This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israel鈥揌amas war article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This page is currently under extended confirmed protection. Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The
policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce
arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the
talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by
consensus.
A: Not right now. There is currently a three-month moratorium on changing the article name (i.e. no filing of
requested moves or direct moving) which began on 27 February 2024 and will end on 27 May 2024. This was the prevailing opinion in
this discussion and can be lifted early only "if there is a significant change in the scope of the war".
Q: Why is the article named the way it is? Should we name it something else?
A: Please consult the list of "requested moves" listed at the top of the talk page to see the history of multiple extensive discussions that have led to the current name.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the
Arab鈥揑sraeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
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.
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen articles
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2023, when it received 13,647,220 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report9 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Beit hanoun was withdrawn from in December, and the map didn't change.
Lukt64 (
talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Because it shows maximum Israel advances not current control.
Borysk5 (
talk) 06:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Institute for the Study of Warstill displays most of Gaza as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. If you can find a better, more up to date source, I could change the map. So far, ISW has been the only reliable source providing updates on the conflict map.
Ecrusized (
talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
ISW is reliable in that sense, but the only thing here is that they show areas cleared as blue even if the IDF has withdrawn so it was basically a 鈥渇urthest extent鈥 map. Note that the areas still remain blue even after the ISW acknowledges that israeli forces withdrew from the area
I added a map with withdrawal areas.
Borysk5 (
talk) 09:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User
Borysk5 has made a map citing a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker, it links to a custom Google Maps page. If this source is considered reliable enough, I can update the main map file with it. Let me know what you think.
Ecrusized (
talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is a possible revision of the map showing only Netzarim corridor as being under Israeli control. According to
reports, only one IDF brigade remains in the Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor.
Ecrusized (
talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would recommend adding areas they withdrew from
Lukt64 (
talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They are included in blue dashed lines.
Ecrusized (
talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone
Lukt64 (
talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered.
Ecrusized (
talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho.
Lukt64 (
talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess.
Ecrusized (
talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for
Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The 鈥渆asy鈥 solution in this case is for the map to have 鈥渁reas under Israeli control鈥 renamed to 鈥渕aximum extent of the Israeli invasion鈥
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be better if it were just represented by a dashed line (like the maximum extent of the Gazan advance at the beginning of the war) and the respective blue and red colors indicated present control. Maybe blue/red stripes in contested areas if its possible.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I heard ecrusized has tried that in the past and got into issues because of the 鈥渙riginal research鈥 policy, which is why he is reluctant to deviate from one source. Just changing the label on the caption can be good short term and be less misleading
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree changing the label is a good short-term fix, and should be carried out ASAP. We do need to start thinking long-term, though, because a lead infobox in a highly visible and important article should be as clear to the reader as possible.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Userd898: Please participate in this discussion before making any changes. It was argued here that a distinction couldn't be made by separating where Israel currently and formerly operates. You also appear to have drawn incorrect boundaries as to where Israel operated.
Ecrusized (
talk) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
He showed an incursion into Rahat, and as the map labels the 鈥渕aximum extent of the Hamas invasion鈥 it should show the incursion there as it appears a few militants launched an incursion into Rahat on October 7-8, quite a few sources back this up
That revision is a complete mess. The user who made it appears to have zero experience with svg's hence they completely removed the Hamas resistance pockets/enclaves in Gaza and Khan Younis, and drawn a made up boundary which does not cite a single source. They also ruined the translations, and drew a weird yet another original research boundary for where Israel currently operates and 7 October incursions. See
https://oct7map.comEcrusized (
talk) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If needed, the original one can remain but with netzarim corridor shown as blue and the rest as purple, based on this source
If you dont wish to do that with constant updates of movement and don't want synthesis issues even with two sources only the blue on the map can be labelled "maximum extent of the israeli invasion" or "furthest extent of the israeli invasion" instead of "areas under israeli control" without changing any colours and still relying solely on the ISW.
