The article states :

* "Simultaneously, around 2,500 Hamas militants[5] infiltrated Israel from Gaza using trucks, ..."

Source talks about :

* "2500 militants and civilians"

[[User:RadXman|RadXman]] ([[User talk:RadXman|talk]]) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

: In infobox, it is also necessary to correct the information from "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed". According to the [https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-475427-00.html source], "approximately 2,500 terrorists and civilians entered Israel from Gaza, of which approximately 1,500 returned to the Strip." --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 13:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Fixed it. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Censor ==

censors
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130805
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130882
[[User:Baratiiman|Baratiiman]] ([[User talk:Baratiiman|talk]]) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:So what are you trying to say here? The material removed removed was not directly related, but did show Iran's opposition to Israel. Not every statement made needs to be included. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Possible [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] drones falling on Egypt ==

The Egyptian towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] near Israel were hit by projectiles this morning.[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosion-heard-egyptian-red-sea-town-near-israeli-border-witness-2023-10-27/] Last week, U.S. Navy[https://abcnews.go.com/International/security-incident-involving-us-navy-destroyer-red-sea/story?id=104147141] and Saudi Arabia[https://allarab.news/saudi-arabia-shoots-down-houthi-missile-from-yemen-heading-towards-israel/] had reportedly intercepted 4 missiles and 50 drones fired by Houthis at the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]].[[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/]] [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] are located at a distance of 200 km and 250 km, respectively, from the [[Gaza Strip]]. Does [[Hamas]] have such long-range weapons? The [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] are based even further, in [[Yemen]], 1,600 km from the city of [[Eilat]]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Bakeries? Barber shops? ==

Tareq S. Haijaj, [https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/they-let-humanitarian-aid-in-then-they-bombed-it-so-that-gaza-would-starve/ They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve]. [[Mondoweiss]] 26 October 2023 [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:This would require independent confirmation preferably from the aid agencies providing these food supplies. It is a remarkable claim, on the face of it, and therefore one would expect wider coverage, despite the general systemic bias in reportage. So too with the suggestion any battery-charging agency like barbershops are being regularly targeted.
:The empirical description of a new kind of weapon is worth pursuing, because people on the ground in wars learn to distinguish types of rocketry so they may take precautions, depending on the noise profile (innumerable WW1/WW2 histories confirm that practice).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

Please add an explanation in the infobox about the over 40 percent of Palestinian deaths being children, which explains the extremely low median age of the Gaza Strip population ([[Demographics of the State of Palestine|16-17 years old]]). Otherwise, one gets the impression that Israel is specifically bombing children. [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: While I understand the motivation behind this, [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] points out that the infobox is to summarize the information. Adding an explanation like that would be too much. That said, I think it would warrant inclusion in the article itself if you can provide some [[WP:Reliable Sources]] for it. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Replace Citation 365 with the actual document released by the Gaza Health Ministry. ==

https://www.aljazeera.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-2.pdf

The document hasn't been translated yet but it seems better to cite the public document than a newspaper article talking about the document. [[User:Oshaboy2|Oshaboy2]] ([[User talk:Oshaboy2|talk]]) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Usually we prefer secondary sources (like news orgs) of which I have seen more than a few. To "cite" the primary article, we would need a translation. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox ==

Why is Hezbollah listed as a belligerent in the infobox and why are Lebanon and Syria listed as locations? That 'incidents' have occurred involving all three is cited and covered in the body, but none of the sources used comes anywhere near the [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claim that Hezbollah is now actively fighting as part of the war or that the war is taking place outside Gaza/Southern Israel. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-carrying-out-artillery-strikes-in-syria-after-mortar-fire/ This two sentence article] is employed to justify the claim that Syria is now one of the war locations, although it does not even mention Hamas or the 'main' conflict anywhere.

Sources should be clear, unambiguous and near universal to claim that any other group are active participants in the war, whether we are talking about the US or Syria. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 ==

Why is "2023" in the title? There is no other article called [[Israel–Hamas war]] to disambiguate from. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Conflicts in the region have been going on since 1948. Although the names of the countries and the political parties that run them can be used to differentiate the various conflicts in some cases, a little redundancy can be helpful for clarity. In this case, I think "2023" helps to distinguish this article from the many others. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Commanders and leaders flags in infobox ==

I think it's fair and logical to add {{flagicon|PLE}} palestinian (and {{flagicon|LIB}} lebanese) flags to commanders and leaders in infobox like those of israeli commanders and leaders. No ? [[User:Faycal.09|Fayçal.09]] ([[User talk:Faycal.09|talk]]) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Yes that’s fine IMO [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:I agree. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Near-total internet and cellular blackout hits Gaza as Israel ramps up strikes ==

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/internet-blackout-hits-gaza-israel-ramps-strikes-rcna122531 [[Special:Contributions/102.45.250.20|102.45.250.20]] ([[User talk:102.45.250.20|talk]]) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:added. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Smallpox/chicken pox ==

The article says that there is a smallpox outbreak in Gaza. As smallpox has been eradicated, this mention appears to be a mistranslation in the Al Jazeera article. The UN report (https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142732) mentions chicken pox instead. See also https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/10/24/fact-check-smallpox-has-not-broken-out-in-gaza/ (not sure whether this counts as a reliable source). [[User:Oryf|Oryf]] ([[User talk:Oryf|talk]]) 19:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Change article title from 2023 Israel-Hamas War to 2023 Palestinian Genocide [[User:Elsliquor|Elsliquor]] ([[User talk:Elsliquor|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::I suggest changing the title of the article to '''[[Collective punishment]] of [[Palestinians]] for [[Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades|IQB]]'''. During the first week of the war, it became clear that Israel was fighting not the Hamas militants who carried out the attacks, but Palestinian civilians. And now only the lazy did not say that the Israeli response was disproportionate to the damage received and went far beyond self-defense. --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 20:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 (2) ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Add the Houthi movement on the left for the belligerents box. [[User:Sirswiss1|Sirswiss1]] ([[User talk:Sirswiss1|talk]]) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*{{notdone}} - Please refer to the '''[[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]]''' related to this edit request. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Shortening article ==

After another editor added the template pointing out the article length, I wanted to write down some suggestions along with an area for other editors to add ideas and mark down when they are done.
*Israeli response probably doesn't need to be a day-by-day account.
*Humanitarian situation could get trimmed down to a few paragraphs and get a separate article
*Reactions likely deserve their own article. Maybe trim it down to Israel, Palestine (combine Gaza and West Bank), Middle East, and International.
Feel free to add on and strikethrough anything that is completed; I will do what I can but I'm not the fastest editor of all time. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

2023-10-27T20:50:58Z

91.210.248.223: /* Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 */

{{Talk header|age=1|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|minthreadsleft=1}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversy}}
{{not a forum}}
{{censor}}
{{American English}}
{{Old move
|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict
|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|result1 = moved
|date1 = 7 October 2023
|link1 = Special:Permalink/1179550401#Requested move 7 October 2023
|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War
|result2 = not moved, [[WP:SNOW]]
|date2 = 11 October 2023
|link2 = Special:Permalink/1179788985#Requested move 11 October 2023
|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war
|result3 = not moved, no consensus
|date3 = 15 October 2023
|link3 = Special:Permalink/1181585273#Requested_move_15_October_2023
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{ITN talk|7 October|2023|oldid=1179028067}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|class=B|collapsed=y|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=Mid}}

}}
{{Top 25 Report|October 1 2023 (24th)|October 8 2023 (3rd)}}
{{page views}}
{{Section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 22
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{press|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html |title=Wikipedia Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X |author=Steven Harrison ||lang=en-US |org=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=2023-10-26}}

== Extremely violent execution video in the body section ==

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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

: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." [[User:FunLater|FunLater]] ([[User talk:FunLater|talk]]) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also there is [[WP:OM]], and that says that {{tq|the only reason for including any image in any article is [[Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content|"to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"]]}}. I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@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]]: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::"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. [[User:Ben Azura|Ben Azura]] ([[User talk:Ben Azura|talk]]) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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'': {{talk quote block|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'''|source=[[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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[WP:PLA]] is also applicable, specifically that {{tq|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 [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|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]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::'''"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:Wikipedia is not censored|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk: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: {{Tq|Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE|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 {{tq|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]]:
::::::::{{TQB|Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.}}
::::::::{{TQB|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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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, [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Lenny Marks|@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.) [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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). [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. {{pb}}An example to clarify the distinction: [[:File:Basal_cell_carcinoma.jpg|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. {{pb}}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. {{pb}}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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]], I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects [[WP:IMGCONTENT]]. You are right to say that {{talk quote inline|"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 {{talk quote inline|"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. {{talk quote block|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'''.|source= [[WP:CENSOR]]}} [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Wikipedia’s not censored, period. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:FYI, there is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm a parallel discussion] on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
: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." [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] The footage is not included in that video and you know it. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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 [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Keep it. It's important. [[Special:Contributions/2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F]] ([[User talk:2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|talk]]) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:<nowiki>'''Keep'''</nowiki>. Per [[Wikipedia:Gore]] . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] The poll is below if you are trying to !vote [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:Where is this anyways? [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:CooperGoodman|CooperGoodman]] The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm here]. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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, [[WP:CENSOR|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]]). [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:CooperGoodman|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 -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@Lenny Marks
:::I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We have the right to not watch said video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
:::::::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.
:::::::In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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 [[WP:NFC|non free content policy]]. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:Well said @[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

::Good call: I also left [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_video_depicting_extremely_violent_murders_could_benefit_from_additional_community_input|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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 [[Kibbutz|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Jon.yb093|Jon.yb093]] ([[User talk:Jon.yb093|talk]]) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jon.yb093|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Snow Rise|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.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [[WP:AFP|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". {{tq|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 [[User:Lenny Marks|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. {{tq|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"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,

:::::{{tq|"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...

:::::{{tq|"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) [[WP:NOTCOMPULSORY|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.

:::::{{tq|"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.

:::::{{tq|"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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Snow Rise}} I see you didn't even ''attempt'' to address the very valid point that [[WP:AFP|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 [[WP:DISC|content disclaimer]] which reads {{tq|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 {{tq|Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.}}
::::::{{tq|"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, [[:File:Full, unedited Kelly Thomas confrontation video (35 min.).webm|The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas]] provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that [[:File:The Lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels.jpg|the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels]] provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a [[:File:Jewish child victim of Arab riots in Hebron, 1929.jpg|photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre]] adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that [[:File:Fotothek df ps 0000047 Eine Mutter über dem Kinderwagen ihrer Zwillinge im Tode.jpg|images of the casualties]] [[:File:Sumiteru Taniguchi back.jpg|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.
::::::{{tq|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".
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180403310 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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [[WP:AN|an admin noticeboard]]. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.
::::::{{tq|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.}}
:::::[[:File:Buchenwald SS Corpses 60631.jpg|You]] [[:File:McCool shot by sniper in Iraq, 2006.webm|sure]] [[:File:Suspect Armed With Screwdriver Shot By LA Deputies.webm|about]] [[:File:LAPD Officers Kill Stabbing Suspect Holding Woman Hostage, June 2018.webm|that]]? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv on Wikimedia Commons,] which is a file repository and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_Wikipedia 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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Lethargilistic}}That's not exactly true. That video ''was'' used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Cerna|was deleted]] for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Veggies}}Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|Lethargilistic]] on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] Link? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain [[Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer|disclaimers]]. There are options to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain content]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
::: "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
::: 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.
::: In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant.
::[[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:100% well said. 100% true. I agree fully, and I will work to make sure this video is taken down. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
[[File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg|thumb|''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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

: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) [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Borgenland|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. {{talk quote block|"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"|source=[[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:
::{{talk quote block|"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'''"."|source=[[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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:And since [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is really sad . 😢😢😢 [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:::{{u|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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|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: {{tq|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).-- [[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'''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]] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:I was going to point out that on Wikipedia, we don't remove content just because of its graphic nature. If it is in a encyclopedic tone and it don't have copyright issues, then it can probably stay. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article? ===
* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Absolutely not'''</s> '''STRONG oppose''' per reasons already given (and those tellingly ''not'' given by the opposition). -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
**Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet ''another'' section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Veggies|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. [[User:IshChasidecha|IshChasidecha]] ([[User talk:IshChasidecha|talk]]) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:NFC|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::Just to point out, it has been verified now by HRW. If the video violates copyrights (I am not an expert but it seems like it does not) then that is a separate discussion to be had. This is just about the suitability of the video in this article. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove [[snuff film]]s. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*: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 [[Wikipedia:!VOTE|!poll]] will help a bit with assessing consensus. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awsome Aasim]] You say that {{talk quote inline|"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]].) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cwater1|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] I strike out the comment. <nowiki><s></nowiki> I put a new reply saying keep video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. [[User:Eduardog3000|eduardog3000]] ([[User talk:Eduardog3000|talk]]) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' citing Snow Rise. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. [[User:Yekshemesh|Yekshemesh]] ([[User talk:Yekshemesh|talk]]) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**{{re|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? -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per SnowRise. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]] 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:•'''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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*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. <s>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. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)</s> ''''Support inclusion of video'''. The video has now been authenticated by [[Human Rights Watch]], who thought it significant enough to [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified write about]. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video of Israeli casualties as well. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Ficaia|Ficaia]] the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] Given that, you would support keeping? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.{{pb}}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.''' [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**:On the flip side, {{tq|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**::The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
**: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware [[WP:Censored|Wikipedia isn't censored]] and there are ways to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain images and videos]].</s> [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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]].

*'''Keep/re-add/oppose''' but '''wait''' – alternatives may be better – Ignoring the [[c:File_talk:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm|biased file name]] and [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|possible copyright]] and verifiability issues, this video shows Hamas's attacks much better than the other image used in the article. I would prefer a less violent example (such as an image), but only if it showcases the attacks in a similar way to this video. I don't think we should readd it until the [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|copyright issue]] (see the comment) is addressed. 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - Honestly, even with the violent nature, it should not be removed, (just my personal opinion)[[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 

*'''Oppose removal''' I strike out my original comment. I agree with @[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Oppose/Keep''' per [[WP:GORE]]. '''''[[User:Hansen Sebastian|Hansen Sebastian]]'''''[[user talk:Hansen Sebastian|Talk]] 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


==== 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. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:First of all, [[WP:VOTE|nobody is voting]] here. This [[Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY|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, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180483586 executive]") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, [[WP:CON|consensus]] is [[WP:NHC|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:: 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 {{tq|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AHamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim%2C_2023.webm&diff=812338484&oldid=812334846], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&search=%5B%5BTemplate%3ALinkimage%5D%5D&ns0=1 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. {{tq|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. {{tq|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.' -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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, {{u|Veggies}}, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @[[User:Veggies|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. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Per [[WP:Offensive material]]: {{tq|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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] {{talk quote inline|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 {{talk quote inline|Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion.}} The inclusion requirements for images are clear: {{talk quote|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.|source=[[wp:IMGCONTENT]]}}
:-- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgXk_mz_8E
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g3ewJZXdsg
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67EYVdfgzo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw
:[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you, I will look through these [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::A few more:
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHydKv0_Do
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC1J4W5sd4
::[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I'm not impressed.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGbjLuZdycY] vs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_BbGc1ZhE]). 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] is correct. @[[User:EvergreenFir|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). [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Riposte97|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::While I initially was in favour of this; it's just too much. I genuinely think it's so out of place. It's brutal, violent, and in hindsight I don't think it really achieves much. Not enough to warrant it's inclusion given the issues it introduces. I get the arguments, not saying anyones arguing for it's re-inclusion in bad faith, but I really have to agree with snow here that there's no way this would ever stand long term. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree that its brutal and violent, but that doesnt affect the validity in any way [[Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED|per policy]]. I might still accept this argument if there were any issues that the video raised - But there arent. The only claim made is that the video is gratuitous (i.e. of no meaningful value) which seems rather absurd for a video about a massacre in an article about a war started by said massacre. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 10:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]]; exactly as @[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]] says. There seem to be two main arguments against inclusion here: 1) that the video has no encyclopedic value (which is just false as many on the opposition have acknowledged) and 2) that the video violates [[wp:GRATUITOUS]] due to the degree of its violence. But that very policy says that if a video ''does'' have encyclopedic value it should be included even when graphic, unless there is a less graphic but equally valuable video to replace it with. As you say, I think that (most) of the arguments against inclusion are made in good faith, but are based on a misreading of policy and this idea that though Wikipedia is not censored, it does not include things that are just ''too'' graphic. As I enumerated above, there are plenty of articles that contain extremely graphic content when appropriate (particularly articles about conflict and massacres). -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I made the close req a couple of minutes ago - [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]]. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Considered a non-admin closure, and boy howdy the poor admin that has to deal with this one. It's tied with '''14 for removal''' and '''14 against''', with 1 wait for alternative then add back. Worst part is everyone is either citing [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] or SnowRise's reasoning. Either way this is going to be a spicy one. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::: I really don't think it's a difficult close. All the admin has to do is close as a no consensus, and because no consensus was achieved for including the video, it should not be included per [[WP:ONUS]], which I think particularly applies in this case given the graphic nature of the video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Question 2: Should the video be [[MediaWiki:Bad image list|blacklisted]] from the English Wikipedia? ===
{{atop
| status =
| result = 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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' also per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''', blacklisting is discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Bad image list]] when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] I would agree, but we have [[WP:NODISCLAIMERS]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome Aasim]], just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''' as explained above -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) Wrong venue''' per @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) wrong venue''' per Kusma. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Decapitation ==

