Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Removal of alleged Israeli war crimes

My very best wishes you pretty much removed Israeli war crimes from the article[1], even though reliable sources have made the allegations. If the allegation came from HRW, but not UN, then you could have edited to indicate that instead of also removing HRW allegations?VR talk 00:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Here to echo this concern. @My very best wishes removed crucial content about the proposed siege, which was being referred to by the Palestinian UN envoy. The current edit now starts with the Palestinian UN envoy mentioning the proposed siege without the context that preceded it in the paragraph before. Not only does this not make sense from a writing standpoint, but it seems like an effort to minimize mention of a proposed war crime by Israel. The addition of a US official downplaying the likelihood of the siege may be noteworthy, but now the section seems suspiciously POV. entropyandvodka | talk 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There are sources that say the UN has also alleged war crimes (reuters, emphasis added):

Turk said Israel's "imposition of sieges that endanger the lives of civilians by depriving them of goods essential for their survival is prohibited under international humanitarian law". "This risks seriously compounding the already dire human rights and humanitarian situation in Gaza, including the capacity of medical facilities to operate, especially in light of increasing numbers of injured," he said, adding that a siege may amount to "collective punishment". Such acts may amount to a war crime, U.N. Human Rights spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani later clarified.

VR talk 01:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Such allegations have also been made Hallie Ludsin[2], from Emory University School of Law and [3] and Norwegian refugee council[4].VR talk 01:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This is your godamn “reliable” sources????
WHAT IS THIS SOURCES? Never had I ever heard of them before. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:2132:9A49:9F6F:913E (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Reuters is a pretty reliable source. If Reuters said a UN official said something, then that UN official most likely did make that statement.VR talk 01:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Another quote from the ohchr.org source:
"The Commission is gravely concerned with Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and Israel’s announcement of a complete siege on Gaza involving the withholding of water, food, electricity and fuel which will undoubtfully cost civilian lives and constitutes collective punishment." entropyandvodka | talk 01:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Here is inline reference used on the page. It says The Commission [of UN] is gravely concerned with Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and Israel’s announcement of a complete siege on Gaza involving the withholding of water, food, electricity and fuel which will undoubtfully cost civilian lives and constitutes collective punishment. But it does not says that "water, food, electricity and fuel" would constitute a war crime. "War crime" has a very specific meaning with typical examples provided in War_crime#International_Criminal_Court_2002. Turning off electricity is not one of them. Saying that, you are welcome to include something, but the text must be supported by inline refs. It was not. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    • My concern with your edit it that you removed not only a couple of words that were not supported by an inline ref, but you actually removed an entire paragraph, most of which was indeed supported by inline ref. Can you please self-revert and remove only the part you don't think is supported by the ref? VR talk 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, this is the case when HRW (1st ref) was saying one thing, while UN (2nd ref) was saying something different. I suspect this could be a misrepresentation and therefore can not take responsibility for inserting such text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
So was the HRW source misrepresented? If yes, please explain how. If not, then please self-revert. You shouldn't be removing material without justification.VR talk 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The UN source used on the page did NOT call it war crime. Why should we include it on the page as a war crime? My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
But the HRW source did say that. So why did you remove the HRW source? VR talk 03:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I removed whole statement because there was a contradiction between two cited sources, and I assume that UN is a stronger source than HRW. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Your text was saying "UN", and the used inline reference (to UN) did not make such (war crime) assertion. Not every collective punishment is a war crime, only some of them. Turning off electricity and internet is something debatable if it was used to disable military communications (by Hamas in this case). My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we can reach a quick consensus. An older version showed:
"On 9 October, the Israeli defense minister stated that he had ordered a "complete siege" of the Gaza Strip, saying electricity, food, fuel and water would be cut off. According to Human Rights Watch, punitive measures against Gaza's civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime."
Here's the relevant paragraph from the Human Rights Watch statement:
"Palestinian armed group’s apparent deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and taking of civilians as hostages amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law. Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime. The laws of war apply to all parties to a conflict, irrespective of the lawfulness of their going to war or imbalances of power between the parties."
Do you have any issue with that version of the paragraph? entropyandvodka | talk 02:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Collective punishment is a war crime. Which of the sources show that the HRW called the siege on gaza a "Collective punishment" or is it your conclusion from the article? Currently the electricy and water Israel provides Gaza is a humanitarinian aid, it's not gaza's electricity, Israel is the one who pays for it, therefore they don't "take away their resources" they simply stop providing what they gave them volunteeraly until now. Erduan also is not a member of the HRW, he is simply leader of 1 out of 193 countries who are part of the UN. You can cite the HRW euridic statements, but you're not a judge to refer them or proclaim them uppon anyone. Doing so is taking a narrative. On the same note, you also cannot call raping, taking civil hostages, beheading babies and literally everything else Hamas has done a war crime until HRW will officaly say it is (which I'm sure they'll do in the next few weeks).
The state "Collective punishment" is biased and based on personal narrative. Encyclopedic writing should say "Cut supply of humanitarinian aid which includes electricity and water". דוב (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This why the statement is attributed to HRW and not made in wiki voice. There's a world of difference between statements like "X argued Y's actions were war crimes" and "Y committed war crimes". entropyandvodka | talk 07:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • BTW, Entropyandvodka I couldn't find any source in which Amnesty has accused Israel of war crimes in the current conflict. Did you find anything? Amnesty so far has only accused Palestinians, so the article should reflect that.VR talk 04:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Amnesty more admonished against the commission of further war crimes in the current conflict, while stating "Israel has a horrific track record of committing war crimes with impunity in previous wars on Gaza." They haven't leveled a specific accusation at Israel about the current conflict, to my knowledge. Obviously the article should reflect what they've said when referring to their statement, but the statements from HRW and the UN also bear relevance, as well as the statements from the respective UN envoys of Israel and Palestine. entropyandvodka | talk 04:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    If a notable source says something and it’s disputed by a Wikipedia user then it should be attributed not removed Bobisland (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I agree with this. That is assuming that: (a) the cited sources support the statements, (b) the content is "due" on the page, and (c) the inclusion improves the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israeli war crimes" fails verification at this time