As for the ocotber 7 map it can be modified to include the rahat incursion, which apparently did not include any fatalities and hence isn't included on the october 7 map, but is well-substantiated and confirmed to have happened by several sources
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 08:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Institute for Study of War is still coloring new areas outside of "Netzarim" corridor as being under Israeli control. I cannot create a synthesis file based on a single news report. If needed, the legend can be changed from "Areas under Israeli control" to "claimed extent of Israeli control".
Ecrusized (
talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How about we have the maximum Israeli advance represented by a blue dotted line, just how the maximum Palestinian advance is represented by a red-dotted line? Then leave the blue and red colors corresponding to what most sources say. If ISW is still claiming Israeli control in certain areas despite many other sources claiming otherwise, then again, it should not be seen as reliable as a basis of this article's map, respectfully.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I鈥檓 not very well versed in the synthesis policy but I don鈥檛 think it would be an issue to label it 鈥渕aximum advance鈥, the ISW uses 鈥渞eported clearing operations鈥, but they have acknowledged Israel 鈥渃ompleting its mission鈥 or withdrawing from areas even though they鈥檙e still coloured blue which makes it likely that they went for a maximum extent map
I think constant updates of movement are necessarily because its what Wikipedia readers deserve. No offense, but we cannot be misleading just because we want to take the easy road.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Evaporation123 and
The Great Mule of Eupatoria: You guys are saying that I should show thing on the map based on my own initiative. I cannot do that since adding content to Wikipedia requires citing
reliable source. Above in the discussion, you can see that a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker is talked about. If that can be considered an RS, than I could change the map according to the examples above. However, I doubt that source can ever pass a an RS since its a self published work. You might want to discuss it at
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.
Ecrusized (
talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you know anything about what sources the Gaza War Unit Tracker depends on?
Evaporation123 (
talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Including the primary title is not necessary here, and given the size of the lede we are better off omitting it in the interest of conciseness. We should exclude the alt names for the same reason, as well as, since there are at least three alt names of sufficient significance to warrant inclusion,
MOS:ALTNAME which instructs us If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section.
BilledMammal (
talk) 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per BilledMammal. Lead is already far too large.
JDiala (
talk) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please, could you read the discussion that has been open yesterday
here and answer there as well.
Deblinis (
talk) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The number of sources mentioned in that
last RM discussion is far more than the 5 sources you cited, with editors putting forth sources from both sides. I recommend reading that entire thread and also skim through the sources mentioned, and decide from there. NasssaNser 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Appendix: Everyone is invited to read this before commenting and answering.
It shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources respondingto the highest standard of journalism, are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. As of April 2024, fact is that the following major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. The Washington Post which is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, does it - see
linkarchived. Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, does it - see
link. El Pa铆s which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, does it - see
link1 see
see link2.
BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, does it - see
link. The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner, does it - see
link. This new discussion and rfc happen because of that factor. The "Israel鈥揌amas war" also known as the "Israel-Gaza war" - bolded in the lead for now until May as there is a moratorium on move requestsDeblinis (
talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deblinis (
talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)war" category.reply
Israel-Gaza war or Israel's war on Gaza per Nasssa in the discussion. This is how the war is being referred to in reliables sources.
NadVolum (
talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(invited by the bot) No need to bold, and it only needs one title, the current one Israel鈥揌amas war. That is the two parties engaged in the war. North8000 (
talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above, no need bold in the lead.
Yeoutie (
talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please, could you read the "Appendix" written above and answer after聽?
Deblinis (
talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose the inclusion of any name in the article lead, in other words treat the article title as purely descriptive, as it is currently ("An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups[s] has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023."). If, otoh, the consensus is to include "Israel鈥揌amas war" (whether bolded or not) then the altnames 1 and 2 should be included as well on the same basis.
Selfstudier (
talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please, could you read the Appendix" written above and answer after聽?
