![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 30 | ArchiveĀ 31 | ArchiveĀ 32 | ArchiveĀ 33 | ArchiveĀ 34 | ArchiveĀ 35 | ā | ArchiveĀ 40 |
Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?
United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah
Option 1 ā Add X
Option 2 ā Do not add X
Option 3 ā 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. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | The ArabāIsraeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents.is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents,as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly
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? Pincrete ( talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete ( talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war.No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they wonāt start a war". An expert is quoted saying:
āHezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,ā said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut(italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb ( talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
sits on the sidelines of the conflictand
will enter the war if...(future tense). That's from yesterday.
inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war(hypothetical)
The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah(implying they are not yet involved).
āAll Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,ā said a senior Lebanese official(implying they haven't entered the war yet)
Israelās military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah āis mainly in the contact line.ā Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called ārules of engagement,ā which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel(as explicit as can be)
Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamasā war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border.They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
If itās a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war](future tense).
Hizbollahās entry into the war would have profound implications, and
Hizbollahās participation could also trigger, and
Joining the war would be(all hypotheticals).
if Hezbollah were to enter the war(hypothetical)
Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamasā Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight.
- From
AP
While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations.
- From
BBC
In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah ā which has previously vowed to destroy Israel ā has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollahās next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesnāt more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza ā but also has the power to stop it.
Vox
Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.
Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a āneutral.ā
Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. ā Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador ( talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article.No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki ( talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Some remarks in addition to my closure comment. There is likely to be a consensus against including Iran, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Russia in the infobox, but this discussion largely ignored these as individual options and an explicit consensus on those could not be determined. There may be consensus to include Houthis and Hezbollah, as there may be for United States, but as they are already included, I consider there to be less need to start a discussion on inclusion for those. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm the number of IDPs in Israel is still 500k? We have that cited both in the infobox and in the lede based on a 16 October Barron's article, but by 22 October, Times of Israel reported 200k [12] and by 21 November, The Guardian reported 126k [13]. CarmenEsparzaAmoux ( talk) 02:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Israel admitted to firing and killing 3 of the Israeli hostages who were unarmed, signaled that they were surrendering and posed no threat to IDF. This has raised suspicion that Israel is intentionally killing unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza. [15]. Do we incorporate this new info into the article? Crampcomes ( talk) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
On 15 December, the IDF released a statement announcing that they had killed three of their own hostages by friendly fire. According to the Israeli military, they "mistakenly identified three Israeli hostages as a threat" during operations in Shuja'iyya and subsequently fired at them, killing them.[367][368][369] According to an Israeli military official on 16 December, the three hostages were shirtless and were carrying "a stick with a white cloth on itā when an Israeli soldier, who declared them to be āterroristsā after feeling āthreatenedā, opened fire, killing two hostages and injuring the third, who was killed by Israeli reinforcements.That is probably sufficient (it has a lot of coverage, so it deserves that much, but ultimately it's one small event in a massive conflict, so unless there's a ton of sustained coverage it doesn't need more than it has now.) We also do mention the larger concerns related to civilian deaths in the lead (
widespread civilian deaths have led to both Israel and Hamas being accused of war crimes.) We can't really frame it as them killing people indiscriminately in the article voice unless there's a lot of coverage that does the same thing, which doesn't really reflect the sources you listed here (they plainly describe it as an accident.) Maybe we could add a cautiously-worded sentence to that paragraph about the longer-term implications of the incident specifically, if there's a lot of sources discussing that. See eg. [16] and [17]; the first one in particular is probably better for what you're going for than the sources you presented. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
On that part inlead that says, "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip,.." can it be changed to "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip during a music festival,..." I want to be safer than sorry by suggesting adding something in the lead even though I meet qualifications to edit this article. Cwater1 ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
In the casualties part infobox, the spillover casualties from non-belligerents have been added to the Hamas side of the infobox, except for some of the Egyptians. This implies a connection between Hamas and casualties.