We have expressions of concern, exhortations to caution and restraint, and statements about the past. But there is no RS that states that the threatened siege or other Israeli actions this week are war crimes. Patience and Reliable Sources are needed now. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't justify removal of the mention of the threatened siege. Previously this was described by the line:
"On 9 October, the Israeli defense minister stated that he had ordered a "complete siege" of the Gaza Strip, saying electricity, food, fuel and water would be cut off."
This gives relevant context to the statement of the Palestinian envoy, and was properly sourced. entropyandvodka | talk 02:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The article section is not about threats. It is about crimes. The only reported crimes to date are Hamas'. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC) SPECIFICO
The allegations of war crimes are not limited to Hamas. This is in multiple RS. entropyandvodka | talk 02:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
No RS has been offered. If you know of multiple such sources, please provide links. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
C'mon SPECIFICO, look at the top of the section.VR talk 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
A few sources directly alleging or describing allegations of war crimes:
This one is also used for war crimes of Hamas:
" Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime. " [6]https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/israel/palestine-devastating-civilian-toll-parties-flout-legal-obligations
The statement from the Palestinian UN envoy; note that the Israeli envoy is also cited in the Wikipedia article:
" Such blatant dehumanization and attempts to bomb a people into submission, to use starvation as a method of warfare, and to eradicate their national existence are nothing less than genocidal," Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour wrote in a letter to the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, seen by Reuters. "These acts constitute war crimes," he wrote. "
[7]https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-un-envoy-accuses-israel-genocidal-campaign-against-gaza-2023-10-10/
Example of another RS typically used in Wikipedia leveling the characterization; there are plenty of these online:
"ISRAEL’S DEFENSE MINISTER Yoav Gallant used genocidal language and ordered mass war crimes in the occupied Gaza Strip on Monday in response to Hamas’s weekend assault and massacre of Israeli civilians, setting the stage for a large-scale escalation of the violence that has already led to the killing of at least 800 Israelis and more than 500 Palestinians."
[8]https://theintercept.com/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-war-crimes-palestinians/
Some additional sources describing the bombings and/or siege order as war crimes:
[9]https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/
[10]https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israel-commits-widespread-war-crimes-gaza-humanitarian-catastrophe-imminent
[11]https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20231010_revenge_policy_in_motion_israel_committing_war_crimes_in_gaza
For purposes of RS, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UN statements are more than sufficient.
Whatever your standard for mentioning anything in this section, note that the same standard ought to be applied to the preceding Palestinian section, which no one seems to be fussing about not explicitly saying "war crime" in every single source next to every single action. Note that I'm not disputing the war crimes mentioned in that section, just stressing the application of a consistent standard in the article. entropyandvodka | talk 04:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
You have just proved my point. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Why didn't you refer to the other allegations in your sources:
HRW: "Palestinian armed group’s apparent deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and taking of civilians as hostages amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law."
"...Palestinian armed groups have launched thousands of indiscriminate rockets that violate the laws of war and amount to war crimes."
And the sources regarding the UN council, only Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN envoy was the only one who claimed it was a war crime, depicting it a consensus when it's 2 members (together with Erdogan in a different source) is misleading and forcefully trying to build a false narrative. דוב (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The Palestinian envoy was specifically mentioned and the Israeli envoy was also specifically mentioned. Then, repeatedly, the Palestinian envoy's accusation was removed while the Israeli envoy's accusation was left in. That sparked a POV concern. These were not used as statements representative of the UN, and were properly attributed to the individual envoys.
I didn't mention the other allegations because in this discussion we were specifically addressing the improper removal of sourced material in the Israeli section. The material in the Palestinian section was left alone, and should stay up unless there's a legitimate issue. entropyandvodka | talk 06:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • In addition to the UN, and two other sources that alleged war crimes (see top of section), here is HRW[12]: Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime."VR talk 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Human Rights Watch has warned that while Hamas' attack absolutely constitutes a war crime, any collective punishment of Palestinian civilians through a siege could also be considered a war crime.[13]VR talk 03:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
      "could also be considered" doesn't mean it's a war crime, it means "it could be", but "Hamas' attack absolutely constitutes a war crime" means Hamas "absolutely constitutes a war crime". So currently we should add those claims to the purposed war crime paragraph. דוב (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The statements by UN and other sources/organizations make a clear and significant difference between the sides. Our page should do the same because we must follow the sources. But the current text does not do it. This should be fixedMy very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The premise here that only things that have been "declared" war crimes is belongs is nonsense, but here are several sources directly accusing Israel of having committed war crimes in this current war.