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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
: ??? {{tq|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 [https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/ the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line]. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making [[beheading video]]s, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have condensed the subsection in question. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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? --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Ashvio|Ashvio]] ([[User talk:Ashvio|talk]]) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
'''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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and reflect properly substantiated information. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I've performed an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1181629600&oldid=1181626998 initial trim] of various quotes with no weight. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Babies_beheaded?|in this section]]. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. [[Kfar Aza]] and [[Be'eri]].
::::For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:
::::<ref name="efe13oct2023">{{cite news |first=Joel |last=Gunter |date=13 October 2023 |title=Israel releases photos of babies killed by Hamas |publisher=[[EFE]] |url=https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2023-10-13/israel-releases-photos-of-babies-killed-by-hamas/ |access-date=22 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=17 October 2023 |title='Israeli Babies Decapitated': Jerusalem Official Rebuts Massacre Denial; Slams Hamas Barbarity |work=[[Hindustan Times]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6y-kdnShPQ |access-date=21 October 2023 |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=16 October 2023 |title='Many Hamas victims tortured, raped, abused' |work=The Manila Times |agency=[[Agence France-Presse]] |url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2023/10/16/world/americas-emea/many-hamas-victims-tortured-raped-abused/1914968 |access-date=17 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ari |last2=Lim |first2=Megan |last3=Dorning |first3=Courtney |date=18 October 2023 |title=Israel turns to DNA and dental imprints to identify unrecognizable bodies |work=[[NPR]] |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206506717/israel-hamas-gaza-dna-bodies-burial-tel-aviv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sokol |first=Sam |date=16 October 2023 |title=Hostages' Families Group to Red Cross: Many of Almost 200 Israelis Held in Gaza in Severe Need of Medical Treatment |work=[[Haaretz]] |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-16/ty-article/.premium/many-of-almost-200-israelis-held-in-gaza-in-severe-need-of-medical-treatment/0000018b-38b8-d0ac-a39f-b9bad3600000 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/mOVlf |archive-date=16 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Rose |first1=Emily |last2=Villarraga |first2=Herbert |date=17 October 2023 |title=Rescue workers recount horrors found in kibbutz attacked by Hamas |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rescue-workers-recount-horrors-found-kibbutz-attacked-by-hamas-2023-10-17/}}</ref>
::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{Reflist-talk}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I've read most of the accounts of this meeting from non-Israeli sources. None of them mention decapitation as included part of the 42 minute video or supplementary images. We already knew that Hamas murdered civilians including children in cold blood, so I don't really see the conference as being particularly revelatory in the way some have. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::Really?

{{cquote|Still images showed a '''decapitated''' soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities]}}

{{cquote|In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/]}}
::The BBC also described the same incident.

{{cquote|Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to '''decapitate''' someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270]}}

{{cquote|Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations of seven Hamas terrorists who were captured following the Palestinian terror group’s October 7 onslaught, in which they admitted they had been ordered to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.

In one video released by the Israel Defense Forces, a person whose face is blurred said that gunmen were given instructions to kill everyone they saw, including '''beheading victims''' and cutting off their legs.

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. '''“Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.”''' [https://www.timesofisrael.com/kill-behead-rape-interrogated-hamas-members-detail-atrocities-against-civilians/]}}

{{cquote|The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and '''decapitation''' from the southern Israel assault. [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-war-idf-posts-videos-of-hamas-terrorists-detailing-orders-to-kill-behead-and-rape/articleshow/104681563.cms]}}

::[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::: Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.
:::[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::In what way does it fail verification? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. [[Special:Contributions/98.151.160.96|98.151.160.96]] ([[User talk:98.151.160.96|talk]]) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[Graeme Wood (journalist)|Graeme Wood]] reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated."<ref name="CBC News">{{Cite news |date=25 October 2023 |title=Journalist describes footage of Hamas atrocities compiled by the IDF |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0Atcdy38g |work=[[CBC News]] |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]@[[User:Wee Curry Monster|Wee Curry Monster]]@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]@[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]]@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]]@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== How to handle the [[Battle of Zikim]] ==

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 [[2023 Hamas attack on Israel|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 {{u|The Great Mule of Eupatoria}} and {{u|BilledMammal}} disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1181452958 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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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, [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/october-9-2023-morning-rundown-rcna119434 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::Key phrase: “Israel said” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]], all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel '''by sea;''' the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{tq|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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [https://www.indiatoday.in/world/video/israeli-army-deployed-at-zikim-beach-civilians-asked-to-leave-ground-report-2449724-2023-10-16 This] is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/a-few-idf-officers-saved-90-trainees-from-hamas-terrorists-they-paid-with-their-lives/0000018b-4da2-dc3c-a5df-ddaadf370000 A new article] from [[Haaretz]] disputes the initial claims from October 7th that [[Bahad 4]] fell.
:<code>...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.</code>
:Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the [[Battle of Zikim]] article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.
:[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]] You can bypass the paywall by reading an [https://archive.ph/nWuvr archived version] here. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at [[Bahad 4]] up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the [[Bahad 4]] base ''since'' 7 October. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict ==

A new report by ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]]''[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] states that U.S. has sent a [[Lieutenant general (United States)|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 movement|Houthi]] cruise missile over the Red Sea[https://www.npr.org/2023/10/20/1207523642/yemen-missiles-intercepted] 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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

::[[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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA BBC] Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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)" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*Note, an RfC ([[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox]]) was started below to figure the content dispute out. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

SOHR has reported that several Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghani militiamen (presumably under the Popular Mobilization Units, Liwa Fatemiyoun, and National Defense Forces 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/ [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is actually reported in [[The Economist]] as well, I'll see if I can find the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Expansion to war crimes section ==

{{ping|Nableezy}} I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in {{diff2|1181344023|this diff}}. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under [[WP:BALASP]].

For editors generally, see also [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?|this discussion,]] regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of [[WP:BALASP]] is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff].
:I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.
:The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.
:My problem with this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff] is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named [[Tom Dannenbaum]]), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.
:According to [[WP:RS]], a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for [[WP:RS]] should be heightened.
:How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?
:I oppose the incorporation of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff], along with [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the [[WP:ONUS]] in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::That is called an expert view and [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Since you are relying on [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:
:::(i) Prefer secondary sources,
:::(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
:::(iii) Citation counts
:::(iv) POV and peer review
:::Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?
:::As per [[WP:ONUS]], the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.
:::You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with [[WP:RS]].
:::Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.
:::Kindly do. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::If you read [[WP:SPS]] youll see '' Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.'' You can see his [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KGysaxgAAAAJ&hl=en relevant publications]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] your removal of that content was correct.@[[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also as per [[WP:SPS]] :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::And what do you think is relevant there? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]]: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add Kazakhstan casualtie ==

add one citizen of Kazakhstan to the number of victims among foreigners and persons with dual citizenship. Ref: [https://en.inform.kz/news/kazakh-national-dies-in-gaza-strip-kazakh-mfa-2420d6/#:~:text=A%20national%20of%20Kazakhstan%20died,of%20Palestine%2C%20died%20as%20well. inform], [https://adyrna.kz/en/post/174231 adyrna], [https://www.kt.kz/eng/society/wto_countries_are_preparing_for_the_13th_wto_ministerial_1377956990.html kt] [[User:Нурасылл|Нурасылл]] ([[User talk:Нурасылл|talk]]) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Belligerents & Units involved ==

The belligerents section has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, yet the units involved section doesn't. I believe it should be changed so the belligerents section has Fatah instead of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (since Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is part of Fatah), and the units involved section then has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as was done with Hamas & Al-Qassam brigades. [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]], please see [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Fatah involved?|[1]]] and [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Extended-confirmed-edit request, October 18|[2]]] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/21/israel-hamas-conflict-palestinian-voices-censored Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== ‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense ==

According to [https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/22804 Kyiv Post] {{green|In reaction to Hamas' attacks, the IDF is deploying its new Iron Beam anti-missile system ahead of its originally planned schedule.}} "I'm unsure where to drop this info? Where's the spot for deets on the weapon systems both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:It may be too early to add it to ''this'' article. You could certainly add it to the [[Iron Beam]] article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Jprg1966}} "Iron Sting" now. [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/watch-idf-uses-new-iron-sting-weapon-system-against-hamas-X5Qc1YQbzf2IgoJs1y5p WSJ] {{green|The Israel Defense Forces have released footage that is said to depict commandos using their new "Iron Sting" weapon system against Hamas in one of its initial operational deployments. The laser and GPS-guided mortar is designed to target urban environments, as described by its manufacturer, [[Elbit Systems]].}} I'm a bit uncertain about where to place this information. Where can we include the specifics about the weapon systems that both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Article becoming too long. Suggestions. ==

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. [[User:Lafi90|Lafi90]] ([[User talk:Lafi90|talk]]) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:[[2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Reactions]] It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Someone working on [[Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]], should make a dent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the [[WP:PROSELINE]] sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per {{U|Alcibiades979}}'s suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180882394 tried] that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, [[Iraq War#Background]] and [[Iraq War#Pre-war events]], similarly [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background]] and [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude]].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1181659781 Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Chafique}} Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, {{they|Abo Yemen}} reverted his own [[Special:Diff/1181659525|edit]] from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox ==
{{atop
| status = Closing by request
| result = Closing this at the request of the RfC creator {{u|WeatherWriter}} at [[Special:Diff/1181698226]]. – [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

Should the [[United States]] be added to the infobox as a belligerent?

*'''Option 1''' — Yes (Listed as flag under Israel - No additional info - Full belligerent)
*'''Option 2''' — Yes (Listed as bullet point under Israel - No additional info)
*'''Option 3''' — Yes (Listed as a bullet point under Israel as “''United States (in Iraq and Red Sea only)'“
*'''Option 4''' — Yes (Listed under a “Supported by” subheading under Israel.)
*'''Option 5''' — Yes (Format not mentioned in option 1-4)
*'''Option 6''' — No

'''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion===
Previous discussions: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21]], [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14]]
*'''Comment''' — As RfC starter, I am going to refrain from commenting for now. This RfC was started given several content disputes and various talk page discussions around this overall topic. I attempted to look through some of the article history and I believe option 1-4 covered any previous styles of the US being added in the infobox. I added option 5 incase I missed a format style. Obviously, option 6 is for those who oppose it being added. Anyway, an RfC was for sure needed to solve all the various content disputes on this topic. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Reply|WeatherWriter}} Could you point to where #4 was deprecated? That is currently used at [[Gaza–Israel conflict]]. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:If consensus is reached on option 4, Germany should be added and Iran and Russia should be added to Hamas and its allies.[[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I am not sure. When figuring out the previous versions where the USA was listed, I saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1181544884 this edit] by {{u|Parham wiki}} saying it was deprecated. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#c-BilledMammal-20230719130800-RfC_on_%22supported_by%22_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter|If there is a consensus, it can be added.] [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|Selfstudier}}, [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict]] is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Since you are requesting ''more'' research on my end…here: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page]] & [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah]] are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' — Given the US military shooting down missiles launched believed to be going towards Israel, they are a belligerent now and deserve to be listed. Option 3 is the best as the US isn’t fully involved in the Gaza Strip conflict, but more around the region. Noting, option 3 was previously used in the article (within the last 24 hours). '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option X''' USA should be in the infox iff it is a [[belligerent]].[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - If the US is included as a belligerent, then the [[Houthi movement|Houthis]] will necessarily ''also'' have to be included. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the [[Red Sea]] shot down Yemeni [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]] and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.
:There are additional factors that ''might'' count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] 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, U.S. is reported[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.
:Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say '''Option 1''' would be the most appropriate option. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia) ==
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701201698}}
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=F55CC1A}}

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

[[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]], [[Saudi Arabia]]

'''Option 1''' – Add X 
'''Option 2''' – Do not add X 
'''Option 3''' – Neutral (no comments) on X 
(X = Country)

RfC is '''not''' to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. six different and unique discussions. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion2===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
*'''RfC Creator Comment''' – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi''', '''Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany''' – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), {{u|Ecrusized}} said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea '''shot down''' 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation Axios], the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to '''advise''' ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 reported to have] '''delivered''' 45 cargo planes loaded with '''armaments''' to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/u-s-sends-air-defense-systems-to-gulf-countries-O11ZyqKBZhIjSprR7WoN Wall Street Journal reported] the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 the new report] from the [[Wall Street Journal]] saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A new report by [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 WSJ] states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by [[Saudi Arabia]]. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I just added it to the list of options. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment 2''' [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/drone-attacks-american-bases-injured-two-dozen-us-military-personnel-rcna121961 NBC News] reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:<s>'''Comment''' Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option *''' Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are [[belligerents]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Wait {{u|Selfstudier}}, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. ''Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral?'' If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::I made my comment and I explained it as well. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:AGF|Not trying to be rude]], but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Let the closer worry about what it means. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::<s>@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], my understanding is that @[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] would respond your question ''Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent?'' with the answer ''Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no.'' I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.
:::::::[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose any being listed as belligerents''' Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.
:I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @[[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.
:It may interest other editors to peruse [[Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine]] and its archives, for an interesting case study.
:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, {{u|Parham wiki}} made the comment that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]), then it can be used. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Bermicourt}}, not sure if you made a typo, but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1181733329 current version of the article] lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — Iran has now [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-palestinians-news/card/iran-s-khamenei-accuses-u-s-of-orchestrating-israel-s-gaza-campaign-uXStycKXeGwa5XaHrDrN accused (Wall Street Journal article)] the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that '''directly supports''' that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I did in my original reasoning. The US is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 supplying Israel with weapons] and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::“'''US military equipment''' pours into Israel”[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am [[WP:COAL]]ing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
* I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions.{{tq| Countries should be added to the infobox if they are [[belligerents]],}} as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly {{tq|None of these groups are involved in active combat}}, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but ''(thank God)'', there are ''(as yet)'' no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Add''': [[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]].
:'''Do not add''': [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]]. '''[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|✉]]''' 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose all additions''' until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israeli POWs omitted from lead ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}

Please revert “Hundreds of civilian hostages, including women, children and the elderly, were abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip” to “Unarmed civilian hostages and captured Israeli soldiers were taken to the Gaza Strip, including women and children.”