On the Hamas side, the Lebanon listing mixes fighters from declared belligerents and civilians into the same number. The Syrian listing isn't correct according to the source used, includes declared combatants, Syrian officials and civilians under the same listing. The Egypt listing is entirely one incident in which Israel mistakenly targeted Egyptian border guards. Egypt is also listed under the Israel side of the section.
Were these added before the belligerents were clearly identified?
As a separate issue, the entire section mixes civilians and soldiers. I understand that it's a bit difficult to separate on both sides here, but the numbers and/or the presentation of those numbers should at least reflect that the vast majority of casualties on either side were civilians.
Acebulf ( talk | contribs) 17:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the Palestinian and Israeli casualties are based on claims by Hamas government and Israel respectively. However media reports have called out both as unreliable. Hamas is known for not distinguishing between civilians and fighters, as well as conflating numbers. Israel has also been accused of conflating its civilian death toll.
In addition, the casualties section does not include claims by the opposing side, example Israel's tally of Palestinians or Hamas' claims of number of IDF killed. Since both Hamas and Israel are unreliable, it's not wise to prefer one over the other in casualties section for Palestinians and Israel respectively. Linkin Prankster ( talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War in Sudan (2023) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. ā RMCD bot 17:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to produce an outline
outline
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 IsraelāHamas war[edit]". Bot: I. Introduction A. Definition and background of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Overview of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war C. Importance and significance of the war II. Background A. Historical context of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Previous conflicts and ceasefires C. Factors leading up to the 2023 war 1. Political tensions 2. Socio-economic factors 3. Regional dynamics III. Causes and Triggers A. Immediate causes of the war B. Key incidents leading to escalation C. Role of external factors and international relations 1. Influence of neighboring countries 2. Role of international organizations and superpowers IV. Course of the War A. Timeline of major events and battles B. Strategies and tactics employed by Israel and Hamas C. Humanitarian impact and civilian casualties D. Role of media and propaganda V. International Response A. Reactions from regional and international actors B. Mediation efforts and peace initiatives C. Role of the United Nations and other international organizations D. Arms trade and military support to the conflicting parties VI. Aftermath A. Ceasefire agreements and negotiations B. Impact on the Israeli and Palestinian societies C. Political consequences and power dynamics in the region D. Rebuilding efforts and humanitarian aid VII. Controversies and Criticisms A. Allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses B. Debate on proportionality and self-defense C. Criticisms of international community's response D. Challenges to achieving a lasting peace VIII. Analysis and Perspectives A. Evaluation of the war's outcomes and achievements B. Examination of long-term implications for the region C. Perspectives on the future of the Israel-Hamas conflict D. Potential for reconciliation and peace-building IX. Notable Individuals and Organizations A. Key political figures and military leaders involved B. Humanitarian organizations and activists working in the region C. Analysts and experts providing insights on the conflict X. See Also A. Related conflicts and wars in the Middle East B. Notable peace agreements and negotiations C. Other articles on the Israel-Hamas conflict XI. References A. Credible sources and citations for the article's content B. Books, academic papers, and official reports C. News articles and interviews with experts XII. External Links A. Links to relevant websites, official statements, and reports B. Organizations working towards peace and conflict resolution |
Bot structure:
Current structure:
There are issues with the bot's suggested structure, but it's right that the current structure is bloated. I.e currently there is background and historical context, these should be amalgamated. Other consolidation is achievable, Tom B ( talk) 17:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New ZealandāTasmania conflict".