Deblinis (
talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per length, strongest possible opposition for any measure replacing/excluding Hamas in one of the primary titles.Weak oppose to alt titles per footnote due to number,Oppose other inclusion. The first and third position are primarily based on LEAD and conciseness to prevent excessive length per the arguments made above. The second is based on NPOV, secondarily IAR should the primary lack strength: searchability, 'common sense' and the move to a (more) NPOV title are the significant arguments against.
FortunateSons (
talk) 10:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding Israel鈥揌amas: this is not an RM and we aren't discussing the primary title anytime soon. NasssaNser 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am aware of it. This is specifically about listing a secondary title in the style of Israel-Gaza, as implied by some above. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify聽:)
FortunateSons (
talk) 08:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per SelfStudier. If we include the article, then I would start a discussion as to which of the numerous alt names to add. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion
On the alts, "Israel's war in Gaza" is effectively identical to "Israel's war on Gaza", and mostly synonymous with "Israel鈥揋aza war". "Operation Swords of Iron" and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. NasssaNser 09:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think if we are going to include alt names we should include "Operation Swords of Iron", which is
Israel's official name for the war. I think I remember "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" being used in a similar manner, but I can't find any sources for that.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reliable sources hardly ever mention those names.
NadVolum (
talk) 10:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nah, official names are just POV and no-one really calls them that anyway except those that create them.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Al-Aqsa Flood generally strictly refers to the initial attacks from Hamas, and I guess Swords of Iron is a similar situation of strictly referring to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Both has their dedicated articles. NasssaNser 07:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Palestinian militants use 鈥渂attle of Al aqsa flood鈥 to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and 鈥渙peration of Al aqsa flood鈥 or 鈥渂attle of October 7鈥 to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has 鈥溬呚关辟冐 胤賵賮丕賳 丕賱兀賯氐賶鈥 even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are really only two altnames of any significance, the first two. So the 3 or more thing doesn't really apply.
The new rfc doesn't present what are the challenges of the terminology and the presentation in the lead. Some users already reply without answering and they don't take in view the editorial line of some of the most prestigious journalism sources worldwide, this is what the discussion (and rfc) should be about. That dead end in the first sentence of the lead is political: the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text, the fact that it is not the case serves Israeli narrative's state. If this rfc is about voting with this in view
[1] and that
[2]: the
wp:neutrality issue in the lead will remain. @
Selfstudier:, can one write a new rfc below this one聽?
Deblinis (
talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point it feels like
WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". NasssaNser 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Everyone has their own opinions", indeed >
[3][4]Deblinis (
talk) 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text This isn't necessarily the case for descriptive titles,
MOS:AVOIDBOLD and
MOS:REDUNDANCY, for example, we don't want to say "The Israel鈥揌amas war is a war between Israel and Hamas."
There can be another RFC that asks a different question, and that does not conflict with this RFC, "Is the existing title NPOV?", for example.
Selfstudier (
talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The name of the war is already confined to "Hamas", which is already even more of a mis-scoping than 'Gaza'.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes and my point is we need to start thinking of alternative names. I'm not satisfied with the current name either.
RM (
Be my friend) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rfc: Media coverage > Several media outlets (Washington Post, The Guardian), name it the "Israel鈥揋aza war": a mention of that in "Media coverage"聽?
Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section聽?
If so, could this draft work聽?
In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.
[5][6][7][8][9][10]The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".
[11]BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".
[12]El Pa铆s called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".
[13]The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.
[14]CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.
[15]Deblinis (
talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is (i) not significant enough to warrant an entire subsection in an already unusually large article, (ii) an instance of
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH as the meta-narrative of a naming controversy isn't discussed in the cited sources. Rather, you are yourself inferring that there is a controversy because there is disparate naming, (iii) not relevant to
WP:NPOV as I'm not sure why "Israel-Hamas war" is somehow a pro-Israel characterization. Elaborating on (iii), the irony is that the claim itself that "'Israel-Hamas war' is biased" is tacitly making a pro-Israel assumption, namely that Hamas is somehow a bad actor and mentions of Hamas are shameful to pro-Palestinian people. Many pro-Palestinian people are proud of the resistance of Hamas fighters against what they consider a genocidal onslaught; thus the exclusion of Hamas in the title is itself biased against Palestinians as it fails to credit the bravery of Hamas fighters.