The new wording, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181531570 this revision] adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/21/hamas-says-israel-refused-to-receive-2-hostages-israel-calls-it-propaganda%7C Al Jazeera]: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_10%7C the discussion] of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/hamas-launches-surprise-attack-on-israel-as-palestinian-gunmen-reported-in-south%7CThe The Guardian]: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/hamas-says-it-has-enough-israeli-captives-to-free-all-palestinian-prisoners%7CAJ%7C Al Jazeera]: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

As it stands, a reader who only sees the lead and the infobox would not know that there are any Israeli POWs. How can this be? [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Yo|Monopoly31121993(2)}} This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{Yo|WillowCity}} I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I made edits to this sentence in the article before finding this discussion. If I've inadvertently overruled the result of this discussion, please accept my apologies. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{Yo|Quantling}} In my view your edit is quite helpful for indicating the uncertainty regarding the exact ratio of civilians and soldiers among those taken captive. The prior language could be taken as implying that the 200 captives were in addition to (not including) soldiers. So I see your wording as fully consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not sure if someone might want to replace the commas with brackets, but that is purely stylistic. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As well I had previously noted in a separate discussion that the reference to "women and children" was somewhat ambiguous, as female IDF soldiers are POWs, while female civilians are not, so I have no objection to the removal of that from the lead. The identities of the captives are discussed subsequently, including demographic data, and are the subject of their own article, so I don't see it as necessary for the lead. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Massacres ==

This article has plenty of Palestinian massacres giving a one-sided impression that the only side that is making any crime are Palestinians. So far more than 6000 have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2000 children. Strikes have been proven to target bakeries, supermarkets, and probably hospitals.

I can't fathom that none of these are considered massacres. Airstrike sounds a much neutral benign word than massacre, and yet Airstrikes are much deadler than anything Hamas or other militants did. Airstrikes burn victims and cause very high collateral damage, not to mention the trauma that follows a small child who witnesses one. We can see a lot of videos of children shaking, those children will most likely spend their lives in a psychiatric institution. We need to uphold Wikipedia values and make this article a little more unbiased. [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:From what I’ve seen, the massacres here are specifically talking about what happened in the kibbutzim only on October 7 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).
:Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.
::Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.
::They also killed before on 16th of October
::https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut}} Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. {{tq|Hamas doesn't see them as civilians}}. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. {{tq|we know that hamas lied }} All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Npov tags ==

{{u|James James Morrison Morrison}}, you’ve added multiple pov section tags, can you explain them here please? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think it's safe to remove any neutrality tags that aren't associated with a specific, actionable complaint here on the talk page. Otherwise we might as well just tag every section. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah, agreed, but who wants to use a revert on that? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I have removed them, so that is my revert for today. Just adding bloat without helping our readers. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Archived talks about photos and Reactions section ==

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world
::
[[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war| international reactions] page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war. ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Asked and answered. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

The Suprise attack by hamas on Israel was done with the guide of Iran.

The war also involves Hizzbolla - an Iranian proxy and Iranian miltias in Syria.

Also adding the missle attack by the Houtis in Yemen - another Iranian proxy aimed on Israel.

there is also the case of Iraqi Millitias also guided by Iran attacking US bases in Iraq, because of US support of Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.
::Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.
::https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.
::::They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.
::::Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.
::::Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.
::::*since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.
::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.
:::::*also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.
:::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister [[Eli Cohen]] stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is [[Eli Cohen (politician, born 1972)|this one]]. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26]] ([[User talk:2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|talk]]) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel casualties ==

Israeli casualties still at 1400? We need more updates [[User:RickyBlair668|RickyBlair668]] ([[User talk:RickyBlair668|talk]]) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Updating casualities in an ongoing crisis (or war) is tricky as it can change day by day. Perhaps an update once a week would be easier, but I agree with the suggestion that the figure should be updated. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Supported by ==

@[[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]], concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181871075 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia], the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: '''Ongoing RfC''' — Please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ [[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]] ([[User talk:Tamjeed Ahmed|talk]]) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Casualty count ==

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.
:::Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."
:::https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971
:::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden is not a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Not just Biden:
:::::https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
:::::https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/
:::::The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source ''independently'' corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the [[MOS:CLAIM|policy]] on "claimed").
::::::As well, FYI, this article from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WaPo]: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. [[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Does the block also apply for the talk page? [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== United States involvement and Casualties sustained ==

A US special force and an Israeli special ops unit that entered Gaza “completely wiped out” https://www.palestinechronicle.com/shot-to-pieces-this-is-what-happened-to-us-special-forces-when-they-entered-gaza/

The U.S is now on the ground albeit not very effective as of now. We know, through the words of Douglas Mcgregor that a combined American-Israeli military unit entered Gaza and were subsequently wiped out, presumably killed and captured. We should really consider adding the U.S to the list of belligerents especially after sustaining 30+ injuries to attacks by the “Islamic Resistance of Iraq”

Alongside U.S involvement, we should also add this new “Islamic Resistance of Iraq” faction and as more information and articles surface, we can vastly improve this article. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an [[wp:extraordinary|extraordinary]] claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|A.H.T Videomapping}} please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza ==
{{atop|Withdrawn by OP. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:A discussion on this topic [[Special:PermanentLink/1181585273#Requested move 15 October 2023|concluded just two days ago]], with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Map ==

Please add a map to the article
[[File:Countries_recognizing_Hamas_as_terror_organization.svg|thumb|World map with countries that have declared [[Hamas]] a [[List of designated terrorist groups|terrorist organization]]]] [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body ==

For reasons including [[WP:COMMONNAME]], the article title is ''Israel–Hamas war''. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier; see [[Talk:2023 Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war#Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza|above]]. However, I have a follow up question.) Does that mean we should use "Hamas" when the the folks with guns and bombs from Gaza do something and should use "Israel" when the folks with guns and bombs from Israel do something? It makes it seem like the Gazan militants do not have the support of the Gazan civilians, but that the Israeli militants do have the support of the Israeli civilians. Unless we have citations to support that asymmetry, I think we are misleading the reader. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== "2,500 infiltrated Israel" ==

Under the strength section it describes 2500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel, implying that they are still within Israel right now, it is entirely likely they would have retreated back into Gaza by now. The source for this claim is from the 13th and it should either be confirmed and the source should be changed, or it should be removed [[User:Hexifi|Hexifi]] ([[User talk:Hexifi|talk]]) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Misspelling ==

UK PM Rishi Sunak's name is misspelled under the "in opposition" subheading of the "ceasefire" heading. Should be corrected & linked to the correct article (not the mispelling redirect). [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Ha. Just remembered I am extended protected now so I could change it myself. The account responsible should be found & disciplinary action should be considered. Looked like vandalism to me. [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== infobox attribution inline ==

{{u|BilledMammal}}, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Current_situation|this]] discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing ''every'' figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Per [[WP:ONUS]], {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes.html October 25th, the NYTimes] is throwing in a disclaimer, saying {{green|a number that if verified}} At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:POINT]]. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.
:::::{{tq|The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that.}} With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.
:::::So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.
:::::At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.
::::::Editor {{Re|Hovsepig}} made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;
::::::"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:
::::::"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).
::::::And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."
::::::At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.
:::::::{{tq|At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor.}} Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::One editor does not get to decide, end of. [[WP:ONUS]] doesn't work that way either. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well given it has had numbers since [[Special:Permalink/1179034824|basically the beginning of this article]] and [[Special:Permalink/1180949164|throughout]] the now [[Special:Permalink/1181985413|7519 edits]] it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again [[WP:POINT]] (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - {{tq|the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting [[WP:DE]] when I see it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus.}} If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a better idea, since we have [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WAPO OC 24 saying ] "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; {{tq|according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to the MoH in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to Israeli official sources}}. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check {{tq|both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I started an RFC below. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included ==

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Foreign_and_dual-national_casualties this table] or should they be listed separately? For example [https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/22/dutch-woman-33-killed-gaza-strip-overnight-minister-confirms a Dutch] and [https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-woman-killed-israeli-strike-135400807.html a Ukrainian] were killed in Gaza.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:And a citizen of [[Kazakhstan]]. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Small stylistic suggestion ==

The sentence "Both Israel and the U.S stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" is the first time Iran is mentioned in the article. This sentence only makes sense in the context of the lead if the reader understands that there is some Hamas-Iran connection or that people suspect Iran could have been involved in this. The uninformed reader may not understand that sentence. It would be perhaps be wise to preface the sentence with something like "Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement...." [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF]] ([[User talk:2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|talk]]) 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]] ==

{{re|RamHez}} SOHR is considered generally reliable in articles related to [[Syrian civil war]]. It is preferred over Syrian government sources who tend to shrink their casualties. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section ==

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, [https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1352614/how-many-people-has-the-hamas-israel-war-killed-so-far.html like L'Orient Today]? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

Pinging {{u| ARandomName123}} and {{u| Timeshifter}} since you were involved in current and previous incarnations of the graph. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:It's a simple chart. It can be used under [[c:Template:PD-chart]]. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: [[c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs]] --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!
::Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. There are all kinds of ways to create charts. And a variety of charts are possible to cover deaths over time. Here are some tools:
:::[[Commons:Create charts and graphs online#Free online charting sites]]
:::There is also the freeware [[LibreOffice]] and [[LibreOffice Calc]], etc..
:::--[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war ==

Please correct the [[2023 Israel–Hamas war#Foreign and dual-national casualties|table]]:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
!scope="col"|Country
!scope="col"|Deaths
!scope="col"|Kidnapped
!scope="col"|Missing
!scope="col" class="unsortable" |{{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference(s)}}
|-
|scope="row"|{{flag|Ukraine}}
|24 {{efn|Including 21 Ukrainians died in Israel and and 3 more died in the Gaza Strip}}
|Unknown
|1
|<ref>{{cite news|date=26 October 2023|title=Number of Ukrainian casualties rises in Israel|language=en|work=[[Ukrainska Pravda]]|url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/26/7425812/ |access-date=26 October 2023}}</ref>
|} [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with [[multiple citizenship]]s? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) 

:To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== RFC on infobox casualties ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701352883}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=4529BDF}}
How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?
#Attributed with an endnote as in [[Special:Permalink/1181989063|the current version as of this writing]]
#Attributed for all numbers inline as in [[Special:Permalink/1181939077|this version]]
#Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in [[Special:Permalink/1181582391|this version]]
#Not in the infobox at all
[[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
===Survey===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RFC}}
*'''1''' - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: [https://abcnews.go.com/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006 ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.]; [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza/card/latest-casualty-figures-from-israel-and-gaza-dQNSenweikTeA7YPWzOP WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.]; [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-news-hamas/ Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed.] A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ Washington Post] reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example [https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 the UN] reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2''' or '''3''', weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.
:In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of [[WP:V]], for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.
:Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.
:In general, the option of {{tq|attributed with an endnote}} is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, <s>and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them.</s> and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them.<ref name="citationengagement" /> 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{cot|Sources for Palestinian casualties}}
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/26/israel-hamas-war-live-un-ceasefire-bid-fails-as-gaza-death-toll-soars Al Jazeera: "The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli air raids in Gaza has now reached 7,028, a figure that includes 2,913 children, the health ministry in the besieged enclave says."]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67209848 BBC: "The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says almost 6,500 people have been killed in territory since then."]
#[https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/israel-palestine-war-gaza-families-wear-id-bracelets-to-avoid-burial-in-mass-graves-403292-2023-10-26 Business Today: "A total of 756 Palestinians, including 344 children, were killed in the past 24 hours, Gaza's health ministry said on Wednesday."]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-war-wednesday-intl-hnk/index.html CNN: "The warnings from senior UN officials came after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza killed more than 700 people in 24 hours, the highest daily number published since Israeli strikes against what it called Hamas targets in Gaza began two and a half weeks ago, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah on Tuesday."]
#[https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-six-key-moments-for-the-gaza-strip-216185 The Conversation: "More than 5,700 people in Gaza have been reportedly killed by Israeli airstrikes in two weeks of relentless bombardment – at least 2,000 of whom are children."]
#[https://images.dawn.com/news/1192071/how-the-watermelon-became-a-symbol-of-resistance-in-palestine Dawn: "As of today 6,546 Palestinians have been killed, including 2,704 children, and over 17,000 people have been wounded so far in ongoing Israeli retaliatory strikes."]
#[https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/israel-hamas-war-updates-day-19-oct-25-2023/article67456283.ece The Hindu: "Rapidly expanding Israeli airstrikes across the Gaza Strip has killed more than 700 people in the past day as medical facilities across the territory were forced to close because of bombing damage and a lack of power, health officials said on Tuesday."]
#[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/25/un-general-assembly-should-act-gaza Human Rights Watch: "More than 6,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2,700 children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry."]
#[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/queen-jordan-west-israel-palestine-b2435728.html The Independent: "Queen Rania’s comments came as Israel and Hamas continued bombing each other, with airstrikes in Gaza killing more than 750 people between Tuesday and Wednesday, according to the territory’s health ministry.]
#[https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/10/26/not-about-religion-the-historical-and-political-root-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ Modern Diplomacy: "Israel also counterattacked Palestine in the Gaza Strip and killed 3,478 people and injured 12,065 others"]
#[https://www.newsweek.com/israel-committing-war-crimes-gaza-us-supporting-it-opinion-1837908 Newsweek: "This was leading human rights organization Amnesty International's characterization of Israel's massive and ongoing bombing campaign in Gaza, which, two weeks in, has killed more than 6,500 Palestinians, including more than 2,300 children."]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/26/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/ff399d89-a169-5608-a2ce-e185ac895a5b?smid=url-share New York Times: "At least 7,028 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, including nearly 3,000 children, according to the latest figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry."]
#[https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/25/in-defiance-of-international-calls-to-stop-bombardment-of-gaza-israel-extends-airstrikes-to-west-bank/ People's Dispatch: "According to Palestinian officials, the total number of Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes and raids since October 7 has crossed 6,000, with over 18,000 injured."]
#[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/hezbollah-leader-meets-with-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad-officials-for-first-time-since-israel-hamas-war-erupted PBS: "The fighting, triggered by Hamas’ deadly incursion into Israel on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel, has killed more than 5,700 Palestinians in Gaza."]
#[https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/atrocity-alert-no-370-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territory-dr-congo-and-south-sudan Relief Web: "Since 7 October more than 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and over 16,297 injured by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza."]
#[https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/news/32866-israel-bombards-gaza-prepares-invasion-as-biden-urges-path-to-peace Sight Magazine: "Israeli retaliatory strikes have killed over 6,500 people, the health ministry in the Hamas-run strip said on Wednesday. Reuters has been unable to independently verify the casualty figures of either side"]
#[https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300996267/live-israeli-troops-launch-brief-raid-into-gaza Stuff: "Gaza’s Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas, said Wednesday that more than 750 people were killed over the past 24 hours, higher than the 704 killed the previous day."]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-hamas-islamic-scholars-issue-calls-fatwas-inciting-murder-of-israelis-and-jews/ Times of Israel: "The Hamas-run health ministry claimed on Thursday that at least 7,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing conflict."]
#[https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/israel-war-live-coverage-australia-deploys-forces-to-middle-east-gaza-crisis-deepens-outrage-at-un-remarks-c-12316264 The West Australian: "The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, said Israeli airstrikes killed at least 700 people over the past day, mostly women and children."]
#[https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-50-palestinians-killed-in-one-hour-in-gaza-no-aid-entered-on-tuesday-says-un-650884 WION: "The Hamas-run Health Ministry said at least 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and 16,297 injured"]
Search was done on Google News with search term "killed palestine"; a number was omitted as there is no stable figure. Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them, if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP, or if they did not quantify the number of casualties. Search was done on 26 October.
{{cob}}
{{cot|Sources for Israeli casualties}}
#[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-24/israel-launches-raids-into-gaza/103012762 ABC: The Israeli bombardment was triggered by an October 7 terrorist attack on Israeli communities by Hamas militants who killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/23/gaza-death-toll-exceeds-5000-as-israel-continues-daily-bombardments Al Jazeera: Hamas’s attack in southern Israel killed at least 1,400 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/israel-steps-up-gaza-strikes-ahead-of-ground-invasion/news-story/e7593babdd462249f79d3ca3dfb07b0d The Australian: Alarm is growing over the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel struck back following the October 7 attacks, which Israeli officials say killed more than 1,400 people who were shot, stabbed or burnt to death by militants.]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67195174 BBC: More than 1,400 Israelis were killed when Hamas attacked communities near the Gaza border, while the Israeli military says 203 soldiers and civilians, including women and children, were taken to Gaza as hostages.]
#[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/23/israel-hamas-war-updates-and-latest-news-on-gaza-conflict.html CNBC: Their transfer follows the Friday release of two American hostages. It’s been more than two weeks since Hamas launched its assault on Israel, killing at least 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostages.]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23/h_fb85cc8446e130bafa75926bc01dc0ad CNN: Hamas militants carried out a deadly attack on Israel on October 7, killing 1,400 people and kidnapping hundreds of others.]
#[https://theconversation.com/even-if-israel-can-completely-eliminate-hamas-does-it-have-a-long-term-plan-for-gaza-216161 The Conversation: In the past couple weeks, Israel has put together a huge force to mount another ground invasion in retaliation for the Hamas cross-border attacks that killed around 1,400 Israelis on October 7.]
#[https://www.ft.com/content/687873f2-0a84-409d-b8ff-3ba86e005a89 Financial Times: Israeli authorities say more than 1,400 Israelis were killed in the attack and that 222 people, including foreign nationals, were taken hostage.]
#[https://fortune.com/2023/10/23/workers-ceos-struggle-israel-hamas-war-middle-east-starbucks/ Fortune: Jewish groups have criticized tepid responses or slow reactions to the Oct. 7 Hamas rampage that killed 1,400 people in Israel and triggered the latest war.]
#[https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/october-23-israel-hamas-war Fox News: At least 5,700 people have been killed in the war on both sides, including at least 1,400 Israeli civilians and soldiers and 32 Americans.]
#[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231023-gaza-attacks-shatter-sense-of-safety-in-israel-s-tel-aviv France24: Several rockets hit the Tel Aviv area when Hamas militants launched the most deadly attack suffered by Israel since its creation, with some 1,400 killed -- most of them civilians -- according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/gaza-second-aid-convoy-rafah-crossing-israel-bombardment The Guardian: The new war – the fifth since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 – broke out after the Palestinian militants attacked southern Israeli communities on 7 October, killing 1,400 people and taking 222 into the strip as bargaining chips.]
#[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4269507-poll-what-americans-really-think-about-the-israel-hamas-war/ The Hill: As we pass two weeks since more than 1,000 Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, killed more than 1,400 Israelis...]
#[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/israelhamas-war-is-hezbollah-heading-towards-open-conflict-with-israel-101698079630416.html Hindustan Times: Hamas militants stormed into Israel from the Gaza Strip on October 7, killing at least 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/briefing/hamas-israel-war-iranian-teenager-chevron-hess-deal.html New York Times: ...when Israel began launching airstrikes in retaliation for an attack by the Hamas militant group that killed 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-borrell-backs-humanitarian-pause-israel-hamas-conflict-2023-10-23/ Reuters: Diplomats said there was consensus on the need to ramp up humanitarian aid, reflecting widespread alarm about the fate of Palestinian civilians after two weeks of Israel bombarding and blockading Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 Hamas assault that killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://time.com/6327279/israel-peace-movement-hamas-gaza/ Time: His cousin was one of the 200 Israelis abducted in the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which left 1,400 dead in Israel, and he says that his family and friends often tell him his beliefs are “too extreme.”]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shows-foreign-press-raw-hamas-bodycam-videos-of-murder-torture-decapitation/ Times of Israel: The Israeli government on Monday screened for 200 members of the foreign press some 43 minutes of harrowing scenes of murder, torture and decapitation from Hamas’s October 7 onslaught on southern Israel, in which over 1,400 people were killed, including raw videos from the terrorists’ bodycams.]
#[https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 UN News: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.]
#[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-arrests-palestinians-west-bank/ Washington Post: Israel has said its “counterterrorism” operations will prevent Hamas from being able to launch another attack like its brutal assault on Oct. 7, when gunmen killed over 1,400 people in southern Israel and took more than 200 hostages.]
Search was done on Google News with search term "1400 killed israel". Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them or if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP. Search was done on 24 October.
{{cob}}
:[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' or '''2''' this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support '''4''' with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes ''are'' sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' For reasons said by [[User:AquilaFasciata|AquilaFasciata]]. [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: {{tq|In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes.}} According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes.<ref name="citationengagement">{{cite journal |last1=Piccardi |first1=Tiziano |last2=Redi |first2=Miriam |last3=Colavizza |first3=Giovanni |last4=West |first4=Robert |title=Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia |date=20 April 2020 |pages=2365–2376 |doi=10.1145/3366423.3380300}}</ref> Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?] [[The Guardian]] 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: Other sources, like [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/explainer-gazas-ministry-health-calculate-wars-death-toll-104374157 this one], say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Succinct and reasonable, well said. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" ([[WP:WTA]]); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2'''. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': per [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]]. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]] 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. [[User:MicrobiologyMarcus|microbiologyMarcus]] (''[[User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus|petri dish]]'') 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''4''' per [[User:Meeepmep]] [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], which should be fixed to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''. Also OK with <s>'''3.5'''</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this '''2''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text'''. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Previous discussions ===
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_21#Casualties_infobox]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_22#"Per_the_Gaza_Health_Ministry"]]
* [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#infobox_attribution_inline]]