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New ZealandāTasmania conflict". Chatbot: 2023 New ZealandāTasmania Conflict == Background == === Historical Relations === Overview of the historical diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties between New Zealand and Tasmania Past conflicts or collaborations that shaped the relationship === Pre-Conflict Tensions === Examination of pre-existing issues and disputes that contributed to the strained relations Analysis of political, social, and economic factors leading up to the conflict == Causes == === Immediate Triggers === Detailed exploration of the specific events or incidents that sparked the conflict Analysis of how these triggers escalated into open hostilities === Root Causes === Examination of deeper political, economic, and social factors contributing to the conflict Historical grievances or systemic issues that played a role == Participants == === New Zealand's Involvement === Overview of New Zealand's political stance, military contributions, and diplomatic actions Key figures and decision-makers in New Zealand during the conflict === Tasmania's Role === Overview of Tasmania's position, military strategies, and diplomatic engagements Key figures and decision-makers in Tasmania during the conflict === International Actors === Roles and contributions of other regional and international actors Involvement of neighboring countries, international organizations, and peacekeeping efforts == Timeline == === Early Events === Chronological account of events leading up to the outbreak of the conflict Political developments, diplomatic tensions, and military buildups === Key Battles === Detailed chronology of significant military engagements and operations Naval, air, and ground battles with strategic importance === Diplomatic Developments === Overview of diplomatic efforts, negotiations, and peace talks throughout the conflict Key milestones in diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Tasmania == Impact == === Humanitarian Consequences === Examination of the impact on civilian populations, refugees, and displaced persons Assessment of humanitarian aid and response efforts during and after the conflict === Economic and Environmental Impact === Analysis of the economic toll and environmental consequences of the conflict Long-term effects on industries, infrastructure, and ecosystems === Post-Conflict Challenges === Assessment of the challenges faced by both New Zealand and Tasmania in the aftermath Reconstruction, reconciliation, and efforts to rebuild trust == International Response == === Diplomatic Reactions === Overview of how the international community responded diplomatically to the conflict Sanctions, condemnations, or endorsements from other nations and organizations === Peacekeeping Efforts === Roles played by international peacekeeping forces, if any, during and after the conflict Successes and challenges in maintaining peace and stability == Media Coverage == === Media Narratives === Analysis of how the conflict was portrayed in the media of New Zealand, Tasmania, and internationally Impact of media narratives on public perception and international opinion === Propaganda and Misinformation === Examination of any instances of propaganda or misinformation during the conflict Impact on public understanding and international relations == Controversies and Criticisms == === War Crimes Allegations === Overview of any allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses during the conflict International responses and investigations into these allegations === Criticisms of International Actors === Examination of criticisms directed at regional and international actors involved in the conflict Evaluation of the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and peace initiatives == Reconciliation Efforts == === Post-Conflict Diplomacy === Overview of diplomatic initiatives aimed at rebuilding relations between New Zealand and Tasmania Bilateral talks, agreements, and joint efforts for regional stability === Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction === Examination of international aid efforts and reconstruction projects in the affected regions Collaborative initiatives for recovery and development == See Also == === Related Conflicts === Links to articles on conflicts with similar themes, causes, or outcomes === Diplomatic Initiatives === Links to articles on diplomatic efforts and negotiations involving New Zealand and Tasmania == References == === Citations === Citations and sources for information used in the article === Further Reading === Additional resources for readers interested in more in-depth exploration of the topic |
I asked ChatBot v4 (trained to Apr 2023):
outline
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 IsraelāHamas war[edit]". Introduction Brief overview of the conflict. Key dates and locations. Primary parties involved (Israel and Hamas). Background Historical context leading up to the 2023 conflict. Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas. Political and social conditions in the region prior to 2023. Prelude to the War Specific events that triggered the conflict in 2023. Diplomatic efforts, if any, before the outbreak of hostilities. Statements and positions of the involved parties. Timeline of the War A chronological account of major events, battles, and military operations. Notable incidents and turning points in the conflict. International Response Reactions from key international players (e.g., United Nations, United States, European Union). Economic and military aid or sanctions by other countries. Efforts at mediation or peace talks. Humanitarian Impact Casualty figures and demographic breakdown. Impact on civilian populations, including displacement and refugee crisis. Reports from humanitarian organizations. Media Coverage and Propaganda How the war was reported in local and international media. Use of propaganda and information warfare tactics by the involved parties. Analysis Military strategies and tactics used by Israel and Hamas. Political and strategic objectives of each side. Assessments by military and political analysts. Aftermath and Consequences Immediate outcomes of the conflict. Long-term implications for the region and the involved parties. Post-war reconstruction and reconciliation efforts. |
Chat GPT 4.0 structure:
Current structure
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which article should
Operation Al-Aqsa Flood redirect too?