JDiala (
talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Being factual with these sources that are some of the highest standard sources of journalism is
WP:NPOV. Some users should realize that they have to search
compromise with valid suggestions, wikipedia is a collaborative project.
Many people and journalists have realized that initial name of this conflict, doesn't fit anymore with the actual situation six months after. Around 16,000 children killed in Gaza (without counting the disappeared children), potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza, potential incitement to genocide and possible genocidal intent in Gaza, starvation as a weapon of war on an entire population;
urbicide with destruction of all the ancient buildings, destruction of all the universities, destruction of all the schools, will to erase any trace of Palestinian culture, an entire area made uninhabitable. And Hamas only got 30篓% of votes in Gaza. Whatever, these Western sources known worldwide and their approach to the conflict and how they name the conflict, should be brought to the attention of the readers.
Deblinis (
talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Might this be better as part of an etymology section? Many conflicts have multiple names, so it wouldn't be out of place to have a short etymology section to explain the different names that are used.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!鈿 07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On condition of relying on Western media sources.
Middle East sources in this case are irrelevant, because history is not written and named by the belligerents in power and patriotic partisan media.
Deblinis (
talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per u:JDiala. This is WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources examining the coverage itself.
Alaexis驴question? 08:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Time to underline that even just one another conciser sentence like this one "In April 2024 certain Western media outlets including The Washington Post, BBC, El Pa铆s, The Guardian, CPJ, called the war as the Israel-Gaza war" in the 'Media coverage' section, would be seen as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for some users. The WP:NPOV rule looks trampled and wikipedia is in a
cul de sac.
Deblinis (
talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry to throw a curveball into this RfC, however, based on the sources cited I Support overturning all prior consensus and renaming the entire articleIsrael-Gaza War per sources cited. With recent (as opposed to early) RS coalescing around the term "Israel-Gaza War" (as cited in the examples uncovered by OP), maintaining the term "Israel-Hamas War" is outdated. It's also, per OP, violative of
WP:NPOV, as well as simply being confusing and inconsistent with the infobox, by inaccurately aggregating the conflict into a binary engagement between exactly two belligerents. Beyond that, I'm neutral about listing it in the "media coverage" section as this seems
WP:EXCESSDETAIL, unless we are to spin out a separate etymology section as suggested above, in which case that seems fine.
Chetsford (
talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Hi I think most people know it by Israel-Hamas war, if anything maybe change it around (to Hamas Israel cause of the alphabet) but it really should stay the same. And I think it's kind of stated that the goal of Israel is to destroy Hamas in this war and Hamas is the main power so it makes sense. I mean it's also like the US went to fight Houthis in Yemen, they aren't at war with Yemen but with the Houthis.
ElLuzDelSur (
talk) 07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This editor is a blocked sock.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As an additional note, they were not blocked at the time of the !vote - socks can only be struck and discounted if they made a duplicate !vote, or if their master was blocked at the time of the !vote.
BilledMammal (
talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods. Sometimes, a combination of these methods is best. The goal is to make it obvious they are a sock so when the discussion is closed, their input will not be considered. This should be done for all blocked sockpuppets and sockmasters in a discussion
That one editor wants to make a burocratic issue out of this practice is neither here nor there.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Major media outlets known worldwide (see also RTBF[16]) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner.
The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media.
[17] On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict".
[18]Deblinis (
talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per
WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate
Deblinis (
talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But then you also need to mention what all the other sources call it? You can't cherry pick just to suit a POV.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Israel's war in Gaza" is used only by Le Monde, among the high standard Western sources. Adding it might be
wp:undue.
Deblinis (
talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean you also need to mention all the sources that call it the Israel-Hamas war.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks.