===Discussion3===
Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Infinity Knight|Vice regent|Graeme Bartlett|Mistamystery|WillowCity|JM2023|Hovsepig}} Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::You missed one off the top of my head, {{u|Jayen466}}. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're right, I did; I overlooked them at [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).
:::Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.
::I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.
::I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.
::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23#h_e1333a829d60ba8528ad93a27303e5af] {{tq|As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported.}} '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources:-
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?]
[https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/ Time 26 Oct]"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."[https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?"] "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:In a war, it's common to take the casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both sides with a grain of salt. For example, the Russians claim to have destroyed more [[M142 HIMARS]] systems in Ukraine than were actually provided to Ukraine has turned into a meme. It's important to note that numbers provided by both Israel and Hamas are often marked as "not verified," so attribution is essential when using them. What complicates things further is that Hamas is among the well-known international players. During this war, especially in incidents like the one at the hospital, independent sources had varying results when trying to confirm the numbers. As a result, news outlets like AP began using "disputed" since the hospital count was included in the overall figure. That's why we can't hide the disclaimer in the footnotes. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Discuss it in the article. If GHM were up at RSN for analysis, a generally reliable (which does not mean always reliable) result is likely based on the sources above. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinian-gaza-war-hamas-hostages-macron-c2482817f230580c20b898bd65e5a4c3 Recent AP] [[John Kirby]] said: “The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, and I think that all needs to be factored into anything that they put out publicly.”
:::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The NSC spokesman is a reliable source for the public position of the United States, thats it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Is [https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-ed6875f15ea0d2bc196e4033b54b7194 AP] a reliable source? {{green|, according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week.}}
:::::Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I dont think anybody has suggested no attribution. See [[straw man]]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::You have seen my !vote? That's what I am saying viz a viz the RFC, the generally reliable is based on my own analysis of the recent RS (those above + WAPO) debating the question of reliability of GHM in general, not news snippets where there is no consistency, I can easily find articles where they don't say. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-doubts-humanitarian-agencies-consider-gaza-toll-reliable-2023-10-27/ Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::See [https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::When incorporating figures from each side into our text, it's important to openly specify the source of these numbers rather than burying the attribution in a footnote. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::As suggested by {{u|Meeepmep}} [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll|here]], I would appreciate the modification of
::::::::* '''4''' change to '''redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article'''
::::::::<s>* '''3.5''' '''The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text''' seems like a reasonable choice to me.</s> it seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1181939077 option '2'] adequately addresses this
::::::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict ==

In addition to points made in previous move discussions - namely that multiple Palestinian factions and indeed the general population have been involved in this conflict - over the past 10 days since the last move discussion, other Arab countries (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt) have been directly involved in the conflict. Moreover, the name (Arab-Israeli conflict) is long established and well understood by the reader. The current title goes beyond inadequate at this point, it is outright misleading, making it wholly unsuitable. [[User:عبد المؤمن|عبد المؤمن]] ([[User talk:عبد المؤمن|talk]]) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under [[WP:COMMONNAME]]; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this ''specific'' situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. [[User:Feliiformia|Feliiformia]] ([[User talk:Feliiformia|talk]]) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add one Uruguayan national to the list of hostages kidnapped by Hamas. ==

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to [https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/cancilleria-otorgo-nacionalidad-a-nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-por-hamas-y-pide-su-liberacion-20231024134034 El Observador]

Other sources in Spanish: [https://www.semanariohebreojai.com/articulo/7253 Semanario Hebreo Jai], [https://www.telenoche.com.uy/nacionales/embajada-confirmo-que-rehen-es-nacionalidad-uruguaya-n5357159 Telenoche], [https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/10/24/nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-hamas-israel-orix/ CNN], [https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2023/10/25/uruguay-le-otorgo-la-nacionalidad-a-la-joven-israeli-secuestrada-por-hamas/ Infobae] and [https://ladiaria.com.uy/politica/articulo/2023/10/la-embajada-uruguaya-en-israel-solicito-a-ese-pais-que-trabaje-en-la-liberacion-de-una-nieta-de-uruguayos/ La Diaria].

The Uruguayan government asked the Israeli government, through the Uruguayan embassy in Israel, to make every effort to secure the release of the 29-year-old woman. [[User:Accuratelibrarian|Accuratelibrarian]] ([[User talk:Accuratelibrarian|talk]]) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Why are Hamas fighters and PIJ fighters listed under Lebanon casualties? ==

In the infobox under the h note there are 3 PIJ and 3 Hamas fighters listed along the Hezbollah fighters and civilians, and I ask why? In the sources I've only found they've been murdered close to Lebanon but not that they are lebanese, so why include them there and not in the "Murdered in Israel" group of dead? [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Simply because they were killed while participating in the Lebanese border clashes under the Hezbollah banner. As a quick question, why did you use the word "murdered" in your post? They were combat deaths after all, and it just seems a little unusual to use that word in such a context. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Well I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if that sounded odd, alright I understand and thanks. [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Thats alright, thanks for letting me know. Something that should be mentioned that in English, "murder" has a very specifically tailored definition that pertains to killings deliberately done in cold blood. That is why it initially came across as strange (and honestly a little inflammatory) to use it regarding enemy combatants. One can make an argument about civilian victims from Israeli bombing campaigns, but that is another can of worms I'm not going to open here.
:::In my personal opinion, it seems like a better and more neutral sounding alternative regarding that specific situation would be simply be "killed", as it doesn't have the same exact baggage as "murder." Normally, this is just a trivial bit of semantics, but it is a very important distinction in regarding armed conflicts, especially ones as politicized and controversial as the Israel-Palestinian wars. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh that makes sense, I personally would use it to desribe the dead palestinian civilians, well I will be more careful in the future, thanks for letting me know! [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Adding a new subsection ==

Should there be a subsection for war crimes committed during this conflict, or is there already one? [[User:Iminyourwalls72|Iminyourwalls72]] ([[User talk:Iminyourwalls72|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:There is a page about the war crimes. [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. Is it mentioned in the current page? [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Additional Relevant Information ==

'''Unbiased Admins/Editors Please take a look into this and add this information in appropriate sections ,if relevant to the topic:

'''
'''1.) IDF Officer is Told by Gazan How Hamas Prevents Civilian Evacuations:''' . Total causalities claimed by Hamas-run gaza health ministry may not be just the result of Israeli's strikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaK4muqkRBE

''''''2.) Recorded: Hamas Millitants Calls Father With Murdered Woman's Phone to Celebrate The Oct. 7''' Massacre''':https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bACNYtaLBQI

'''3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:''': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg
:The practice of "[[:ru:Начальная военная подготовка|initial military training]]" is also used in Russia in [[Secondary school|secondary]] [[comprehensive school]]s in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:see [[whataboutery]]. also not going to debate on the legal age, legal framework, motives,volutary participation, ideology, and other differences between the two. just provided the information. editors/admins will decide if its relevant or not. if not, it will be discarded like many other critical info.no issues. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit requests like these are archived in Wikipedia very soon so also keep an eye on that) [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I cannot find a [[WP:RS|reliable secondary source]] for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::we can write as per idf produced evidence. also are reliable secondry sources in business of evaluating evidences? for eg:if a public video is produced of hamas decapitating people , why would you need other sources to report it too? by your logic, all the claims and evidences gaza ministry makes and shows should also be removed, which are not evaluated by secondry sources. for eg: list of 7000 people died with their id. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Countries ready to take Gaza refugees ==

As many countries are showcasing solidarity with gaza,their should be a section(or atleast a mention) for countries who are ready to take in gaza refugees/displaced people.
i only came accross scotland:
Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, has offered to welcome refugees from Gaza and treat wounded civilians in Scottish hospitals.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/10/17/scotlands-first-minister-humza-yousaf-says-uk-should-offer-sanctuary-for-gaza-refugees/

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358422/scotland-first-minister-pledges-readiness-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4262981-scotlands-first-minister-says-country-willing-to-take-gaza-refugees/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-19/ty-article/scotlands-leader-calls-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees-to-the-u-k-amid-hamas-israel-war/0000018b-4776-d614-abcf-ef7760540000

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/scotland-minister-humza-yousaf-offers-to-invite-gaza-refugees-to-scotland-faces-backlash-101697604233670.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/willing-to-be-a-place-of-sanctuary-scotland-first-minister-says-ready-to-welcome-gaza-refugees-402497-2023-10-18 [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas infiltrators ==

The article states :

* "Simultaneously, around 2,500 Hamas militants[5] infiltrated Israel from Gaza using trucks, ..."

Source talks about :

* "2500 militants and civilians"

[[User:RadXman|RadXman]] ([[User talk:RadXman|talk]]) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

: In infobox, it is also necessary to correct the information from "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed". According to the [https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-475427-00.html source], "approximately 2,500 terrorists and civilians entered Israel from Gaza, of which approximately 1,500 returned to the Strip." --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 13:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Fixed it. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Censor ==

censors
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130805
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130882
[[User:Baratiiman|Baratiiman]] ([[User talk:Baratiiman|talk]]) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:So what are you trying to say here? The material removed removed was not directly related, but did show Iran's opposition to Israel. Not every statement made needs to be included. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Possible [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] drones falling on Egypt ==

The Egyptian towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] near Israel were hit by projectiles this morning.[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosion-heard-egyptian-red-sea-town-near-israeli-border-witness-2023-10-27/] Last week, U.S. Navy[https://abcnews.go.com/International/security-incident-involving-us-navy-destroyer-red-sea/story?id=104147141] and Saudi Arabia[https://allarab.news/saudi-arabia-shoots-down-houthi-missile-from-yemen-heading-towards-israel/] had reportedly intercepted 4 missiles and 50 drones fired by Houthis at the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]].[[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/]] [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] are located at a distance of 200 km and 250 km, respectively, from the [[Gaza Strip]]. Does [[Hamas]] have such long-range weapons? The [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] are based even further, in [[Yemen]], 1,600 km from the city of [[Eilat]]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Bakeries? Barber shops? ==

Tareq S. Haijaj, [https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/they-let-humanitarian-aid-in-then-they-bombed-it-so-that-gaza-would-starve/ They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve]. [[Mondoweiss]] 26 October 2023 [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:This would require independent confirmation preferably from the aid agencies providing these food supplies. It is a remarkable claim, on the face of it, and therefore one would expect wider coverage, despite the general systemic bias in reportage. So too with the suggestion any battery-charging agency like barbershops are being regularly targeted.
:The empirical description of a new kind of weapon is worth pursuing, because people on the ground in wars learn to distinguish types of rocketry so they may take precautions, depending on the noise profile (innumerable WW1/WW2 histories confirm that practice).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

Please add an explanation in the infobox about the over 40 percent of Palestinian deaths being children, which explains the extremely low median age of the Gaza Strip population ([[Demographics of the State of Palestine|16-17 years old]]). Otherwise, one gets the impression that Israel is specifically bombing children. [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: While I understand the motivation behind this, [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] points out that the infobox is to summarize the information. Adding an explanation like that would be too much. That said, I think it would warrant inclusion in the article itself if you can provide some [[WP:Reliable Sources]] for it. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Replace Citation 365 with the actual document released by the Gaza Health Ministry. ==

https://www.aljazeera.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-2.pdf

The document hasn't been translated yet but it seems better to cite the public document than a newspaper article talking about the document. [[User:Oshaboy2|Oshaboy2]] ([[User talk:Oshaboy2|talk]]) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Usually we prefer secondary sources (like news orgs) of which I have seen more than a few. To "cite" the primary article, we would need a translation. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox ==

Why is Hezbollah listed as a belligerent in the infobox and why are Lebanon and Syria listed as locations? That 'incidents' have occurred involving all three is cited and covered in the body, but none of the sources used comes anywhere near the [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claim that Hezbollah is now actively fighting as part of the war or that the war is taking place outside Gaza/Southern Israel. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-carrying-out-artillery-strikes-in-syria-after-mortar-fire/ This two sentence article] is employed to justify the claim that Syria is now one of the war locations, although it does not even mention Hamas or the 'main' conflict anywhere.