Those sources do it for you? nableezy - 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
No, that does not distinguish between fact, what's occurred, which events are legally considered "war crimes", and on the other hand what's threatened, feared, or unverified and unevaluated as crime. I have not seen RS that take the Hamas statement at face value. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
No, they very specifically say Israel has committed and is committing war crimes. Israel is committing widespread crimes against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, Euro-Med Monitor said. And you are dissembling on what they say about Gallant, they are not saying he threatened or what is feared, they are saying he announced the imposition of a siege and the denial of food, water and fuel. And that this is a war crime. You can pretend like the sources dont say that, but they do. nableezy - 22:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The first source, The Hill, starts with "A group of experts", which is fallacy and not considered credible in Wikipedia. Which experts? that's broad and doesn't specify anything. Second source, relief web, is a report that has been filed not an official declaration of an organization. Third source is the same one I addressed, 1 UN representative saying something doesn't automatically make it right. The U.N. consists of 192 countries with envoys, 1 envoy saying something doesn't make it official. If North Korea envoy claims his country has full democracy, is it what happens in realty? not necessarily. דוב (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Um, the group of experts are these:

Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967; Pedro Arrojo Agudo, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing; Aua Baldé (Chair-Rapporteur), Gabriella Citroni (Vice-Chair), Angkhana Neelapaijit, Grażyna Baranowska, Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences; Mama Fatima Singhateh, Special Rapporteur on the sale, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children; Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Ian Fry, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of Human Rights in the context of Climate Change; Javaid Rehman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; Ashwini, K.P, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Tomoya Obokata, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences; Fernand de Varennes, the Special Rapporteur on Minority issues; Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of freedom of opinion and expression; Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Dorothy Estrada Tanck (Chair), Ivana Radačić (Vice-chair), Elizabeth Broderick, Meskerem Geset Techane and Melissa Upreti, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls; Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea; Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia; Barbara G Reynolds (Chair), Bina D’Costa, Catherine S. Namakula, Dominique Day, Miriam Ekiudoko, Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Isha Dyfan, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia; Alexandra Xanthaki, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights; José Francisco Calí Tzay, Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples; Richard Bennett, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan; Obiora C. Okafor, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity; David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; Livingstone Sewanyana, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Alice Jill Edwards, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Muluka-Anne Miti-Drummond, Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism; Ravindran Daniel (Chair-Rapporteur), Sorcha MacLeod, Chris Kwaja, Carlos Salazar Couto, Working Group on the use of mercenaries; Surya Deva, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, and Ms. Paula Gaviria Betancur, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organisation and serve in their individual capacity.

The UN official is not an "envoy", he is the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report is from Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. You are asking things of the accusations against Israel that you are not of the accusations against Hamas. Sorry, but it does not work that way. nableezy - 23:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no "Pro" or "Against". Saying so is proof that you not following a neutral POV. As long as the cited personnel writing the article claim for war crime they are not International Court of Justice neither the Human Rights Watch, they are not certified to declare it as a war crime. And no, the envoy of Turkey or Palestine in the U.N. are also not certified to give a verdict regarding war crimes. דוב (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The International Court of Justice is a. part of the UN, and b, doesnt issue rulings of guilt on war crimes. As far as Human Rights Watch, a. they are not the arbiter of anything but one of many important sources, and b. has also said Israel has committed a war crime in this war. They have also reiterated that Israel's "systematic oppression in the OPT, coupled with inhumane acts committed against Palestinians as part of a policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians, amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution". I have no idea what your first sentence is about, but yes there are accusations made against Israel and accusations made against Hamas of war crimes in this war, and both need to be included. That is what WP:NPOV means. Not following what you think is a "neutral" POV. But including all significant views. And again, the UN official is not an envoy of a country, he is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. His name is Volker Türk, he is not Turkish (wtf?), he is Austrian, if that really matters somehow. He is a UN official, not an envoy to the UN. nableezy - 23:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Some of Hamas actions - hostage taking, killing unarmed hundreds point blank, etc. are was crimes on their face. No such actions by Israelis. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
That isnt how this works. But collective punishment, use of white phosphorous which is indiscriminate, are on their face war crimes. But either way, what matters is that reliable sources say that they are war crimes, and they do. nableezy - 00:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
You've linked to various opinions, not to adjudications or factual conclusions with demonstrable mainstream consensus. More important, intrinsically and to our readers, is to document what has occurred. It is informative to detail things like ...white phosphorous ...mass relocation ...destruction of Gaza hospital, etc. It is not informative or encyclopedic to tag unexplained and uncontextualized events with "war crime" etc. It is much stronger to describe what is verified to have been done. And, not to be minimizing the gravity of the situation, but remote, self-styled human rights observers are a dime a dozen. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There are no factual conclusions or adjudications for any of the claims of war crimes by any of the parties, there are however accusations against each from sources that reliable sources treat seriously and discuss at length, making them required to be included. You are, pretty obviously, attempting to maintain a standard for accusations against Israel that you do not for accusations against Hamas to be included. The war crime section has to contain all relevant views that per their weight in reliable sources. nableezy - 14:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Original research "Sister Souljah Moment"

The article says The event was described by Noah Rothman as a "Sister Souljah moment" — a radical change of opinion — within left-leaning parties in the Western World; many had prominent elected officials who generally took the side of or expressed sympathy with the Palestinian government in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Leaders of the Democratic Party in the United States, the Social Democrats in Germany, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, the Liberal Party in Canada, and many other left-wing and center-left parties throughout the Western World expressed support and sympathy for Israel in the war. Shri Thanedar of Michigan announced that he was resigning from the Democratic Socialists of America for the organization's stance on the matter. Polling in the United States indicated that the Democratic Party's sympathy and approval of Israel had skyrocketed in the aftermath; an overwhelming majority took its side and expressed greater sympathy for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Most of this looks like synthesis. Most of the sources do show that these parties took a pro-Israel stance, but almost none of the sources (except one) support the idea that there was a "radical change of opinion". The National Review source[14] that does talk about change, only talks about change in Biden, not change in Democrats as a whole and says nothing about changes in the entire Western World.