Previous or relevant discussions on this: 1, 2, 3, 4 (redirect's history). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
See below significant opposition to any rename; however, arguments in favor of some rename were very strong. The title that received overwhelming support is the one chosen and will serve as the highest and best title", which shows that there was even a clear consensus that the name "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" was for the attack article and not the overall war article. Also, per Wikipedia policy, don't we keep the original name of an article (especially a CTOPS article) directed to the new-name for the article? Either way, I have to go strongly with option 2. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I am okay if the ministry of health being controlled by Hamas is mentioned sparsely, but this attribution being abused by certain bad-faith editor who wants to imply unreliability of the ministry of health is simply unacceptable. -- Sameboat - åč ( talk Ā· contri.) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
While the collapse of Gazaās health system has made it challenging to track exact numbers, the World Health Organization has reported at least 369,000 cases of infectious diseases since the war began, using data collected from the Gaza Health Ministry and UNRWA, the U.N. agency that cares for Palestinians ā a staggering increase from before the war., Another one:
The Gaza Health Ministry said that 73 bodies and 123 injured people had been brought to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, in the city of Deir al Balah, in the past 24 hours. The circumstances of the deaths and injuries were not immediately known, and the health ministry did not elaborate. But aid workers have described intense bombardment by Israeli forces, which say they are advancing on the major southern city of Khan Younis to root out Hamas militants there.nableezy - 16:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
strong declared POV. Didn't see that on RSPSS.
we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weightare the reason we have a systemic bias problem. "Non-English" or "Non-Western" is not synonymous with "unreliable".
[Gaza] MoH communications and mortality reporting collapsed on Nov 10, 2023. The latest data comes from the PA ministry of health in Ramalla. Alaexis Āæquestion? 09:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the current consensus that it's not worth mentioning why certain sources believe it is a genocide? The constituent case for such has other attaching sources with regard to domicide, cultural genocide, material necessities for life, access of the international community, rate of loss of civilian life, dehumanization, confiscation, and noted expressions of intent? I think that's worth discussing how we explore this. My personal view is that if we err, we err on the side of UNDUE for those most marginalized. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Is the current consensus that we disfavor Gaza sources as WP:NotRs in spite of the control of access and loss of life in civilian journalism? I should think it is our duty to broaden it. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Is the current consensus that we have no intersection between loss of life in civilian journalism in Gaza and our ability to provide WP:RS as a volunteer community? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
And I'm not quite sure where the consensus here stands on WP:NOT CENSORED and any editor should be crystal clear when they come in. If not WELCOMING then at least it's honest. Since an abundance of orienting material exists, I should like to know exactly where I ought draw the line. I wonder this as is as anyone might wonder, because there are plenty of social spaces now where the lines are unclear. At least humor us, pretend that some of our readership exists who sees and cares enough to share in this horror, boot me squarely if you differ, should like to think their perceptions are legal and a part of the marketplace of ideas. FRINGE or not, there is an elephant in the room. Can I cite belligerent primary sources in conversation without committing it unnoted to article space? Can I link experiences of published photojournalists? Is there a limit to the violence I can link and of any sure provenance? Should severity or instances be limited? To twee? Also, too twee? Can you handle tender and mild sweet baby Jesus on a heart monitor? At what point does the community object to field intelligence? Do these need trigger warnings? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I want to be really clear that there is a well reasoned and commonly accepted preponderance of evidence and consensus of thought that all of Gazan civilian life is subject to death or displacement and that it matters. I also acknowledge there are other views. My opinion is that this is the most serious and life-changing article you or I have ever written together. We are owed reasons which demonstrate a nuts-and-bolts understanding of what in sweet Jerusalem has gone wrong, not, as I am accused of, rhetoric. There are few topics on which I would care to risk such boldnesses. Yet I recognize the divergence of narratives. Stating things in a neutral voice is one thing, but we should not fail as editors to demonstrate abductive reasoning above all, from any side. Can we agree on this as project partners? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 30 | ArchiveĀ 31 | ArchiveĀ 32 | ArchiveĀ 33 | ArchiveĀ 34 | ArchiveĀ 35 | ā | ArchiveĀ 40 |
Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?