Sources should be clear, unambiguous and near universal to claim that any other group are active participants in the war, whether we are talking about the US or Syria. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 ==

Why is "2023" in the title? There is no other article called [[Israel–Hamas war]] to disambiguate from. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Conflicts in the region have been going on since 1948. Although the names of the countries and the political parties that run them can be used to differentiate the various conflicts in some cases, a little redundancy can be helpful for clarity. In this case, I think "2023" helps to distinguish this article from the many others. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Commanders and leaders flags in infobox ==

I think it's fair and logical to add {{flagicon|PLE}} palestinian (and {{flagicon|LIB}} lebanese) flags to commanders and leaders in infobox like those of israeli commanders and leaders. No ? [[User:Faycal.09|Fayçal.09]] ([[User talk:Faycal.09|talk]]) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:Yes that’s fine IMO [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:I agree. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 19:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Near-total internet and cellular blackout hits Gaza as Israel ramps up strikes ==

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/internet-blackout-hits-gaza-israel-ramps-strikes-rcna122531 [[Special:Contributions/102.45.250.20|102.45.250.20]] ([[User talk:102.45.250.20|talk]]) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:added. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Smallpox/chicken pox ==

The article says that there is a smallpox outbreak in Gaza. As smallpox has been eradicated, this mention appears to be a mistranslation in the Al Jazeera article. The UN report (https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142732) mentions chicken pox instead. See also https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/10/24/fact-check-smallpox-has-not-broken-out-in-gaza/ (not sure whether this counts as a reliable source). [[User:Oryf|Oryf]] ([[User talk:Oryf|talk]]) 19:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Change article title from 2023 Israel-Hamas War to 2023 Palestinian Genocide [[User:Elsliquor|Elsliquor]] ([[User talk:Elsliquor|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::I suggest changing the title of the article to '''[[Collective punishment]] of [[Palestinians]] by [[Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades|IQB]]'''. During the first week of the war, it became clear that Israel was fighting not the Hamas militants who carried out the attacks, but Palestinian civilians. And now only the lazy did not say that the Israeli response was disproportionate to the damage received and went far beyond self-defense. --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 20:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 (2) ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
Add the Houthi movement on the left for the belligerents box. [[User:Sirswiss1|Sirswiss1]] ([[User talk:Sirswiss1|talk]]) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*{{notdone}} - Please refer to the '''[[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding US/Houthi/Iran/Russia/Germany/Saudi Arabia)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]]''' related to this edit request. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Shortening article ==

After another editor added the template pointing out the article length, I wanted to write down some suggestions along with an area for other editors to add ideas and mark down when they are done.
*Israeli response probably doesn't need to be a day-by-day account.
*Humanitarian situation could get trimmed down to a few paragraphs and get a separate article
*Reactions likely deserve their own article. Maybe trim it down to Israel, Palestine (combine Gaza and West Bank), Middle East, and International.
Feel free to add on and strikethrough anything that is completed; I will do what I can but I'm not the fastest editor of all time. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 20:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

2023-10-27T16:01:36Z

91.210.248.223: /* Possible Houthi drones falling on Egypt */

{{Talk header|age=1|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|minthreadsleft=1}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}
{{controversy}}
{{not a forum}}
{{censor}}
{{American English}}
{{Old move
|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict
|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|result1 = moved
|date1 = 7 October 2023
|link1 = Special:Permalink/1179550401#Requested move 7 October 2023
|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War
|result2 = not moved, [[WP:SNOW]]
|date2 = 11 October 2023
|link2 = Special:Permalink/1179788985#Requested move 11 October 2023
|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war
|result3 = not moved, no consensus
|date3 = 15 October 2023
|link3 = Special:Permalink/1181585273#Requested_move_15_October_2023
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{ITN talk|7 October|2023|oldid=1179028067}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|class=B|collapsed=y|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Asian=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=Mid}}

}}
{{Top 25 Report|October 1 2023 (24th)|October 8 2023 (3rd)}}
{{page views}}
{{Section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 22
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{press|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html |title=Wikipedia Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X |author=Steven Harrison ||lang=en-US |org=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=2023-10-26}}

== Extremely violent execution video in the body section ==

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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

: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." [[User:FunLater|FunLater]] ([[User talk:FunLater|talk]]) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also there is [[WP:OM]], and that says that {{tq|the only reason for including any image in any article is [[Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content|"to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"]]}}. I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@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]]: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::"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. [[User:Ben Azura|Ben Azura]] ([[User talk:Ben Azura|talk]]) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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'': {{talk quote block|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'''|source=[[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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[WP:PLA]] is also applicable, specifically that {{tq|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 [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|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]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::'''"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:Wikipedia is not censored|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk: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: {{Tq|Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE|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 {{tq|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]]:
::::::::{{TQB|Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.}}
::::::::{{TQB|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? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|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, [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Lenny Marks|@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.) [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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). [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. {{pb}}An example to clarify the distinction: [[:File:Basal_cell_carcinoma.jpg|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. {{pb}}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. {{pb}}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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]], I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects [[WP:IMGCONTENT]]. You are right to say that {{talk quote inline|"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 {{talk quote inline|"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. {{talk quote block|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'''.|source= [[WP:CENSOR]]}} [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Wikipedia’s not censored, period. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|talk]]) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
:FYI, there is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm a parallel discussion] on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
: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." [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[User:Codenamephoenix|@Codenamephoenix]] The footage is not included in that video and you know it. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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 [[User:Codenamephoenix|Codenamephoenix]] ([[User talk:Codenamephoenix|talk]]) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:Keep it. It's important. [[Special:Contributions/2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F]] ([[User talk:2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F|talk]]) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:<nowiki>'''Keep'''</nowiki>. Per [[Wikipedia:Gore]] . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] The poll is below if you are trying to !vote [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:Where is this anyways? [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:CooperGoodman|CooperGoodman]] The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm here]. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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, [[WP:CENSOR|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]]). [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:CooperGoodman|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 -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@Lenny Marks
:::I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:SteelerFan1933|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::We have the right to not watch said video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
:::::::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.
:::::::In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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 [[WP:NFC|non free content policy]]. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:Well said @[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

::Good call: I also left [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_video_depicting_extremely_violent_murders_could_benefit_from_additional_community_input|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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 [[Kibbutz|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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Jon.yb093|Jon.yb093]] ([[User talk:Jon.yb093|talk]]) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jon.yb093|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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Snow Rise|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.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [[WP:AFP|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". {{tq|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 [[User:Lenny Marks|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. {{tq|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"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,

:::::{{tq|"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...

:::::{{tq|"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) [[WP:NOTCOMPULSORY|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.

:::::{{tq|"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.

:::::{{tq|"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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Snow Rise}} I see you didn't even ''attempt'' to address the very valid point that [[WP:AFP|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 [[WP:DISC|content disclaimer]] which reads {{tq|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 {{tq|Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.}}
::::::{{tq|"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, [[:File:Full, unedited Kelly Thomas confrontation video (35 min.).webm|The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas]] provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that [[:File:The Lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels.jpg|the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels]] provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a [[:File:Jewish child victim of Arab riots in Hebron, 1929.jpg|photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre]] adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that [[:File:Fotothek df ps 0000047 Eine Mutter über dem Kinderwagen ihrer Zwillinge im Tode.jpg|images of the casualties]] [[:File:Sumiteru Taniguchi back.jpg|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.
::::::{{tq|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".
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180403310 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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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.
::::::{{tq|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 [[WP:AN|an admin noticeboard]]. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.
::::::{{tq|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.}}
:::::[[:File:Buchenwald SS Corpses 60631.jpg|You]] [[:File:McCool shot by sniper in Iraq, 2006.webm|sure]] [[:File:Suspect Armed With Screwdriver Shot By LA Deputies.webm|about]] [[:File:LAPD Officers Kill Stabbing Suspect Holding Woman Hostage, June 2018.webm|that]]? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|talk]]) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] ([[User talk:CooperGoodman|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv on Wikimedia Commons,] which is a file repository and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_Wikipedia 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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Lethargilistic}}That's not exactly true. That video ''was'' used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Cerna|was deleted]] for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Veggies}}Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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: {{Tq|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. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Lethargilistic|Lethargilistic]] on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] Link? [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Snow Rise|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain [[Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer|disclaimers]]. There are options to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain content]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
::: "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content
::: 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.
::: In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant.
::[[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:100% well said. 100% true. I agree fully, and I will work to make sure this video is taken down. [[User:SteelerFan1933|SteelerFan1933]] ([[User talk:SteelerFan1933|talk]]) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
[[File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg|thumb|''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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

: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) [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Borgenland|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. {{talk quote block|"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"|source=[[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:
::{{talk quote block|"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'''"."|source=[[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. [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
:And since [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is really sad . 😢😢😢 [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:::{{u|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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|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: {{tq|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).-- [[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Orgullomoore|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'''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]] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:I was going to point out that on Wikipedia, we don't remove content just because of its graphic nature. If it is in a encyclopedic tone and it don't have copyright issues, then it can probably stay. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article? ===
* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* <s>'''Absolutely not'''</s> '''STRONG oppose''' per reasons already given (and those tellingly ''not'' given by the opposition). -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
**Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet ''another'' section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Veggies|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. [[User:IshChasidecha|IshChasidecha]] ([[User talk:IshChasidecha|talk]]) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:NFC|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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|SnowRise]][[User talk:Snow Rise| let's rap]]'' 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
::Just to point out, it has been verified now by HRW. If the video violates copyrights (I am not an expert but it seems like it does not) then that is a separate discussion to be had. This is just about the suitability of the video in this article. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove [[snuff film]]s. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*: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 [[Wikipedia:!VOTE|!poll]] will help a bit with assessing consensus. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awsome Aasim]] You say that {{talk quote inline|"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]].) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cwater1|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] I strike out the comment. <nowiki><s></nowiki> I put a new reply saying keep video. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. [[User:Eduardog3000|eduardog3000]] ([[User talk:Eduardog3000|talk]]) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' citing Snow Rise. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. [[User:Yekshemesh|Yekshemesh]] ([[User talk:Yekshemesh|talk]]) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''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.--[[User:Orgullomoore|Orgullomoore]] ([[User talk:Orgullomoore|talk]]) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**{{re|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? -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per SnowRise. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]] 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:•'''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. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*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. <s>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. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)</s> ''''Support inclusion of video'''. The video has now been authenticated by [[Human Rights Watch]], who thought it significant enough to [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified write about]. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video of Israeli casualties as well. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Ficaia|Ficaia]] the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified] Given that, you would support keeping? [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*:What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.{{pb}}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.''' [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**:On the flip side, {{tq|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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
**::The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
**: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. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware [[WP:Censored|Wikipedia isn't censored]] and there are ways to [[Help:Options to hide an image|hide certain images and videos]].</s> [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''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]].

*'''Keep/re-add/oppose''' but '''wait''' – alternatives may be better – Ignoring the [[c:File_talk:Hamas_terrorists_murdering_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm|biased file name]] and [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|possible copyright]] and verifiability issues, this video shows Hamas's attacks much better than the other image used in the article. I would prefer a less violent example (such as an image), but only if it showcases the attacks in a similar way to this video. I don't think we should readd it until the [[c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm|copyright issue]] (see the comment) is addressed. 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' - Honestly, even with the violent nature, it should not be removed, (just my personal opinion)[[User:CooperGoodman|𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃]] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 

*'''Oppose removal''' I strike out my original comment. I agree with @[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]]. [[User:Cwater1|Cwater1]] ([[User talk:Cwater1|talk]]) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Oppose/Keep''' per [[WP:GORE]]. '''''[[User:Hansen Sebastian|Hansen Sebastian]]'''''[[user talk:Hansen Sebastian|Talk]] 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


==== 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. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:First of all, [[WP:VOTE|nobody is voting]] here. This [[Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY|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, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180483586 executive]") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, [[WP:CON|consensus]] is [[WP:NHC|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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:: 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 {{tq|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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AHamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim%2C_2023.webm&diff=812338484&oldid=812334846], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&search=%5B%5BTemplate%3ALinkimage%5D%5D&ns0=1 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. {{tq|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. {{tq|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.' -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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, {{u|Veggies}}, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @[[User:Veggies|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. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Per [[WP:Offensive material]]: {{tq|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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] {{talk quote inline|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 {{talk quote inline|Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion.}} The inclusion requirements for images are clear: {{talk quote|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.|source=[[wp:IMGCONTENT]]}}
:-- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgXk_mz_8E
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g3ewJZXdsg
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67EYVdfgzo
:*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw
:[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you, I will look through these [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::A few more:
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHydKv0_Do
::*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC1J4W5sd4
::[[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I'm not impressed.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGbjLuZdycY] vs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_BbGc1ZhE]). 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw 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.
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''EvergreenFir''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:EvergreenFir|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] is correct. @[[User:EvergreenFir|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). [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Riposte97|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. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::While I initially was in favour of this; it's just too much. I genuinely think it's so out of place. It's brutal, violent, and in hindsight I don't think it really achieves much. Not enough to warrant it's inclusion given the issues it introduces. I get the arguments, not saying anyones arguing for it's re-inclusion in bad faith, but I really have to agree with snow here that there's no way this would ever stand long term. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree that its brutal and violent, but that doesnt affect the validity in any way [[Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED|per policy]]. I might still accept this argument if there were any issues that the video raised - But there arent. The only claim made is that the video is gratuitous (i.e. of no meaningful value) which seems rather absurd for a video about a massacre in an article about a war started by said massacre. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 10:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]]; exactly as @[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]] says. There seem to be two main arguments against inclusion here: 1) that the video has no encyclopedic value (which is just false as many on the opposition have acknowledged) and 2) that the video violates [[wp:GRATUITOUS]] due to the degree of its violence. But that very policy says that if a video ''does'' have encyclopedic value it should be included even when graphic, unless there is a less graphic but equally valuable video to replace it with. As you say, I think that (most) of the arguments against inclusion are made in good faith, but are based on a misreading of policy and this idea that though Wikipedia is not censored, it does not include things that are just ''too'' graphic. As I enumerated above, there are plenty of articles that contain extremely graphic content when appropriate (particularly articles about conflict and massacres). -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I made the close req a couple of minutes ago - [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]]. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

=== Question 2: Should the video be [[MediaWiki:Bad image list|blacklisted]] from the English Wikipedia? ===
{{atop
| status =
| result = 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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