This whole section currently looks like OR.VR talk 06:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be an analysis of, if anything, the international reactions. This was split for a reason, and any analysis expressly about the international reactions should probably be moved to that page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It's sloppy, but there has been multiple polls showing radically altered opinion among center-left parties among many Western societies. (United States, United Kingdom, and a few others), although I agree it needs to be worded better. Per Fox News poll: "The main reason for the overall increase in support for Israel is Democrats have dramatically changed their position," says Republican Daron Shaw who conducts the Fox News survey with Democrat Chris Anderson. "They've moved from +7 Israel to +34, which undoubtedly reflects revulsion over the nature of the attacks.". I'm pulling up the other surveys I can find now. But there's been multiple articles writing about a shift in center-left parties among most of the major Western powers in the last few days.
It needs revised with better sourcing; not deleted. It's important information that doesn't seem to have an obvious spot outside of a separate section in the article. KlayCax (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This is synthesis, and an inaccurate synthesis. I'd say rewrite the first line to more accurately sum up Noah Rothman's commentary on Biden's shift, and remove the rest.Ceconhistorian (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (2)

There are many, many sources across all media channels that explain what really happened on October 7th. This page describes that very poorly. Hamas militants didn't "attack Israeli communities", They bombarded their way through the border (15 breaches, they brag about it themselves, really not hard to find this info) and obliterated whole villages. They went through houses, one by one, knocked on doors pretending to be Israeli soldiers. If people opened they got shot, burned, raped and kidnapped. Including Women, children and elderly. If people didn't open the door, they breached in anyone, and did the same things. If the residents were inside the safe room, Hamas burned the house to force them out. Hamas decapitated babies. They filmed their atrocities and bragged about them. They kidnapped 3yo kids. They sent videos and pictures through social media accounts of kidnapped Israelis to their families, to show how they killed and mutilated their loved ones.

This page does absolutely nothing representing reality as it is. I apologize if my request is emotional but it is veer difficult to see reality twisted this way. I understand you used sources you consider reliable, so the best I can do is provide a few others:

1. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/at-least-40-babies-killed-in-israel-hamas-war-report-4468830 2. https://news.yahoo.com/least-40-babies-beheaded-found-154607044.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE_2r9TylY4ZSwIFErNR07WoUwRYPv3YHWnot6nmj2GX6JqXqDZXX3xGuHCG7WieJNDeQXW1xIijfN6VOpXPDYLkzHQX61a_TFW6CbODntrK_SVTFCxN7Z9gc-nn4yIKd3Ix97b05wX7IZqT3NNwwy8vWFRWoypsaivil2vzzvW4 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iibO7SHbgo 4. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1712132220809298163 5. https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/hamas-attack-israel-war 6. https://www.foxnews.com/us/hamas-terrorist-sent-mother-video-son-girlfriends-gruesome-murder-israeli-reality-tv-star 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmDrd2giZzM 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nIvL-PUGwU TruthWikiReporter (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick reply. While I agree with much of what you have said, Wikipedia prefers perennial reliable sources. Here is a checklist for you to scan to reference your statements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Johncdraper (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust reference

