![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
User:Iskandar323 you add title "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." ther are many References. What is dispute in this article? I do not undersand why you add this title? Hanay ( talk) 09:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Hanay, Homerethegreat, דוד שי and other editors contributing to this page. Thanks for your contributions, and sorry that some of the Wikipedia policies are frustrating you. Wikipedia aims to provide encyclopedic articles past on secondary sources. Its policies assist with this, but can be irritating, especially when the topic is as emotional as this one.
The prose and references you’ve brought together here on the whole are good but they’re not coming together in a way required by Wikipedia’s verification policy WP:V. Every fact in the article needs to be supported by an inline reference which clearly supports that fact, which isn’t currently the case.
in addition the article needs to be written in Wikipedia’s “voice” which as an encyclopedia is a neutral voice WP:NPOV. This is also difficult because you’re angry and you want to write in your own angry voice. You can do that in a blog or other venue, but it won’t work here because uninvolved editors will revert anything that is not neutral.
Finally another policy that you may find even more difficult is that Wikipedia does not allow value laden words like “terrorist” MOS:TERRORIST. In this case the word “militant” is used instead. Again, I understand that you consider them terrorists, but Wikipedia must remain neutral.
I and other neutral editors will be helping you write the article so that it meets the various requirements. I’ll explain each major change I make here and you’re welcome to debate them.
if you want to see other articles related to kibbutz etc. attacks which have already been through this process, open the blue box under the article’s main info box (2023 Israel-Hamas war). Under the “attacks” subheading there are many (unfortunately) articles the same as this one. They aren’t perfect but they show how editors work collaboratively to try and get informative, neutral, verified articles, especially on such difficult topics. Ayenaee ( talk) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I’ve set out below the refs I’ll use. Mostly those we had plus a couple more for additional verification. I found one Hebrew article in English (same source). The other two are central to verification of the timeline so I kept those. I’ve indicated broadly where the refs will be used.
Only includes summary of main content, so doesn’t need citations because it takes them from the article content it summarizes .
I’ll citify these later:
The use of each ref may change as I change the text to fit its ref. Ayenaee ( talk) 13:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
having reviewed the references, I believe they demonstrate the notability and verifiability (after changes to the article text) of this article. I’m therefore removing the tag. Please discuss here if you disagree.
I will now proceed with the rewrite - it will take about 24 hrs (unfortunately my job expects me to work to earn my living 😔 so can’t wiki full time). Anyone else is obviously welcome to give the rewrite a try. Ayenaee ( talk) 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The links in this section are actually citations for the article. I have moved them to the references above. See the guideline WP:EXTERNAL for when it is appropriate to use this section rather than inline refs. I don’t think the section is needed in this article. Ayenaee ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Ignoring refs that don’t give a breakdown of both killed and kidnapped, there are:
I therefore propose the following in describing the foreign casualties:
None of the refs mention deaths or kidnapping of civilian kibbutz members. The refs seem to indicate That these were prevented by the security team (but this is ambiguous). The one reference mentions that an unknown number of people driving on the road outside the kibbutz were shot, but no definite numbers are given. If anyone has additional referenced detail please give it here.
only the two brothers are mentioned as deaths from the IDF. If anyone has additional referenced detail please give it here.
The original article mentioned that 30 Hamas militants were involved. I cannot find this number mentioned in any of the refs. There’s a mention of 8 militants on 4 motorcycles. Refs seem to intimate that more were involved but I can’t see clear numbers. The original article also says that ALL Hamas militants were killed, but again I can’t find this in any reference. This statement does seem to be contradicted by one ref which discusses a militant caught at Alumim, and refers to a video of him. I’m leaving these in for now with citation needed tags. But if refs can’t be found these will need to be weakened to mention the “at least 8 militants” and “a large number of militants killed, with at least one captured” if you now where these numbers come from please give the refs here. Ayenaee ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion I have put up a new version of the lead:
I have completed the rewrite of the body of the article. I don’t expect to do any more major editing from now.
I have made the following major changes to the article body:
I wish everyone peace and good editing. Ayenaee ( talk) 21:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Editor אומנות made a good faith change to the last sentence of the article. They mentioned to me on my talk page that they thought this was a minor change reverting to wording from the original article. Since I applied my mind to how to use the citation in this sentence I told them that I don't think the change is minor (although I understand why they made the change), and wanted to bring it here for further discussion. The edit correctly reflects what the source says so I have not reverted.
The RS states that the IDF gave it a video of a hamas militant stating the instructions he was given. The video is not included in the report - although nothing indicates that such a video doesn’t exist. If those instructions were given then they would be war crimes. The new wording is not wrong, it expresses exactly what the source says. The difference is that I reported that instructions which would be war crimes may have been given without mentioning what the instructions were, while the revision mentions what those instructions allegedly were (“to carry out beheadings, amputation of legs, and permission by his group leaders to rape the corpse of a girl”).
My concern was that we don’t know the circumstances of the video. I’d have the same concerns if the video related to kidnapped Israeli civilians or soldiers. I’d like to think that all combatants follow the Geneva Conventions relating to prisoners, but to do so would be naive (related to all wars and combatants). So although it’s clear the source is reporting what it heard a prisoner say on the video, we don’t know what if any coercion was used to get those statements, which are against the prisoner’s best interest. So my question is whether it’s appropriate to use statements from an RS where those statements may have been coerced (by any side).
To acknowledge this I made an editorial decision to use the RS ref, but to leave out the actual instructions - which are there for a reader if they click through to the resource. Since neither approach is “wrong” I would like others to decide on the approach.