* '''Support''' as proposer, per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' also per reasons by {{u|Snow Rise}} and above. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''', blacklisting is discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Bad image list]] when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] I would agree, but we have [[WP:NODISCLAIMERS]]. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome Aasim]], just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Wrong venue''' as explained above -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) Wrong venue''' per @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) --[[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''(No &) wrong venue''' per Kusma. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Decapitation ==

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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
: ??? {{tq|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 [https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/ the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line]. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making [[beheading video]]s, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have condensed the subsection in question. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::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? --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Ashvio|Ashvio]] ([[User talk:Ashvio|talk]]) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
'''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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and reflect properly substantiated information. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I've performed an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1181629600&oldid=1181626998 initial trim] of various quotes with no weight. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Babies_beheaded?|in this section]]. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. [[Kfar Aza]] and [[Be'eri]].
::::For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:
::::<ref name="efe13oct2023">{{cite news |first=Joel |last=Gunter |date=13 October 2023 |title=Israel releases photos of babies killed by Hamas |publisher=[[EFE]] |url=https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2023-10-13/israel-releases-photos-of-babies-killed-by-hamas/ |access-date=22 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=17 October 2023 |title='Israeli Babies Decapitated': Jerusalem Official Rebuts Massacre Denial; Slams Hamas Barbarity |work=[[Hindustan Times]] |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6y-kdnShPQ |access-date=21 October 2023 |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=16 October 2023 |title='Many Hamas victims tortured, raped, abused' |work=The Manila Times |agency=[[Agence France-Presse]] |url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2023/10/16/world/americas-emea/many-hamas-victims-tortured-raped-abused/1914968 |access-date=17 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ari |last2=Lim |first2=Megan |last3=Dorning |first3=Courtney |date=18 October 2023 |title=Israel turns to DNA and dental imprints to identify unrecognizable bodies |work=[[NPR]] |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206506717/israel-hamas-gaza-dna-bodies-burial-tel-aviv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sokol |first=Sam |date=16 October 2023 |title=Hostages' Families Group to Red Cross: Many of Almost 200 Israelis Held in Gaza in Severe Need of Medical Treatment |work=[[Haaretz]] |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-16/ty-article/.premium/many-of-almost-200-israelis-held-in-gaza-in-severe-need-of-medical-treatment/0000018b-38b8-d0ac-a39f-b9bad3600000 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/mOVlf |archive-date=16 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Rose |first1=Emily |last2=Villarraga |first2=Herbert |date=17 October 2023 |title=Rescue workers recount horrors found in kibbutz attacked by Hamas |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rescue-workers-recount-horrors-found-kibbutz-attacked-by-hamas-2023-10-17/}}</ref>
::::[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{Reflist-talk}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I've read most of the accounts of this meeting from non-Israeli sources. None of them mention decapitation as included part of the 42 minute video or supplementary images. We already knew that Hamas murdered civilians including children in cold blood, so I don't really see the conference as being particularly revelatory in the way some have. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::Really?

{{cquote|Still images showed a '''decapitated''' soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/israel-shows-footage-of-hamas-killings-to-counter-denial-of-atrocities]}}

{{cquote|In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-video-of-hamas-terror-attacks-war-in-gaza/]}}
::The BBC also described the same incident.

{{cquote|Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to '''decapitate''' someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270]}}

{{cquote|Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations of seven Hamas terrorists who were captured following the Palestinian terror group’s October 7 onslaught, in which they admitted they had been ordered to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.

In one video released by the Israel Defense Forces, a person whose face is blurred said that gunmen were given instructions to kill everyone they saw, including '''beheading victims''' and cutting off their legs.

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. '''“Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.”''' [https://www.timesofisrael.com/kill-behead-rape-interrogated-hamas-members-detail-atrocities-against-civilians/]}}

{{cquote|The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and '''decapitation''' from the southern Israel assault. [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-war-idf-posts-videos-of-hamas-terrorists-detailing-orders-to-kill-behead-and-rape/articleshow/104681563.cms]}}

::[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::: Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.
:::[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::In what way does it fail verification? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. [[Special:Contributions/98.151.160.96|98.151.160.96]] ([[User talk:98.151.160.96|talk]]) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[Graeme Wood (journalist)|Graeme Wood]] reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated."<ref name="CBC News">{{Cite news |date=25 October 2023 |title=Journalist describes footage of Hamas atrocities compiled by the IDF |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0Atcdy38g |work=[[CBC News]] |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]@[[User:Wee Curry Monster|Wee Curry Monster]]@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]@[[User:CapnJackSp|CapnJackSp]]@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]]@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== How to handle the [[Battle of Zikim]] ==

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 [[2023 Hamas attack on Israel|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 {{u|The Great Mule of Eupatoria}} and {{u|BilledMammal}} disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Hamas_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1181452958 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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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, [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/october-9-2023-morning-rundown-rcna119434 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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::Key phrase: “Israel said” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]], all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel '''by sea;''' the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{tq|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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::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. [https://www.indiatoday.in/world/video/israeli-army-deployed-at-zikim-beach-civilians-asked-to-leave-ground-report-2449724-2023-10-16 This] is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/a-few-idf-officers-saved-90-trainees-from-hamas-terrorists-they-paid-with-their-lives/0000018b-4da2-dc3c-a5df-ddaadf370000 A new article] from [[Haaretz]] disputes the initial claims from October 7th that [[Bahad 4]] fell.
:<code>...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.</code>
:Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the [[Battle of Zikim]] article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.
:[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Veggies|Veggies]] You can bypass the paywall by reading an [https://archive.ph/nWuvr archived version] here. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at [[Bahad 4]] up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the [[Bahad 4]] base ''since'' 7 October. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict ==

A new report by ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]]''[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] states that U.S. has sent a [[Lieutenant general (United States)|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 movement|Houthi]] cruise missile over the Red Sea[https://www.npr.org/2023/10/20/1207523642/yemen-missiles-intercepted] 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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

::[[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. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:::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. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
: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. [[User:PrimaPrime|PrimaPrime]] ([[User talk:PrimaPrime|talk]]) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA BBC] Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::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)" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*Note, an RfC ([[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox]]) was started below to figure the content dispute out. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

SOHR has reported that several Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghani militiamen (presumably under the Popular Mobilization Units, Liwa Fatemiyoun, and National Defense Forces 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/ [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: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. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
::This is actually reported in [[The Economist]] as well, I'll see if I can find the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Expansion to war crimes section ==

{{ping|Nableezy}} I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in {{diff2|1181344023|this diff}}. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under [[WP:BALASP]].

For editors generally, see also [[Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?|this discussion,]] regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of [[WP:BALASP]] is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff].
:I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.
:The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.
:My problem with this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff] is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named [[Tom Dannenbaum]]), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.
:According to [[WP:RS]], a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for [[WP:RS]] should be heightened.
:How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?
:I oppose the incorporation of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1181344023 diff], along with [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the [[WP:ONUS]] in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::That is called an expert view and [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Since you are relying on [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:
:::(i) Prefer secondary sources,
:::(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
:::(iii) Citation counts
:::(iv) POV and peer review
:::Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?
:::As per [[WP:ONUS]], the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.
:::You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with [[WP:RS]].
:::Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.
:::Kindly do. [[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] ([[User talk:HollerithPunchCard|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::If you read [[WP:SPS]] youll see '' Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.'' You can see his [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KGysaxgAAAAJ&hl=en relevant publications]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] your removal of that content was correct.@[[User:HollerithPunchCard|HollerithPunchCard]] [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also as per [[WP:SPS]] :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::And what do you think is relevant there? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]]: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add Kazakhstan casualtie ==

add one citizen of Kazakhstan to the number of victims among foreigners and persons with dual citizenship. Ref: [https://en.inform.kz/news/kazakh-national-dies-in-gaza-strip-kazakh-mfa-2420d6/#:~:text=A%20national%20of%20Kazakhstan%20died,of%20Palestine%2C%20died%20as%20well. inform], [https://adyrna.kz/en/post/174231 adyrna], [https://www.kt.kz/eng/society/wto_countries_are_preparing_for_the_13th_wto_ministerial_1377956990.html kt] [[User:Нурасылл|Нурасылл]] ([[User talk:Нурасылл|talk]]) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Belligerents & Units involved ==

The belligerents section has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, yet the units involved section doesn't. I believe it should be changed so the belligerents section has Fatah instead of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (since Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade is part of Fatah), and the units involved section then has Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as was done with Hamas & Al-Qassam brigades. [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]], please see [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Fatah involved?|[1]]] and [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20#Extended-confirmed-edit request, October 18|[2]]] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! [[User:Alikersantti|Alikersantti]] ([[User talk:Alikersantti|talk]]) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== “CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments” ==

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/21/israel-hamas-conflict-palestinian-voices-censored Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== ‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense ==

According to [https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/22804 Kyiv Post] {{green|In reaction to Hamas' attacks, the IDF is deploying its new Iron Beam anti-missile system ahead of its originally planned schedule.}} "I'm unsure where to drop this info? Where's the spot for deets on the weapon systems both sides are using? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:It may be too early to add it to ''this'' article. You could certainly add it to the [[Iron Beam]] article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== Article becoming too long. Suggestions. ==

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. [[User:Lafi90|Lafi90]] ([[User talk:Lafi90|talk]]) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:[[2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Reactions]] It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Someone working on [[Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]], should make a dent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the [[WP:PROSELINE]] sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per {{U|Alcibiades979}}'s suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1180882394 tried] that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, [[Iraq War#Background]] and [[Iraq War#Pre-war events]], similarly [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background]] and [[Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude]].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1181659781 Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here] [[User:Chafique|Chafique]] ([[User talk:Chafique|talk]]) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Chafique}} Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, {{they|Abo Yemen}} reverted his own [[Special:Diff/1181659525|edit]] from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

== RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox ==
{{atop
| status = Closing by request
| result = Closing this at the request of the RfC creator {{u|WeatherWriter}} at [[Special:Diff/1181698226]]. – [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

Should the [[United States]] be added to the infobox as a belligerent?

*'''Option 1''' — Yes (Listed as flag under Israel - No additional info - Full belligerent)
*'''Option 2''' — Yes (Listed as bullet point under Israel - No additional info)
*'''Option 3''' — Yes (Listed as a bullet point under Israel as “''United States (in Iraq and Red Sea only)'“
*'''Option 4''' — Yes (Listed under a “Supported by” subheading under Israel.)
*'''Option 5''' — Yes (Format not mentioned in option 1-4)
*'''Option 6''' — No

'''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion===
Previous discussions: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21]], [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14]]
*'''Comment''' — As RfC starter, I am going to refrain from commenting for now. This RfC was started given several content disputes and various talk page discussions around this overall topic. I attempted to look through some of the article history and I believe option 1-4 covered any previous styles of the US being added in the infobox. I added option 5 incase I missed a format style. Obviously, option 6 is for those who oppose it being added. Anyway, an RfC was for sure needed to solve all the various content disputes on this topic. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:{{Reply|WeatherWriter}} Could you point to where #4 was deprecated? That is currently used at [[Gaza–Israel conflict]]. [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] [[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:If consensus is reached on option 4, Germany should be added and Iran and Russia should be added to Hamas and its allies.[[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I am not sure. When figuring out the previous versions where the USA was listed, I saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1181544884 this edit] by {{u|Parham wiki}} saying it was deprecated. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#c-BilledMammal-20230719130800-RfC_on_%22supported_by%22_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter|If there is a consensus, it can be added.] [[User:Parham wiki|Parham wiki]] ([[User talk:Parham wiki|talk]]) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|Selfstudier}}, [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict]] is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Since you are requesting ''more'' research on my end…here: [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page]] & [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah]] are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' — Given the US military shooting down missiles launched believed to be going towards Israel, they are a belligerent now and deserve to be listed. Option 3 is the best as the US isn’t fully involved in the Gaza Strip conflict, but more around the region. Noting, option 3 was previously used in the article (within the last 24 hours). '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option X''' USA should be in the infox iff it is a [[belligerent]].[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - If the US is included as a belligerent, then the [[Houthi movement|Houthis]] will necessarily ''also'' have to be included. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] (''[[User talk:Veggies|talk]]'') 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the [[Red Sea]] shot down Yemeni [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]] and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.
:There are additional factors that ''might'' count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation] 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, U.S. is reported[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.
:Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say '''Option 1''' would be the most appropriate option. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding) ==
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701201698}}
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=F55CC1A}}

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

[[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]], [[Saudi Arabia]]

'''Option 1''' – Add X 
'''Option 2''' – Do not add X 
'''Option 3''' – Neutral (no comments) on X 
(X = Country)

RfC is '''not''' to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. six different and unique discussions. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion2===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
*'''RfC Creator Comment''' – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi''', '''Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany''' – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), {{u|Ecrusized}} said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea '''shot down''' 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-marine-general-ground-operation Axios], the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to '''advise''' ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 reported to have] '''delivered''' 45 cargo planes loaded with '''armaments''' to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestinians/card/u-s-sends-air-defense-systems-to-gulf-countries-O11ZyqKBZhIjSprR7WoN Wall Street Journal reported] the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 the new report] from the [[Wall Street Journal]] saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. [[User:Eyal3400|eyal]] ([[User talk:Eyal3400|talk]]) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A new report by [https://archive.is/20231024180228/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-backed-militias-mount-new-wave-of-attacks-as-u-s-supports-israel-d51364d4 WSJ] states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by [[Saudi Arabia]]. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::I just added it to the list of options. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment 2''' [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/drone-attacks-american-bases-injured-two-dozen-us-military-personnel-rcna121961 NBC News] reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*:<s>'''Comment''' Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option *''' Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are [[belligerents]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Wait {{u|Selfstudier}}, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. ''Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral?'' If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::I made my comment and I explained it as well. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:AGF|Not trying to be rude]], but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Let the closer worry about what it means. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::<s>@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], my understanding is that @[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] would respond your question ''Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent?'' with the answer ''Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no.'' I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.
:::::::[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> Struck per [[WP:ARBECR]] and [[WP:PIA]] — [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose any being listed as belligerents''' Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.
:I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @[[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.
:It may interest other editors to peruse [[Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine]] and its archives, for an interesting case study.
:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{u|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, {{u|Parham wiki}} made the comment that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]), then it can be used. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::::{{u|Bermicourt}}, not sure if you made a typo, but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1181733329 current version of the article] lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — Iran has now [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-palestinians-news/card/iran-s-khamenei-accuses-u-s-of-orchestrating-israel-s-gaza-campaign-uXStycKXeGwa5XaHrDrN accused (Wall Street Journal article)] the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that '''directly supports''' that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::I did in my original reasoning. The US is [https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10 supplying Israel with weapons] and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*::::“'''US military equipment''' pours into Israel”[https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-welcomes-45th-cargo-plane-armored-vehicles-armaments-us-2023-10]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am [[WP:COAL]]ing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::::It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
* I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
*:I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. [[User:BogLogs|BogLogs]] ([[User talk:BogLogs|talk]]) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' all additions.{{tq| Countries should be added to the infobox if they are [[belligerents]],}} as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly {{tq|None of these groups are involved in active combat}}, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but ''(thank God)'', there are ''(as yet)'' no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:'''Add''': [[United States]], [[Houthi movement|Houthi]], [[Iran]].
:'''Do not add''': [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]]. '''[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|✉]]''' 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israeli POWs omitted from lead ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}

Please revert “Hundreds of civilian hostages, including women, children and the elderly, were abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip” to “Unarmed civilian hostages and captured Israeli soldiers were taken to the Gaza Strip, including women and children.”