Can someone remove this nonsense from the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense because it invokes historical incidents that have nothing to do with the current situation, by political actors seeking to rally military support; not encyclopaedic or relevant in any way. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
But it's still a fact that Jews weren't subjected to this huge cruelty since the Holocaust. BTW, sorry to call you a Holocaust denier. Aminabzz (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Why is it nonsense?! Are you a Holocaust denier? Aminabzz (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Attributed to Biden, seems he is mixing up Jews with Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier
Most Israelis are Jewish Parham wiki (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
And 25% are not. Also not only Jewish Israelis were killed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
But not all Jews are Israeli. That's the distinction to make. Judaism does not equate Israel. Talalnablus (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it is an unfortunate reference. But, it was said by Biden, so I don't see how it can be avoided. @Aminabzz:, do not suggest another editor is a Holocaust denier. WP:PA O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It should definitely be in the prose (likely in the international reactions subsection), I'm not sure if it being in the lede makes sense. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree. Just because Biden, the king of bloopers, utters something sensationalist, it doesn't automatically become lead-worthy ... disregarding the issue of his massive outspoken bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Also agree. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss Why? Parham wiki (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Because it's just another politician looking for a soundbite? It can stay as long as it is attributed to Biden. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Biden's opinions doesn't belong in the lede anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The majority of the victims in those sickening atrocities are Jews. Biden's acknowledgment aside, this is a fact with immense historical significance. A crucial fact that deserves inclusion here. LUC995 (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
And about two million Vietnamese (majority Buddhist) were killed by the US. Let's just report the facts and keep the language neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes it should be removed, biden’s personal opinion is not something that important or relevant to the lead content. Especially when we all know that politicians usually make fire and propaganda statements and even lies (as biden did yesterday about seeing “photos”) for socio-political goals. His statement definitely shouldn’t be included in the lead. Stephan rostie (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done But didn't add to the body. Last revision before I removed it if anyone wants to add it elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&oldid=1179795038 FunLater (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerns Regarding the Comparison Made by Joe Biden to the Holocaust.

The line WP:UNDUE appears to give excessive weight to a statement rhetorical wartime statement made by a political figure. While it is essential to include notable reactions and statements from world leaders, the current wording places disproportionate emphasis on this particular statement. The lede section should aim to provide a balanced summary of the conflict without favoring one perspective over others.

The comparison of events in the "2023 Israel–Hamas war" to the Holocaust is indeed inappropriate. Such a comparison can be seen as insensitive and disproportionate. The Holocaust was a systematic genocide resulting in the deaths of 6 million people, perpetrated through the forced deportation of millions to death camps. In contrast, the current conflict involves a different set of circumstances, characterized by ongoing back-and-forth rocket and missile attacks over decades, resulting in a much lower casualty count. This juxtaposition constitutes an egregious use of the false equivalence fallacy, which contradicts the principles of WP:Neutral. StarkReport (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Such comparisons may also amount to minimizing or downplaying the Holocaust, which is a form of Holocaust denial. That is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. WillowCity (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As seen in the discussion above, the consensus of most users is to have it removed from the lede but not necessarily somewhere in the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I removed it, but didn't add it to the body. FunLater (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm OK with not included anywhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch in lead

An editor recently put Human Rights Watch's comments (exclusively) into the lead. This seems like a bit of a WP: Weight and/or WP: Crystal question to me.