United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah
Option 1 ā Add X
Option 2 ā Do not add X
Option 3 ā 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. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | The ArabāIsraeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents.is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents,as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly
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? Pincrete ( talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete ( talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war.No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they wonāt start a war". An expert is quoted saying:
āHezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,ā said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut(italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb ( talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
sits on the sidelines of the conflictand
will enter the war if...(future tense). That's from yesterday.
inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war(hypothetical)
The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah(implying they are not yet involved).
āAll Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,ā said a senior Lebanese official(implying they haven't entered the war yet)
Israelās military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah āis mainly in the contact line.ā Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called ārules of engagement,ā which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel(as explicit as can be)
Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamasā war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border.They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
If itās a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war](future tense).
Hizbollahās entry into the war would have profound implications, and
Hizbollahās participation could also trigger, and
Joining the war would be(all hypotheticals).
if Hezbollah were to enter the war(hypothetical)
Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamasā Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight.
- From
AP
While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations.
- From
BBC
In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah ā which has previously vowed to destroy Israel ā has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollahās next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesnāt more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza ā but also has the power to stop it.
Vox
Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.
Based on the definition of a belligerent in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a āneutral.ā
Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. ā Sadko (words are wind) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador ( talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article.No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki ( talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Some remarks in addition to my closure comment. There is likely to be a consensus against including Iran, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Russia in the infobox, but this discussion largely ignored these as individual options and an explicit consensus on those could not be determined. There may be consensus to include Houthis and Hezbollah, as there may be for United States, but as they are already included, I consider there to be less need to start a discussion on inclusion for those. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm the number of IDPs in Israel is still 500k? We have that cited both in the infobox and in the lede based on a 16 October Barron's article, but by 22 October, Times of Israel reported 200k [12] and by 21 November, The Guardian reported 126k [13]. CarmenEsparzaAmoux ( talk) 02:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Israel admitted to firing and killing 3 of the Israeli hostages who were unarmed, signaled that they were surrendering and posed no threat to IDF. This has raised suspicion that Israel is intentionally killing unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza. [15]. Do we incorporate this new info into the article? Crampcomes ( talk) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
On 15 December, the IDF released a statement announcing that they had killed three of their own hostages by friendly fire. According to the Israeli military, they "mistakenly identified three Israeli hostages as a threat" during operations in Shuja'iyya and subsequently fired at them, killing them.[367][368][369] According to an Israeli military official on 16 December, the three hostages were shirtless and were carrying "a stick with a white cloth on itā when an Israeli soldier, who declared them to be āterroristsā after feeling āthreatenedā, opened fire, killing two hostages and injuring the third, who was killed by Israeli reinforcements.That is probably sufficient (it has a lot of coverage, so it deserves that much, but ultimately it's one small event in a massive conflict, so unless there's a ton of sustained coverage it doesn't need more than it has now.) We also do mention the larger concerns related to civilian deaths in the lead (
widespread civilian deaths have led to both Israel and Hamas being accused of war crimes.) We can't really frame it as them killing people indiscriminately in the article voice unless there's a lot of coverage that does the same thing, which doesn't really reflect the sources you listed here (they plainly describe it as an accident.) Maybe we could add a cautiously-worded sentence to that paragraph about the longer-term implications of the incident specifically, if there's a lot of sources discussing that. See eg. [16] and [17]; the first one in particular is probably better for what you're going for than the sources you presented. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
On that part inlead that says, "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip,.." can it be changed to "...On that day, militant groups launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip during a music festival,..." I want to be safer than sorry by suggesting adding something in the lead even though I meet qualifications to edit this article. Cwater1 ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
In the casualties part infobox, the spillover casualties from non-belligerents have been added to the Hamas side of the infobox, except for some of the Egyptians. This implies a connection between Hamas and casualties.