Thoughts on which way we should go? Has this been discussed elsewhere on wiki? Ayenaee ( talk) 21:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
User:Iskandar323 you add title "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." ther are many References. What is dispute in this article? I do not undersand why you add this title? Hanay ( talk) 09:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Hanay, Homerethegreat, דוד שי and other editors contributing to this page. Thanks for your contributions, and sorry that some of the Wikipedia policies are frustrating you. Wikipedia aims to provide encyclopedic articles past on secondary sources. Its policies assist with this, but can be irritating, especially when the topic is as emotional as this one.
The prose and references you’ve brought together here on the whole are good but they’re not coming together in a way required by Wikipedia’s verification policy WP:V. Every fact in the article needs to be supported by an inline reference which clearly supports that fact, which isn’t currently the case.
in addition the article needs to be written in Wikipedia’s “voice” which as an encyclopedia is a neutral voice WP:NPOV. This is also difficult because you’re angry and you want to write in your own angry voice. You can do that in a blog or other venue, but it won’t work here because uninvolved editors will revert anything that is not neutral.
Finally another policy that you may find even more difficult is that Wikipedia does not allow value laden words like “terrorist” MOS:TERRORIST. In this case the word “militant” is used instead. Again, I understand that you consider them terrorists, but Wikipedia must remain neutral.
I and other neutral editors will be helping you write the article so that it meets the various requirements. I’ll explain each major change I make here and you’re welcome to debate them.
if you want to see other articles related to kibbutz etc. attacks which have already been through this process, open the blue box under the article’s main info box (2023 Israel-Hamas war). Under the “attacks” subheading there are many (unfortunately) articles the same as this one. They aren’t perfect but they show how editors work collaboratively to try and get informative, neutral, verified articles, especially on such difficult topics. Ayenaee ( talk) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I’ve set out below the refs I’ll use. Mostly those we had plus a couple more for additional verification. I found one Hebrew article in English (same source). The other two are central to verification of the timeline so I kept those. I’ve indicated broadly where the refs will be used.
Only includes summary of main content, so doesn’t need citations because it takes them from the article content it summarizes .
I’ll citify these later:
The use of each ref may change as I change the text to fit its ref. Ayenaee ( talk) 13:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
having reviewed the references, I believe they demonstrate the notability and verifiability (after changes to the article text) of this article. I’m therefore removing the tag. Please discuss here if you disagree.
I will now proceed with the rewrite - it will take about 24 hrs (unfortunately my job expects me to work to earn my living 😔 so can’t wiki full time). Anyone else is obviously welcome to give the rewrite a try. Ayenaee ( talk) 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The links in this section are actually citations for the article. I have moved them to the references above. See the guideline WP:EXTERNAL for when it is appropriate to use this section rather than inline refs. I don’t think the section is needed in this article. Ayenaee ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Ignoring refs that don’t give a breakdown of both killed and kidnapped, there are:
I therefore propose the following in describing the foreign casualties:
None of the refs mention deaths or kidnapping of civilian kibbutz members. The refs seem to indicate That these were prevented by the security team (but this is ambiguous). The one reference mentions that an unknown number of people driving on the road outside the kibbutz were shot, but no definite numbers are given. If anyone has additional referenced detail please give it here.
only the two brothers are mentioned as deaths from the IDF. If anyone has additional referenced detail please give it here.
The original article mentioned that 30 Hamas militants were involved. I cannot find this number mentioned in any of the refs. There’s a mention of 8 militants on 4 motorcycles. Refs seem to intimate that more were involved but I can’t see clear numbers. The original article also says that ALL Hamas militants were killed, but again I can’t find this in any reference. This statement does seem to be contradicted by one ref which discusses a militant caught at Alumim, and refers to a video of him. I’m leaving these in for now with citation needed tags. But if refs can’t be found these will need to be weakened to mention the “at least 8 militants” and “a large number of militants killed, with at least one captured” if you now where these numbers come from please give the refs here. Ayenaee ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion I have put up a new version of the lead:
I have completed the rewrite of the body of the article. I don’t expect to do any more major editing from now.
I have made the following major changes to the article body:
I wish everyone peace and good editing. Ayenaee ( talk) 21:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Editor אומנות made a good faith change to the last sentence of the article. They mentioned to me on my talk page that they thought this was a minor change reverting to wording from the original article. Since I applied my mind to how to use the citation in this sentence I told them that I don't think the change is minor (although I understand why they made the change), and wanted to bring it here for further discussion. The edit correctly reflects what the source says so I have not reverted.
The RS states that the IDF gave it a video of a hamas militant stating the instructions he was given. The video is not included in the report - although nothing indicates that such a video doesn’t exist. If those instructions were given then they would be war crimes. The new wording is not wrong, it expresses exactly what the source says. The difference is that I reported that instructions which would be war crimes may have been given without mentioning what the instructions were, while the revision mentions what those instructions allegedly were (“to carry out beheadings, amputation of legs, and permission by his group leaders to rape the corpse of a girl”).
My concern was that we don’t know the circumstances of the video. I’d have the same concerns if the video related to kidnapped Israeli civilians or soldiers. I’d like to think that all combatants follow the Geneva Conventions relating to prisoners, but to do so would be naive (related to all wars and combatants). So although it’s clear the source is reporting what it heard a prisoner say on the video, we don’t know what if any coercion was used to get those statements, which are against the prisoner’s best interest. So my question is whether it’s appropriate to use statements from an RS where those statements may have been coerced (by any side).
To acknowledge this I made an editorial decision to use the RS ref, but to leave out the actual instructions - which are there for a reader if they click through to the resource. Since neither approach is “wrong” I would like others to decide on the approach.
Thoughts on which way we should go? Has this been discussed elsewhere on wiki? Ayenaee ( talk) 21:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)