What does everyone here think? KlayCax (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of this above. I objected to the use of the passive voice, and I object even more strenuously to the current phrasing ("There were ... allegations of war crimes"). Not only is this uncited, it does not say who made the allegations, or against whom. Don't know why the references were deleted. WillowCity (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It was removed from the lead of the article, not the body. The problem with the wording is that it suggests that the Human Rights Watch viewpoint is the overwhelming predominant one among the international community and literature. Unlike something such as Israel settlements, many figures — including on the left in the Western World — have justified at least some limited form of blockade on Gaza. Many have also now accused Egypt of committing war crimes for not letting Gazans into Egypt.
I understand that the wording is partially awkward: but this seems to be an instance where a generic "allegations of war crimes" is more WP: NPOV. KlayCax (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
KlayCax out of curiosity, who exactly as justified the collective punishment of Gaza civilians? VR talk 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
^this. As well, war crimes are critical context and many readers will not read beyond the lede. We have a duty to present a full and accurate picture, not to use WP:WEASELWORDS to avoid offence when bold language, referring to particular sources, is available. My above suggestion referred to the UNHRC. If you can cite to a particular reliable source that refers to Egypt, that may be appropriate for inclusion, although I think it would be more appropriate to refer to allegations against the main belligerents in the lede. WillowCity (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The United States, Germany, Keir Starmer of the British Labour Party, et al. and several other organizations/polities have stated that they don't consider the present Israeli actions to be a war crime.
This seems to me a different situation than the Israeli settlement situation. (Where there is overwhelming condemnation that it is an illegal.) @WillowCity: @Vice regent:. KlayCax (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Are they saying that Israel is not preventing food and medicine into Gaza, or that Israeli prevention of food and medicine doesn't constitute collective punishment or that collective punishment is not a war crime? VR talk 15:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they are saying it doesn't constitute collective punishment. At least that's what I'm interpreting their comments as. @Vice regent:. KlayCax (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, can you post links that say the Israeli prevention of food and medicine doesn't constitute collective punishment?VR talk 17:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any actual links to sources? "Keir Starmer says" isn't gonna fly. I am not sure we should uncritically accept the German position on what is or is not a war crime, given their checkered history in that regard. And none of this changes the fact that collective punishment is unequivocally a war crime under international law, regardless of attempts by Israel's allies to obfuscate that fact. WillowCity (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's an article on Starmer saying it. Several other Western leaders and organizations have stated that they wouldn't consider it the definition of a war crime under international law.
In contrast, all of the above have overwhelmingly condemned Israeli settlement in the occupied territories. KlayCax (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
If it becomes widely agreed upon that Israeli actions during the war meet the standards of being a war crimes I wouldn't oppose inclusion. I just don't think we're there yet.
Human Rights Watch is controversial on its own. "War crimes" seems more neutral than specifically focusing on any actor. KlayCax (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