On the Hamas side, the Lebanon listing mixes fighters from declared belligerents and civilians into the same number. The Syrian listing isn't correct according to the source used, includes declared combatants, Syrian officials and civilians under the same listing. The Egypt listing is entirely one incident in which Israel mistakenly targeted Egyptian border guards. Egypt is also listed under the Israel side of the section.
Were these added before the belligerents were clearly identified?
As a separate issue, the entire section mixes civilians and soldiers. I understand that it's a bit difficult to separate on both sides here, but the numbers and/or the presentation of those numbers should at least reflect that the vast majority of casualties on either side were civilians.
Acebulf ( talk | contribs) 17:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the Palestinian and Israeli casualties are based on claims by Hamas government and Israel respectively. However media reports have called out both as unreliable. Hamas is known for not distinguishing between civilians and fighters, as well as conflating numbers. Israel has also been accused of conflating its civilian death toll.
In addition, the casualties section does not include claims by the opposing side, example Israel's tally of Palestinians or Hamas' claims of number of IDF killed. Since both Hamas and Israel are unreliable, it's not wise to prefer one over the other in casualties section for Palestinians and Israel respectively. Linkin Prankster ( talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War in Sudan (2023) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. ā RMCD bot 17:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to produce an outline
outline
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 IsraelāHamas war[edit]". Bot: I. Introduction A. Definition and background of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Overview of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war C. Importance and significance of the war II. Background A. Historical context of the Israel-Hamas conflict B. Previous conflicts and ceasefires C. Factors leading up to the 2023 war 1. Political tensions 2. Socio-economic factors 3. Regional dynamics III. Causes and Triggers A. Immediate causes of the war B. Key incidents leading to escalation C. Role of external factors and international relations 1. Influence of neighboring countries 2. Role of international organizations and superpowers IV. Course of the War A. Timeline of major events and battles B. Strategies and tactics employed by Israel and Hamas C. Humanitarian impact and civilian casualties D. Role of media and propaganda V. International Response A. Reactions from regional and international actors B. Mediation efforts and peace initiatives C. Role of the United Nations and other international organizations D. Arms trade and military support to the conflicting parties VI. Aftermath A. Ceasefire agreements and negotiations B. Impact on the Israeli and Palestinian societies C. Political consequences and power dynamics in the region D. Rebuilding efforts and humanitarian aid VII. Controversies and Criticisms A. Allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses B. Debate on proportionality and self-defense C. Criticisms of international community's response D. Challenges to achieving a lasting peace VIII. Analysis and Perspectives A. Evaluation of the war's outcomes and achievements B. Examination of long-term implications for the region C. Perspectives on the future of the Israel-Hamas conflict D. Potential for reconciliation and peace-building IX. Notable Individuals and Organizations A. Key political figures and military leaders involved B. Humanitarian organizations and activists working in the region C. Analysts and experts providing insights on the conflict X. See Also A. Related conflicts and wars in the Middle East B. Notable peace agreements and negotiations C. Other articles on the Israel-Hamas conflict XI. References A. Credible sources and citations for the article's content B. Books, academic papers, and official reports C. News articles and interviews with experts XII. External Links A. Links to relevant websites, official statements, and reports B. Organizations working towards peace and conflict resolution |
Bot structure:
Current structure:
There are issues with the bot's suggested structure, but it's right that the current structure is bloated. I.e currently there is background and historical context, these should be amalgamated. Other consolidation is achievable, Tom B ( talk) 17:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New ZealandāTasmania conflict".