The new wording, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181531570 this revision] adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/21/hamas-says-israel-refused-to-receive-2-hostages-israel-calls-it-propaganda%7C Al Jazeera]: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_10%7C the discussion] of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/hamas-launches-surprise-attack-on-israel-as-palestinian-gunmen-reported-in-south%7CThe The Guardian]: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/hamas-says-it-has-enough-israeli-captives-to-free-all-palestinian-prisoners%7CAJ%7C Al Jazeera]: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

As it stands, a reader who only sees the lead and the infobox would not know that there are any Israeli POWs. How can this be? [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{Yo|Monopoly31121993(2)}} This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. [[User:WillowCity|WillowCity]] ([[User talk:WillowCity|talk]]) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{Yo|WillowCity}} I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I made edits to this sentence in the article before finding this discussion. If I've inadvertently overruled the result of this discussion, please accept my apologies. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 13:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{Yo|Quantling}} In my view your edit is quite helpful for indicating the uncertainty regarding the exact ratio of civilians and soldiers among those taken captive. The prior language could be taken as implying that the 200 captives were in addition to (not including) soldiers. So I see your wording as fully consistent with the spirit of this discussion. I'm not sure if someone might want to replace the commas with brackets, but that is purely stylistic. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::As well I had previously noted in a separate discussion that the reference to "women and children" was somewhat ambiguous, as female IDF soldiers are POWs, while female civilians are not, so I have no objection to the removal of that from the lead. The identities of the captives are discussed subsequently, including demographic data, and are the subject of their own article, so I don't see it as necessary for the lead. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Massacres ==

This article has plenty of Palestinian massacres giving a one-sided impression that the only side that is making any crime are Palestinians. So far more than 6000 have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2000 children. Strikes have been proven to target bakeries, supermarkets, and probably hospitals.

I can't fathom that none of these are considered massacres. Airstrike sounds a much neutral benign word than massacre, and yet Airstrikes are much deadler than anything Hamas or other militants did. Airstrikes burn victims and cause very high collateral damage, not to mention the trauma that follows a small child who witnesses one. We can see a lot of videos of children shaking, those children will most likely spend their lives in a psychiatric institution. We need to uphold Wikipedia values and make this article a little more unbiased. [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:From what I’ve seen, the massacres here are specifically talking about what happened in the kibbutzim only on October 7 [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).
:Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.
::Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.
::They also killed before on 16th of October
::https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html [[User:Classicalguss|Classicalguss]] ([[User talk:Classicalguss|talk]]) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut}} Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. {{tq|Hamas doesn't see them as civilians}}. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. {{tq|we know that hamas lied }} All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Npov tags ==

{{u|James James Morrison Morrison}}, you’ve added multiple pov section tags, can you explain them here please? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think it's safe to remove any neutrality tags that aren't associated with a specific, actionable complaint here on the talk page. Otherwise we might as well just tag every section. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|''Thebiguglyalien'']] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]]) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah, agreed, but who wants to use a revert on that? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I have removed them, so that is my revert for today. Just adding bloat without helping our readers. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Archived talks about photos and Reactions section ==

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world
::
[[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war| international reactions] page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. [[User:James James Morrison Morrison|JJMM]] ([[User talk:James James Morrison Morrison|talk]]) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war. ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Asked and answered. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
}}

The Suprise attack by hamas on Israel was done with the guide of Iran.

The war also involves Hizzbolla - an Iranian proxy and Iranian miltias in Syria.

Also adding the missle attack by the Houtis in Yemen - another Iranian proxy aimed on Israel.

there is also the case of Iraqi Millitias also guided by Iran attacking US bases in Iraq, because of US support of Israel.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.
::Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.
::https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 [[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.
::::They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.
::::Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.
::::Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.
::::*since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.
::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.
:::::*also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.
:::::[[Special:Contributions/46.121.27.170|46.121.27.170]] ([[User talk:46.121.27.170|talk]]) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|2023 Israel–Hamas war|answered=yes}}
"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister [[Eli Cohen]] stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is [[Eli Cohen (politician, born 1972)|this one]]. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26]] ([[User talk:2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26|talk]]) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Israel casualties ==

Israeli casualties still at 1400? We need more updates [[User:RickyBlair668|RickyBlair668]] ([[User talk:RickyBlair668|talk]]) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Updating casualities in an ongoing crisis (or war) is tricky as it can change day by day. Perhaps an update once a week would be easier, but I agree with the suggestion that the figure should be updated. [[User:Jurisdicta|Jurisdicta]] ([[User talk:Jurisdicta|talk]]) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Supported by ==

@[[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]], concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1181871075 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia], the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: '''Ongoing RfC''' — Please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ [[User:Tamjeed Ahmed|Tamjeed Ahmed]] ([[User talk:Tamjeed Ahmed|talk]]) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Casualty count ==

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.
:::Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."
:::https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971
:::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden is not a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Not just Biden:
:::::https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
:::::https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/
:::::The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source ''independently'' corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the [[MOS:CLAIM|policy]] on "claimed").
::::::As well, FYI, this article from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WaPo]: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. [[User:WillowCity|'''WillowCity''']][[User talk:WillowCity|(talk)]] 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. [[User:YEEETER0|YEEETER0]] ([[User talk:YEEETER0|talk]]) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. [[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Does the block also apply for the talk page? [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== United States involvement and Casualties sustained ==

A US special force and an Israeli special ops unit that entered Gaza “completely wiped out” https://www.palestinechronicle.com/shot-to-pieces-this-is-what-happened-to-us-special-forces-when-they-entered-gaza/

The U.S is now on the ground albeit not very effective as of now. We know, through the words of Douglas Mcgregor that a combined American-Israeli military unit entered Gaza and were subsequently wiped out, presumably killed and captured. We should really consider adding the U.S to the list of belligerents especially after sustaining 30+ injuries to attacks by the “Islamic Resistance of Iraq”

Alongside U.S involvement, we should also add this new “Islamic Resistance of Iraq” faction and as more information and articles surface, we can vastly improve this article. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an [[wp:extraordinary|extraordinary]] claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. [[User:A.H.T Videomapping|A.H.T Videomapping]] ([[User talk:A.H.T Videomapping|talk]]) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|A.H.T Videomapping}} please see the [[Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)|ongoing Request for Comments (RfC)]] related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza ==
{{atop|Withdrawn by OP. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:A discussion on this topic [[Special:PermanentLink/1181585273#Requested move 15 October 2023|concluded just two days ago]], with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 23:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Map ==

Please add a map to the article
[[File:Countries_recognizing_Hamas_as_terror_organization.svg|thumb|World map with countries that have declared [[Hamas]] a [[List of designated terrorist groups|terrorist organization]]]] [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{not done}} I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body ==

For reasons including [[WP:COMMONNAME]], the article title is ''Israel–Hamas war''. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier; see [[Talk:2023 Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war#Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza|above]]. However, I have a follow up question.) Does that mean we should use "Hamas" when the the folks with guns and bombs from Gaza do something and should use "Israel" when the folks with guns and bombs from Israel do something? It makes it seem like the Gazan militants do not have the support of the Gazan civilians, but that the Israeli militants do have the support of the Israeli civilians. Unless we have citations to support that asymmetry, I think we are misleading the reader. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. —[[User:Quantling|Quantling]] ([[User talk:Quantling|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== "2,500 infiltrated Israel" ==

Under the strength section it describes 2500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel, implying that they are still within Israel right now, it is entirely likely they would have retreated back into Gaza by now. The source for this claim is from the 13th and it should either be confirmed and the source should be changed, or it should be removed [[User:Hexifi|Hexifi]] ([[User talk:Hexifi|talk]]) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --[[User:Jprg1966|'''Jprg1966''']] [[User talk:Jprg1966|(talk)]] 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Misspelling ==

UK PM Rishi Sunak's name is misspelled under the "in opposition" subheading of the "ceasefire" heading. Should be corrected & linked to the correct article (not the mispelling redirect). [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Ha. Just remembered I am extended protected now so I could change it myself. The account responsible should be found & disciplinary action should be considered. Looked like vandalism to me. [[User:SSR07|SSR07]] ([[User talk:SSR07|talk]]) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== infobox attribution inline ==

{{u|BilledMammal}}, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Current_situation|this]] discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing ''every'' figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Per [[WP:ONUS]], {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes.html October 25th, the NYTimes] is throwing in a disclaimer, saying {{green|a number that if verified}} At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::[[WP:POINT]]. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.
:::::{{tq|The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that.}} With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.
:::::So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.
:::::At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.
::::::Editor {{Re|Hovsepig}} made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;
::::::"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:
::::::"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).
::::::And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."
::::::At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.
:::::::{{tq|At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor.}} Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per [[WP:ONUS]], is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::One editor does not get to decide, end of. [[WP:ONUS]] doesn't work that way either. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well given it has had numbers since [[Special:Permalink/1179034824|basically the beginning of this article]] and [[Special:Permalink/1180949164|throughout]] the now [[Special:Permalink/1181985413|7519 edits]] it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again [[WP:POINT]] (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - {{tq|the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting [[WP:DE]] when I see it. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Nope, ignores [[WP:QUO]] and the prior consensus.}} If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a better idea, since we have [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ WAPO OC 24 saying ] "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; {{tq|according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to the MoH in Gaza}}, {{tq|according to Israeli official sources}}. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check {{tq|both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I started an RFC below. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included ==

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Foreign_and_dual-national_casualties this table] or should they be listed separately? For example [https://nltimes.nl/2023/10/22/dutch-woman-33-killed-gaza-strip-overnight-minister-confirms a Dutch] and [https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-woman-killed-israeli-strike-135400807.html a Ukrainian] were killed in Gaza.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:And a citizen of [[Kazakhstan]]. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Small stylistic suggestion ==

The sentence "Both Israel and the U.S stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" is the first time Iran is mentioned in the article. This sentence only makes sense in the context of the lead if the reader understands that there is some Hamas-Iran connection or that people suspect Iran could have been involved in this. The uninformed reader may not understand that sentence. It would be perhaps be wise to preface the sentence with something like "Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement...." [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF]] ([[User talk:2001:569:57B2:4D00:A166:EBF0:164A:52EF|talk]]) 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== [[Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]] ==

{{re|RamHez}} SOHR is considered generally reliable in articles related to [[Syrian civil war]]. It is preferred over Syrian government sources who tend to shrink their casualties. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section ==

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, [https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1352614/how-many-people-has-the-hamas-israel-war-killed-so-far.html like L'Orient Today]? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

Pinging {{u| ARandomName123}} and {{u| Timeshifter}} since you were involved in current and previous incarnations of the graph. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:It's a simple chart. It can be used under [[c:Template:PD-chart]]. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: [[c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs]] --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!
::Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. There are all kinds of ways to create charts. And a variety of charts are possible to cover deaths over time. Here are some tools:
:::[[Commons:Create charts and graphs online#Free online charting sites]]
:::There is also the freeware [[LibreOffice]] and [[LibreOffice Calc]], etc..
:::--[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war ==

Please correct the [[2023 Israel–Hamas war#Foreign and dual-national casualties|table]]:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
!scope="col"|Country
!scope="col"|Deaths
!scope="col"|Kidnapped
!scope="col"|Missing
!scope="col" class="unsortable" |{{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference(s)}}
|-
|scope="row"|{{flag|Ukraine}}
|24 {{efn|Including 21 Ukrainians died in Israel and and 3 more died in the Gaza Strip}}
|Unknown
|1
|<ref>{{cite news|date=26 October 2023|title=Number of Ukrainian casualties rises in Israel|language=en|work=[[Ukrainska Pravda]]|url=https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/26/7425812/ |access-date=26 October 2023}}</ref>
|} [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with [[multiple citizenship]]s? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) 

:To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== RFC on infobox casualties ==