You cite an opinion piece for that proposition. Per WP:RS, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So you've established that Robert L. Bernstein doesn't like HRW, not the fact that HRW is "controversial". WillowCity (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Robert L. Bernstein was the founder of the organization. He criticized the organization in 2009, writing: "Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.. Other sources in the academic literature make similar claims against them. Listing both Hamas and Israel implies that their reactions have been roughly viewed by the international community as roughly equivalent; "war crimes" would clearly meet the standards WP: NPOV. KlayCax (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is that there doesn't seem to be an obvious WP: NPOV to adjudicate this outside of a generic war crimes. Giving the Human Rights Watch perspective exclusively is a question of WP: Weight. Instead, the claims of Amnesty and HRW should be preserved, while mentions of war crimes by particular factions should be removed from the lead. (Both Hamas, Egypt, Israel, and other Palestinian militants.) KlayCax (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not think it is in the weeds to ask for a clear indication that HRW is controversial in the context of a thread about whether their comments are being given WP:UNDUE, but that is neither here nor there. On review of WP:WEASELWORDS I accept the logic of excluding reference to particular sources in the lede, provided they are given due weight in the body of the article. WillowCity (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Right, that's what I'm saying. That is why mentioning war crimes without specification is the best option here. Any other choice presents massive WP: NPOV issues. KlayCax (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
All these statements are accusations/allegations until such time as adjudicated years from now, if ever. Nevertheless, there does seem to be sourced agreement that both sides are now in the "war crimes" arena. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, the opinions of one person or group shouldn't be in the lead of any article. The lead is supposed to be a summary, so it can summarize the main ideas of what's being said more broadly, but it shouldn't laser focus on any specific opinion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (3)

Please change the mention of médecins sans frontières to the correct spelling as demonstrated here, under "casualties" in the sub header "causalities in Palestine". In addition the report from MSF is mentioned twice in said section, once as being from "doctors without borders", with both mentions being linked to the page for MSF. Please remove the second of the mentions in the text and simply move the cite to the first mention. XeCyranium (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@XeCyranium:  Partly done: I've made the first two changes, I'm a little confused about the third one. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes. As for the third request I believe the sources for the casualties mentioned by MSF twice are referring to the same two people at the same hospitals, so only one mention is necessary. Given the vagueness of the BBC article I can't be certain but given they're referring to strikes on a hospital where one driver and one nurse were casualties I'm almost certain it's the same event. Also the second mention of MSF is still linked instead of being plain text. XeCyranium (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@XeCyranium:  Done I've removed the duplicate mentions since they all seem to stem from this tweet. The duplicate link seems to have already been removed. Moved this request from the archive ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in the lead

The second paragraph in the lead starts as follows: “Before the Palestinian attack, Israeli–Palestinians clashes…” It should be “Israeli–Palestinian clashes”, not “Israeli–Palestinians clashes”. Hero7373 (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Appears to fixed already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

qatar gas

in the Economics section its said that qatar threatened to halt the export of gas as a native arabic speaker i searched about this info and i didn't find anything in fact i found that qatar just signed deal with france to supply them with gas for 27 years. أحمد توفيق (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed. Can be restored with better sourcing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
You are correct, the source was wrong. My mistake.
Here is Doha News addressing it: https://dohanews.co/gaza-experts-debunk-fake-news-on-qatar-gas-supply-threats/ Genabab (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

i found qatari source that say this is fake news (Doha News)--أحمد توفيق (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this image really in the public domain?