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 New ZealandāTasmania conflict". Chatbot: 2023 New ZealandāTasmania Conflict == Background == === Historical Relations === Overview of the historical diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties between New Zealand and Tasmania Past conflicts or collaborations that shaped the relationship === Pre-Conflict Tensions === Examination of pre-existing issues and disputes that contributed to the strained relations Analysis of political, social, and economic factors leading up to the conflict == Causes == === Immediate Triggers === Detailed exploration of the specific events or incidents that sparked the conflict Analysis of how these triggers escalated into open hostilities === Root Causes === Examination of deeper political, economic, and social factors contributing to the conflict Historical grievances or systemic issues that played a role == Participants == === New Zealand's Involvement === Overview of New Zealand's political stance, military contributions, and diplomatic actions Key figures and decision-makers in New Zealand during the conflict === Tasmania's Role === Overview of Tasmania's position, military strategies, and diplomatic engagements Key figures and decision-makers in Tasmania during the conflict === International Actors === Roles and contributions of other regional and international actors Involvement of neighboring countries, international organizations, and peacekeeping efforts == Timeline == === Early Events === Chronological account of events leading up to the outbreak of the conflict Political developments, diplomatic tensions, and military buildups === Key Battles === Detailed chronology of significant military engagements and operations Naval, air, and ground battles with strategic importance === Diplomatic Developments === Overview of diplomatic efforts, negotiations, and peace talks throughout the conflict Key milestones in diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Tasmania == Impact == === Humanitarian Consequences === Examination of the impact on civilian populations, refugees, and displaced persons Assessment of humanitarian aid and response efforts during and after the conflict === Economic and Environmental Impact === Analysis of the economic toll and environmental consequences of the conflict Long-term effects on industries, infrastructure, and ecosystems === Post-Conflict Challenges === Assessment of the challenges faced by both New Zealand and Tasmania in the aftermath Reconstruction, reconciliation, and efforts to rebuild trust == International Response == === Diplomatic Reactions === Overview of how the international community responded diplomatically to the conflict Sanctions, condemnations, or endorsements from other nations and organizations === Peacekeeping Efforts === Roles played by international peacekeeping forces, if any, during and after the conflict Successes and challenges in maintaining peace and stability == Media Coverage == === Media Narratives === Analysis of how the conflict was portrayed in the media of New Zealand, Tasmania, and internationally Impact of media narratives on public perception and international opinion === Propaganda and Misinformation === Examination of any instances of propaganda or misinformation during the conflict Impact on public understanding and international relations == Controversies and Criticisms == === War Crimes Allegations === Overview of any allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses during the conflict International responses and investigations into these allegations === Criticisms of International Actors === Examination of criticisms directed at regional and international actors involved in the conflict Evaluation of the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and peace initiatives == Reconciliation Efforts == === Post-Conflict Diplomacy === Overview of diplomatic initiatives aimed at rebuilding relations between New Zealand and Tasmania Bilateral talks, agreements, and joint efforts for regional stability === Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction === Examination of international aid efforts and reconstruction projects in the affected regions Collaborative initiatives for recovery and development == See Also == === Related Conflicts === Links to articles on conflicts with similar themes, causes, or outcomes === Diplomatic Initiatives === Links to articles on diplomatic efforts and negotiations involving New Zealand and Tasmania == References == === Citations === Citations and sources for information used in the article === Further Reading === Additional resources for readers interested in more in-depth exploration of the topic |
I asked ChatBot v4 (trained to Apr 2023):
outline
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on the topic "2023 IsraelāHamas war[edit]". Introduction Brief overview of the conflict. Key dates and locations. Primary parties involved (Israel and Hamas). Background Historical context leading up to the 2023 conflict. Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas. Political and social conditions in the region prior to 2023. Prelude to the War Specific events that triggered the conflict in 2023. Diplomatic efforts, if any, before the outbreak of hostilities. Statements and positions of the involved parties. Timeline of the War A chronological account of major events, battles, and military operations. Notable incidents and turning points in the conflict. International Response Reactions from key international players (e.g., United Nations, United States, European Union). Economic and military aid or sanctions by other countries. Efforts at mediation or peace talks. Humanitarian Impact Casualty figures and demographic breakdown. Impact on civilian populations, including displacement and refugee crisis. Reports from humanitarian organizations. Media Coverage and Propaganda How the war was reported in local and international media. Use of propaganda and information warfare tactics by the involved parties. Analysis Military strategies and tactics used by Israel and Hamas. Political and strategic objectives of each side. Assessments by military and political analysts. Aftermath and Consequences Immediate outcomes of the conflict. Long-term implications for the region and the involved parties. Post-war reconstruction and reconciliation efforts. |
Chat GPT 4.0 structure:
Current structure
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which article should
Operation Al-Aqsa Flood redirect too?