Deblinis (
talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is the latest on
NYT bias "..restrict the use of the terms 鈥済enocide鈥 and 鈥渆thnic cleansing鈥 and to 鈥渁void鈥 using the phrase 鈥渙ccupied territory鈥 when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine 鈥渆xcept in very rare cases鈥 and to steer clear of the term 鈥渞efugee camps鈥.." There is plenty of material out there to make the case that major newsmedia have a bias and we should be focusing on that. This, plus actual facts on the ground, together with the fact that IH war is not commonname but descriptive was the basis for the "no consensus" outcome at the last RM and that is what will be replayed at the next RM.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article size and child articles
Currently the prose size is 23,000+ words, which is
WP:TOOBIG by at least 8,000 words.
Regarding numerous child articles that have been split off, most notably but not exclusively:
WP:SUMMARY guidelines appear pretty clear but not followed here: Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.
None of these sections are lead-like summaries, whereas ideally they would simply be lead
excerpts of the main article. I'm also aware this is similar to many other articles that are too big, but this shouldn't be an argument for why these guidelines aren't being upheld elsewhere. The bottom line is this article could easily be around 10,000 words(*) if guidelines were correctly followed and upheld, as well as encourage improvement of the child articles, namely the lead sections that aren't all as strong as they could be (some are very weak). (*) Excluding excerpted content that wouldn't contribute to article size but probably still be upto 5,000 words from numerous strong child leads.
Digging deeper, the Humanitarian impact section contains "grandchildren"(*) article content which simply don't belong in the "grandparent" article, but instead simply summarised in the parent and referenced in the lead of that article, ie:
Casualties,
Healthcare collapse,
Gaza famine,
Scale of destruction and
Environmental damage (assuming these all are correctly referencing main articles). This is also the case with other grandchild type articles in other sections, whereas the child article should be referencing this all in the lead sections, for a summary in the grandparent. (*) Ie, a child of a child article.
To make this article readable, ideally it would only "directly" contain the events and other confrontations (where this is the main article), and the other split off sections are treated as the child sections that they are. For example
7 October attack is a lead-like summary of
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023, and much of these two sections have their child articles well summarised (excluding
Invasion of the Gaza Strip that goes a bit beyond). So why can't the rest of the article follow suit?
I'm aware this is a controversial suggestion, because of the importance of documenting the other aspects of the war, but this is exactly why they have their own articles as children and are treated as "a complete encyclopedic article in [their] own right". For example next up would be a split of
Reactions, which is all that's left to split, but this wouldn't bring the article down to a readable size anyway. So without summarising/excerpting the child sections and removing the grandchildren, this article will otherwise never be a readable size.
Which means when reading between the lines basically erasing almost everything that could tarnish and goes against a certain narrative. Strong oppose. Instead erasing any view/quote from patriotic partisan media advocacing their own country, would be a good thing, to start.
Deblinis (
talk) 12:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No need for assumptions of bad faith and ad hom attacks on other editors.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Why not "do" one of them, Allegations of war crimes, say, so we can see what effect it would have?
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
My suggestion wasn't so much as to reduce these sections to lead excerpts immediately, but more so to encourage improving the leads of the child articles so they can be used as excerpts in the future. The closest example would be Regional effects, but the lead doesn't reference the Economics child article (which it should). This is more of a bottom up proposal rather than top down, ie improving the child article leads to include the links and references to the grandchildren would be the way to reduce article size here. Naturally this wouldn't erase anything, it would simply be summarising it per guidelines.
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As an example 鈥 and this is by no means intended as a comparison between conflicts but simply article size management 鈥 if you look at
Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and attacks on civilians, it's a lead-like summary of the main articles (that totals a combined 23,000 words), and an example of how child articles should be summarised in the parent, as well as how to keep an article around 15,000 words as opposed to 23,000. By comparison, this articles Allegations of war crimes section is clearly not a summary of the child article.