[15] FunLater (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie re-added the image with the following edit summary: "The photo is freely available on social media and journals taken by an unknown palestinian who published it. i chose the wrong licensing statue when i first uploaded the photo" FunLater (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
All the "unknown author" images seem to violate copyright. FunLater (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I removed the images. (I'm replying to myself by the way) FunLater (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
No. Sent to SD on Commons. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. FunLater (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (3)

Additional Information & Citation for "Foreign and dual-national casualties"

Please change the deaths number of the People's Republic of China to 3, and the missing number to 2.[1]
Yx6rx (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done WP:GLOBALTIMES is unreliable. Try to find a reliable source. FunLater (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Here. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/10/what-we-know-the-number-of-foreigners-killed-missing-abducted-in-israel
It says all the numbers for missing, killed and abducted. Yx6rx (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Already done by another editor. Yue🌙 20:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202310/1299729.shtml

Saleh al-Arouri interview

i think it's worth mentioning Saleh al-Arouri interview with arabic aljazeera he said that Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and hamas didn't killed israeli civilians but what happened according to him that gaza people when they heared about the collapse of the border fence they rushed to israel border and started attacking isreali civilians so in conclusion he say that gaza civilans killed most of israeli civilans ( here is link to aljazeera but it's in arabic [16] أحمد توفيق (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

أحمد توفيق Based on that source can you propose some text? Or you can add it while being WP:BOLD.VR talk 17:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Vice regent this paragraph in the article

وشدد المسؤول في حماس على أن التعليمات كانت منذ البداية لدى مقاتلي القسام بالالتزام بتعليمات الدين الإسلامي في الحروب، وهي عدم قتل المدنيين والنساء والأطفال والشيوخ، وعدم المس بمصالح الناس المدنية، والاكتفاء فقط بمقاتلة الجنود والمسلحيين.

لكن الذي جرى، وفقا للعاروري، أن بعض أهالي القطاع عندما سمعوا بانهيار الحدود مع غلاف غزة سارعوا لدخول الغلاف، وحصل هناك بعض الفوضى

which translates to The Hamas official said that the Qassam fighters were instructed from the beginning to obey the instructions of the Islamic religion in wars, which are not to kill civilians, women, children and the elderly and not to harm people’s civil interests, and to only fight soldiers and militants. But what happened, according to him, was that when some of the people of the Gaza Strip heard about the collapse of the border with the israel, they rushed to enter israel, and some chaos occurred there. and in the video he admits that israeli civilans were killed but by mistake according to him and that hamas attacked israel with 1200 fighter .--أحمد توفيق (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

Reformatted the timeline since the way the subheading Israeli response was formatted implied that everything after 7 October was made by Israel. Will need to include specific incidents in Gaza after 7 October in their respective dates. Borgenland (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Noah smith?

I don't see how the blogpost of Noah smith is very important to the point of that part of the article, regardless of how many twitter followers they may have. Having just Victoria Brownworth (who writes for a newspaper and not a blogpost) is probably enough to get the point across? Genabab (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are Palestinians still present in some Israeli communities?

The map displayed indicates that there are a handful of Israeli communities near the Gaza border with Palestinian militant presence. However, this indicates Israel has regained control of every community within Israel. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B8:A105:9DF4:68CE (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli settlers attack Palestinian funeral in West Bank?

The following statement in the article isn't supported:

"In the West Bank, two Palestinians were killed after Israeli settlers interrupted a funeral procession for Palestinians killed in prior settler attacks and opened fire.[17]"

The cited source for the paragraph isn't related to the statement.

Please remove this or add a reliable source.

Great work! Thank you!

- 103.142.109.144 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"slaughtering civilians in neighboring Israeli communities"

change "slaughtering" to "killing" as slaughtering is too emotional and unencyclopedic. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B8:A105:9DF4:68CE (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done FunLater (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I've also made a similar change in the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_9&oldid=1235784484"