Previous or relevant discussions on this: 1, 2, 3, 4 (redirect's history). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
See below significant opposition to any rename; however, arguments in favor of some rename were very strong. The title that received overwhelming support is the one chosen and will serve as the highest and best title", which shows that there was even a clear consensus that the name "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" was for the attack article and not the overall war article. Also, per Wikipedia policy, don't we keep the original name of an article (especially a CTOPS article) directed to the new-name for the article? Either way, I have to go strongly with option 2. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I am okay if the ministry of health being controlled by Hamas is mentioned sparsely, but this attribution being abused by certain bad-faith editor who wants to imply unreliability of the ministry of health is simply unacceptable. -- Sameboat - åč ( talk Ā· contri.) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
While the collapse of Gazaās health system has made it challenging to track exact numbers, the World Health Organization has reported at least 369,000 cases of infectious diseases since the war began, using data collected from the Gaza Health Ministry and UNRWA, the U.N. agency that cares for Palestinians ā a staggering increase from before the war., Another one:
The Gaza Health Ministry said that 73 bodies and 123 injured people had been brought to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, in the city of Deir al Balah, in the past 24 hours. The circumstances of the deaths and injuries were not immediately known, and the health ministry did not elaborate. But aid workers have described intense bombardment by Israeli forces, which say they are advancing on the major southern city of Khan Younis to root out Hamas militants there.nableezy - 16:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
strong declared POV. Didn't see that on RSPSS.
we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weightare the reason we have a systemic bias problem. "Non-English" or "Non-Western" is not synonymous with "unreliable".
[Gaza] MoH communications and mortality reporting collapsed on Nov 10, 2023. The latest data comes from the PA ministry of health in Ramalla. Alaexis Āæquestion? 09:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the current consensus that it's not worth mentioning why certain sources believe it is a genocide? The constituent case for such has other attaching sources with regard to domicide, cultural genocide, material necessities for life, access of the international community, rate of loss of civilian life, dehumanization, confiscation, and noted expressions of intent? I think that's worth discussing how we explore this. My personal view is that if we err, we err on the side of UNDUE for those most marginalized. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Is the current consensus that we disfavor Gaza sources as WP:NotRs in spite of the control of access and loss of life in civilian journalism? I should think it is our duty to broaden it. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Is the current consensus that we have no intersection between loss of life in civilian journalism in Gaza and our ability to provide WP:RS as a volunteer community? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
And I'm not quite sure where the consensus here stands on WP:NOT CENSORED and any editor should be crystal clear when they come in. If not WELCOMING then at least it's honest. Since an abundance of orienting material exists, I should like to know exactly where I ought draw the line. I wonder this as is as anyone might wonder, because there are plenty of social spaces now where the lines are unclear. At least humor us, pretend that some of our readership exists who sees and cares enough to share in this horror, boot me squarely if you differ, should like to think their perceptions are legal and a part of the marketplace of ideas. FRINGE or not, there is an elephant in the room. Can I cite belligerent primary sources in conversation without committing it unnoted to article space? Can I link experiences of published photojournalists? Is there a limit to the violence I can link and of any sure provenance? Should severity or instances be limited? To twee? Also, too twee? Can you handle tender and mild sweet baby Jesus on a heart monitor? At what point does the community object to field intelligence? Do these need trigger warnings? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I want to be really clear that there is a well reasoned and commonly accepted preponderance of evidence and consensus of thought that all of Gazan civilian life is subject to death or displacement and that it matters. I also acknowledge there are other views. My opinion is that this is the most serious and life-changing article you or I have ever written together. We are owed reasons which demonstrate a nuts-and-bolts understanding of what in sweet Jerusalem has gone wrong, not, as I am accused of, rhetoric. There are few topics on which I would care to risk such boldnesses. Yet I recognize the divergence of narratives. Stating things in a neutral voice is one thing, but we should not fail as editors to demonstrate abductive reasoning above all, from any side. Can we agree on this as project partners? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 04:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)