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1701352883}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=4529BDF}}
How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?
#Attributed with an endnote as in [[Special:Permalink/1181989063|the current version as of this writing]]
#Attributed for all numbers inline as in [[Special:Permalink/1181939077|this version]]
#Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in [[Special:Permalink/1181582391|this version]]
#Not in the infobox at all
[[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
===Survey===
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RFC}}
*'''1''' - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: [https://abcnews.go.com/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006 ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.]; [https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza/card/latest-casualty-figures-from-israel-and-gaza-dQNSenweikTeA7YPWzOP WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.]; [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-war-news-hamas/ Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed.] A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/ Washington Post] reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example [https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 the UN] reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2''' or '''3''', weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.
:In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of [[WP:V]], for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.
:Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.
:In general, the option of {{tq|attributed with an endnote}} is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, <s>and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them.</s> and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them.<ref name="citationengagement" /> 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
{{cot|Sources for Palestinian casualties}}
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/26/israel-hamas-war-live-un-ceasefire-bid-fails-as-gaza-death-toll-soars Al Jazeera: "The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli air raids in Gaza has now reached 7,028, a figure that includes 2,913 children, the health ministry in the besieged enclave says."]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67209848 BBC: "The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says almost 6,500 people have been killed in territory since then."]
#[https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/israel-palestine-war-gaza-families-wear-id-bracelets-to-avoid-burial-in-mass-graves-403292-2023-10-26 Business Today: "A total of 756 Palestinians, including 344 children, were killed in the past 24 hours, Gaza's health ministry said on Wednesday."]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-war-wednesday-intl-hnk/index.html CNN: "The warnings from senior UN officials came after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza killed more than 700 people in 24 hours, the highest daily number published since Israeli strikes against what it called Hamas targets in Gaza began two and a half weeks ago, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah on Tuesday."]
#[https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-six-key-moments-for-the-gaza-strip-216185 The Conversation: "More than 5,700 people in Gaza have been reportedly killed by Israeli airstrikes in two weeks of relentless bombardment – at least 2,000 of whom are children."]
#[https://images.dawn.com/news/1192071/how-the-watermelon-became-a-symbol-of-resistance-in-palestine Dawn: "As of today 6,546 Palestinians have been killed, including 2,704 children, and over 17,000 people have been wounded so far in ongoing Israeli retaliatory strikes."]
#[https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/israel-hamas-war-updates-day-19-oct-25-2023/article67456283.ece The Hindu: "Rapidly expanding Israeli airstrikes across the Gaza Strip has killed more than 700 people in the past day as medical facilities across the territory were forced to close because of bombing damage and a lack of power, health officials said on Tuesday."]
#[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/25/un-general-assembly-should-act-gaza Human Rights Watch: "More than 6,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including more than 2,700 children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry."]
#[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/queen-jordan-west-israel-palestine-b2435728.html The Independent: "Queen Rania’s comments came as Israel and Hamas continued bombing each other, with airstrikes in Gaza killing more than 750 people between Tuesday and Wednesday, according to the territory’s health ministry.]
#[https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/10/26/not-about-religion-the-historical-and-political-root-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ Modern Diplomacy: "Israel also counterattacked Palestine in the Gaza Strip and killed 3,478 people and injured 12,065 others"]
#[https://www.newsweek.com/israel-committing-war-crimes-gaza-us-supporting-it-opinion-1837908 Newsweek: "This was leading human rights organization Amnesty International's characterization of Israel's massive and ongoing bombing campaign in Gaza, which, two weeks in, has killed more than 6,500 Palestinians, including more than 2,300 children."]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/26/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/ff399d89-a169-5608-a2ce-e185ac895a5b?smid=url-share New York Times: "At least 7,028 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, including nearly 3,000 children, according to the latest figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry."]
#[https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/25/in-defiance-of-international-calls-to-stop-bombardment-of-gaza-israel-extends-airstrikes-to-west-bank/ People's Dispatch: "According to Palestinian officials, the total number of Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes and raids since October 7 has crossed 6,000, with over 18,000 injured."]
#[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/hezbollah-leader-meets-with-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad-officials-for-first-time-since-israel-hamas-war-erupted PBS: "The fighting, triggered by Hamas’ deadly incursion into Israel on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel, has killed more than 5,700 Palestinians in Gaza."]
#[https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/atrocity-alert-no-370-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territory-dr-congo-and-south-sudan Relief Web: "Since 7 October more than 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and over 16,297 injured by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza."]
#[https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/news/32866-israel-bombards-gaza-prepares-invasion-as-biden-urges-path-to-peace Sight Magazine: "Israeli retaliatory strikes have killed over 6,500 people, the health ministry in the Hamas-run strip said on Wednesday. Reuters has been unable to independently verify the casualty figures of either side"]
#[https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300996267/live-israeli-troops-launch-brief-raid-into-gaza Stuff: "Gaza’s Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas, said Wednesday that more than 750 people were killed over the past 24 hours, higher than the 704 killed the previous day."]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-hamas-islamic-scholars-issue-calls-fatwas-inciting-murder-of-israelis-and-jews/ Times of Israel: "The Hamas-run health ministry claimed on Thursday that at least 7,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing conflict."]
#[https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/israel-war-live-coverage-australia-deploys-forces-to-middle-east-gaza-crisis-deepens-outrage-at-un-remarks-c-12316264 The West Australian: "The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, said Israeli airstrikes killed at least 700 people over the past day, mostly women and children."]
#[https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-50-palestinians-killed-in-one-hour-in-gaza-no-aid-entered-on-tuesday-says-un-650884 WION: "The Hamas-run Health Ministry said at least 5,791 Palestinians have been killed and 16,297 injured"]
Search was done on Google News with search term "killed palestine"; a number was omitted as there is no stable figure. Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them, if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP, or if they did not quantify the number of casualties. Search was done on 26 October.
{{cob}}
{{cot|Sources for Israeli casualties}}
#[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-24/israel-launches-raids-into-gaza/103012762 ABC: The Israeli bombardment was triggered by an October 7 terrorist attack on Israeli communities by Hamas militants who killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/23/gaza-death-toll-exceeds-5000-as-israel-continues-daily-bombardments Al Jazeera: Hamas’s attack in southern Israel killed at least 1,400 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/israel-steps-up-gaza-strikes-ahead-of-ground-invasion/news-story/e7593babdd462249f79d3ca3dfb07b0d The Australian: Alarm is growing over the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel struck back following the October 7 attacks, which Israeli officials say killed more than 1,400 people who were shot, stabbed or burnt to death by militants.]
#[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67195174 BBC: More than 1,400 Israelis were killed when Hamas attacked communities near the Gaza border, while the Israeli military says 203 soldiers and civilians, including women and children, were taken to Gaza as hostages.]
#[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/23/israel-hamas-war-updates-and-latest-news-on-gaza-conflict.html CNBC: Their transfer follows the Friday release of two American hostages. It’s been more than two weeks since Hamas launched its assault on Israel, killing at least 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostages.]
#[https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-23-23/h_fb85cc8446e130bafa75926bc01dc0ad CNN: Hamas militants carried out a deadly attack on Israel on October 7, killing 1,400 people and kidnapping hundreds of others.]
#[https://theconversation.com/even-if-israel-can-completely-eliminate-hamas-does-it-have-a-long-term-plan-for-gaza-216161 The Conversation: In the past couple weeks, Israel has put together a huge force to mount another ground invasion in retaliation for the Hamas cross-border attacks that killed around 1,400 Israelis on October 7.]
#[https://www.ft.com/content/687873f2-0a84-409d-b8ff-3ba86e005a89 Financial Times: Israeli authorities say more than 1,400 Israelis were killed in the attack and that 222 people, including foreign nationals, were taken hostage.]
#[https://fortune.com/2023/10/23/workers-ceos-struggle-israel-hamas-war-middle-east-starbucks/ Fortune: Jewish groups have criticized tepid responses or slow reactions to the Oct. 7 Hamas rampage that killed 1,400 people in Israel and triggered the latest war.]
#[https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/october-23-israel-hamas-war Fox News: At least 5,700 people have been killed in the war on both sides, including at least 1,400 Israeli civilians and soldiers and 32 Americans.]
#[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231023-gaza-attacks-shatter-sense-of-safety-in-israel-s-tel-aviv France24: Several rockets hit the Tel Aviv area when Hamas militants launched the most deadly attack suffered by Israel since its creation, with some 1,400 killed -- most of them civilians -- according to Israeli officials.]
#[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/gaza-second-aid-convoy-rafah-crossing-israel-bombardment The Guardian: The new war – the fifth since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 – broke out after the Palestinian militants attacked southern Israeli communities on 7 October, killing 1,400 people and taking 222 into the strip as bargaining chips.]
#[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4269507-poll-what-americans-really-think-about-the-israel-hamas-war/ The Hill: As we pass two weeks since more than 1,000 Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, killed more than 1,400 Israelis...]
#[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/israelhamas-war-is-hezbollah-heading-towards-open-conflict-with-israel-101698079630416.html Hindustan Times: Hamas militants stormed into Israel from the Gaza Strip on October 7, killing at least 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/briefing/hamas-israel-war-iranian-teenager-chevron-hess-deal.html New York Times: ...when Israel began launching airstrikes in retaliation for an attack by the Hamas militant group that killed 1,400 people.]
#[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-borrell-backs-humanitarian-pause-israel-hamas-conflict-2023-10-23/ Reuters: Diplomats said there was consensus on the need to ramp up humanitarian aid, reflecting widespread alarm about the fate of Palestinian civilians after two weeks of Israel bombarding and blockading Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 Hamas assault that killed 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostage.]
#[https://time.com/6327279/israel-peace-movement-hamas-gaza/ Time: His cousin was one of the 200 Israelis abducted in the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which left 1,400 dead in Israel, and he says that his family and friends often tell him his beliefs are “too extreme.”]
#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shows-foreign-press-raw-hamas-bodycam-videos-of-murder-torture-decapitation/ Times of Israel: The Israeli government on Monday screened for 200 members of the foreign press some 43 minutes of harrowing scenes of murder, torture and decapitation from Hamas’s October 7 onslaught on southern Israel, in which over 1,400 people were killed, including raw videos from the terrorists’ bodycams.]
#[https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687 UN News: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.]
#[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/israel-arrests-palestinians-west-bank/ Washington Post: Israel has said its “counterterrorism” operations will prevent Hamas from being able to launch another attack like its brutal assault on Oct. 7, when gunmen killed over 1,400 people in southern Israel and took more than 200 hostages.]
Search was done on Google News with search term "1400 killed israel". Search period was the past 24 hours; sources were excluded if we had already included an article from them or if they were assessed as unreliable at RSP. Search was done on 24 October.
{{cob}}
:[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' or '''2''' this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support '''4''' with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. [[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]][[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]] 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes ''are'' sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' For reasons said by [[User:AquilaFasciata|AquilaFasciata]]. [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: {{tq|In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes.}} According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes.<ref name="citationengagement">{{cite journal |last1=Piccardi |first1=Tiziano |last2=Redi |first2=Miriam |last3=Colavizza |first3=Giovanni |last4=West |first4=Robert |title=Quantifying Engagement with Citations on Wikipedia |date=20 April 2020 |pages=2365–2376 |doi=10.1145/3366423.3380300}}</ref> Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*::Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*:::If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?] [[The Guardian]] 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*: Other sources, like [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/explainer-gazas-ministry-health-calculate-wars-death-toll-104374157 this one], say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1'''. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" ([[WP:WTA]]); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''2'''. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]][[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]] 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''' as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. [[User:ARandomName123|ARandomName123]] ([[User talk:ARandomName123|talk]])Ping me! 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''1''': per [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]]. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]] 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''3''' survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. [[User:MicrobiologyMarcus|microbiologyMarcus]] (''[[User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus|petri dish]]'') 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion3===
Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Infinity Knight|Vice regent|Graeme Bartlett|Mistamystery|WillowCity|JM2023|Hovsepig}} Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::You missed one off the top of my head, {{u|Jayen466}}. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::You're right, I did; I overlooked them at [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).
:::Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.
::I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.
::I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.
::[[User:Mistamystery|Mistamystery]] ([[User talk:Mistamystery|talk]]) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:::There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources:-
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?]
[https://time.com/6328885/gaza-death-toll-explainer/ Time 26 Oct]"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."[https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?"] "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict ==

In addition to points made in previous move discussions - namely that multiple Palestinian factions and indeed the general population have been involved in this conflict - over the past 10 days since the last move discussion, other Arab countries (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt) have been directly involved in the conflict. Moreover, the name (Arab-Israeli conflict) is long established and well understood by the reader. The current title goes beyond inadequate at this point, it is outright misleading, making it wholly unsuitable. [[User:عبد المؤمن|عبد المؤمن]] ([[User talk:عبد المؤمن|talk]]) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under [[WP:COMMONNAME]]; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this ''specific'' situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. [[User:Feliiformia|Feliiformia]] ([[User talk:Feliiformia|talk]]) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Add one Uruguayan national to the list of hostages kidnapped by Hamas. ==

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to [https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/cancilleria-otorgo-nacionalidad-a-nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-por-hamas-y-pide-su-liberacion-20231024134034 El Observador]

Other sources: [https://www.semanariohebreojai.com/articulo/7253 Semanario Hebreo Jai] and [https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/10/24/nieta-de-uruguayos-secuestrada-hamas-israel-orix/ CNN].

The Uruguayan government asked the Israeli government, through the Uruguayan embassy in Israel, to make every effort to secure the release of the 29-year-old woman. [[User:Accuratelibrarian|Accuratelibrarian]] ([[User talk:Accuratelibrarian|talk]]) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Why are Hamas fighters and PIJ fighters listed under Lebanon casualties? ==

In the infobox under the h note there are 3 PIJ and 3 Hamas fighters listed along the Hezbollah fighters and civilians, and I ask why? In the sources I've only found they've been murdered close to Lebanon but not that they are lebanese, so why include them there and not in the "Murdered in Israel" group of dead? [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Simply because they were killed while participating in the Lebanese border clashes under the Hezbollah banner. As a quick question, why did you use the word "murdered" in your post? They were combat deaths after all, and it just seems a little unusual to use that word in such a context. [[User:Randomuser335S|Randomuser335S]] ([[User talk:Randomuser335S|talk]]) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Well I'm not a native english speaker, sorry if that sounded odd, alright I understand and thanks. [[User:Imagemafia|Imagemafia]] ([[User talk:Imagemafia|talk]]) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Adding a new subsection ==

Should there be a subsection for war crimes committed during this conflict, or is there already one? [[User:Iminyourwalls72|Iminyourwalls72]] ([[User talk:Iminyourwalls72|talk]]) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:There is a page about the war crimes. [[War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. Is it mentioned in the current page? [[User:Hovsepig|Hovsepig]] ([[User talk:Hovsepig|talk]]) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Additional Relevant Information ==

'''Unbiased Admins/Editors Please take a look into this and add this information in appropriate sections ,if relevant to the topic:

'''
'''1.) IDF Officer is Told by Gazan How Hamas Prevents Civilian Evacuations:''' . Total causalities claimed by Hamas-run gaza health ministry may not be just the result of Israeli's strikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaK4muqkRBE

''''''2.) Recorded: Hamas Millitants Calls Father With Murdered Woman's Phone to Celebrate The Oct. 7''' Massacre''':https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bACNYtaLBQI

'''3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:''': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg
:The practice of "[[:ru:Начальная военная подготовка|initial military training]]" is also used in Russia in [[Secondary school|secondary]] [[comprehensive school]]s in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:see [[whataboutery]]. also not going to debate on the legal age, legal framework, motives,volutary participation, ideology, and other differences between the two. just provided the information. editors/admins will decide if its relevant or not. if not, it will be discarded like many other critical info.no issues. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Edit requests like these are archived in Wikipedia very soon so also keep an eye on that) [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:I cannot find a [[WP:RS|reliable secondary source]] for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::we can write as per idf produced evidence. also are reliable secondry sources in business of evaluating evidences? for eg:if a public video is produced of hamas decapitating people , why would you need other sources to report it too? by your logic, all the claims and evidences gaza ministry makes and shows should also be removed, which are not evaluated by secondry sources. for eg: list of 7000 people died with their id. [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Countries ready to take Gaza refugees ==

As many countries are showcasing solidarity with gaza,their should be a section(or atleast a mention) for countries who are ready to take in gaza refugees/displaced people.
i only came accross scotland:
Humza Yousaf, the First Minister of Scotland, has offered to welcome refugees from Gaza and treat wounded civilians in Scottish hospitals.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/10/17/scotlands-first-minister-humza-yousaf-says-uk-should-offer-sanctuary-for-gaza-refugees/

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358422/scotland-first-minister-pledges-readiness-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4262981-scotlands-first-minister-says-country-willing-to-take-gaza-refugees/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-19/ty-article/scotlands-leader-calls-to-welcome-palestinian-refugees-to-the-u-k-amid-hamas-israel-war/0000018b-4776-d614-abcf-ef7760540000

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/scotland-minister-humza-yousaf-offers-to-invite-gaza-refugees-to-scotland-faces-backlash-101697604233670.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/willing-to-be-a-place-of-sanctuary-scotland-first-minister-says-ready-to-welcome-gaza-refugees-402497-2023-10-18 [[User:Mindhack diva|Mindhack diva]] ([[User talk:Mindhack diva|talk]]) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hamas infiltrators ==

The article states :

* "Simultaneously, around 2,500 Hamas militants[5] infiltrated Israel from Gaza using trucks, ..."

Source talks about :

* "2500 militants and civilians"

[[User:RadXman|RadXman]] ([[User talk:RadXman|talk]]) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

: In infobox, it is also necessary to correct the information from "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed". According to the [https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-475427-00.html source], "approximately 2,500 terrorists and civilians entered Israel from Gaza, of which approximately 1,500 returned to the Strip." --[[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 13:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Censor ==

censors
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130805
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1182130882
[[User:Baratiiman|Baratiiman]] ([[User talk:Baratiiman|talk]]) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:So what are you trying to say here? The material removed removed was not directly related, but did show Iran's opposition to Israel. Not every statement made needs to be included. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Possible [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] drones falling on Egypt ==

The Egyptian towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] near Israel were hit by projectiles this morning.[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosion-heard-egyptian-red-sea-town-near-israeli-border-witness-2023-10-27/] Last week, U.S. Navy[https://abcnews.go.com/International/security-incident-involving-us-navy-destroyer-red-sea/story?id=104147141] and Saudi Arabia[https://allarab.news/saudi-arabia-shoots-down-houthi-missile-from-yemen-heading-towards-israel/] had reportedly intercepted 4 missiles and 50 drones fired by Houthis at the southern Israeli city of [[Eilat]].[[https://www.now14.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A2-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94/]] [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:Towns of [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] and [[Nuweiba]] are located at a distance of 200 km and 250 km, respectively, from the [[Gaza Strip]]. Does [[Hamas]] have such long-range weapons? The [[Houthi Movement|Houthi]] are based even further, in [[Yemen]], 1,600 km from the city of [[Eilat]]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223#top|talk]]) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Bakeries? Barber shops? ==

Tareq S. Haijaj, [https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/they-let-humanitarian-aid-in-then-they-bombed-it-so-that-gaza-would-starve/ They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve]. [[Mondoweiss]] 26 October 2023 [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
:This would require independent confirmation preferably from the aid agencies providing these food supplies. It is a remarkable claim, on the face of it, and therefore one would expect wider coverage, despite the general systemic bias in reportage. So too with the suggestion any battery-charging agency like barbershops are being regularly targeted.
:The empirical description of a new kind of weapon is worth pursuing, because people on the ground in wars learn to distinguish types of rocketry so they may take precautions, depending on the noise profile (innumerable WW1/WW2 histories confirm that practice).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

Please add an explanation in the infobox about the over 40 percent of Palestinian deaths being children, which explains the extremely low median age of the Gaza Strip population ([[Demographics of the State of Palestine|16-17 years old]]). Otherwise, one gets the impression that Israel is specifically bombing children. [[Special:Contributions/91.210.248.223|91.210.248.223]] ([[User talk:91.210.248.223|talk]]) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Replace Citation 365 with the actual document released by the Gaza Health Ministry. ==

https://www.aljazeera.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-2.pdf

The document hasn't been translated yet but it seems better to cite the public document than a newspaper article talking about the document. [[User:Oshaboy2|Oshaboy2]] ([[User talk:Oshaboy2|talk]]) 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)