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree The article literally contains an entire list containing the full text of resolutions adopted by the UNSC on 5 April. Editors on this article are frankly being highly irresponsible or are inexperienced in their liberal decisions to include additional material in this already giant document.
JDiala (
talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Like the man said, the problem is the child articles, that's what needs fixing first, then the leads of them form content here.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree and support the spirit of
this edit made following this suggestion even if it may have jumped the gun.
Yeoutie (
talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Example (sort of)
See this diff:
[19] shown here
[20] regarding
Humanitarian impact section. It's not a big reduction article length wise, even if removes 2,000 words. Other sections are more difficult. @
Moxy section doesn't require references as doesn't contain any content, per
Template:Excerpt. --CommunityNotesContributor
First...
Wikipedia:Template documentation " Editors should also avoid "quoting" template documentation pages as though they are policy". Sub pages not ready for this yet. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for 'statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic sources ..even more so on " contentious topics" like this. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. As linked at
MOS:CITELEAD...
H:TRANSDRAWBACKS "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors...." plus "Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. "Moxy馃崄 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks?
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure what your saying?
this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy馃崄 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting.
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The articles leads would need to be sourced.....or do your own summary.Moxy馃崄 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Off-wiki concerns regarding reliability of source
An off-wiki thread on Reddit contests, among other things, that the page cite[s] the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med) to falsely claim that 90% of casualties were civilians. On the surface, the Euro-Med Monitor looks like a generic human rights organization however, the Euro-Med Monitor has actually been a significant source of pro-Hamas propaganda on social media. In fact, it is owned by a man named Ramy Abdu, who is a literal Hamas lobbyist.
I have no issue with the article citing an ostensible Hamas lobbyist so long as it is in conjunction with someone from the opposite side, which it is (an IDF spokesperson and the State of Isreal). After all, NPOV reads A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. However, I'm posting this A) to make editors aware of the possibility of canvassing and B) to see if anyone agrees with the post.
Sincerely, Dilettante 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So best go through those before answering your question, methinks, don't want to go through all that again.
Selfstudier (
talk) 18:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It pretty certainly is an overestimate but I can see how they could have come by it using the recorded casualty figures. Those don't include all the people under the rubble and a large portion of the militants that have been killed are probably under the rubble or otherwise missing from those figures. So I wouldn't call it a false claim, just a claim from earlier in the conflict and where they haven't taken account of all the facts.
NadVolum (
talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On the general business of balance Wikipedia doesn't do the TV business of
WP:FALSEBALANCE where they bring in an expert on flat earth for balance against round earthers but it does try and give all sides a due balance.
NadVolum (
talk) 18:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I've removed it from the infobox; while it probably warrants mentioning in an article, it's unclear why their opinion is so significant as to warrant inclusion in the infobox. (I've also removed the Israeli estimate, for a similar reason).
BilledMammal (
talk) 06:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The Euro-Med Monitor has been described as being "close to Hamas" (
20242014) so I think we should always attribute what they say and make sure we don't give them undue weight.
Alaexis驴question? 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As explained at the article talk page, those are ridiculous sources based on an unreliable source, NGO monitor, in turn based on spurious allegations by the Israeli government.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's actually close to the UN, and those are daft, unreliable sources.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure that being close to the UN is a good sign, considering that the
UNHRC now includes such countries like China and Cuba known for their respect for human rights.
Anyway, the fact that they referenced a source which we consider GUNREL is not a policy-based argument against them. Plenty or sources are not admissible per se, but are used by reliable sources which can in turn be used on Wikipedia.
It's quite amazing how you try to erase the EMEM-Hamas connection. Its current head, Ramy Abdu, has a history of working for
Hamas-affiliated organisations.
Alaexis驴question? 12:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bash the UN in your own time. Your last point here is a claim in that source by Shin-bet, not a fact, and your repeating of it is closer to a BLP violation than it is to a reasonable point to make.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 12:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope, the clause between the dashes in the author of the article explaining what CEPR is.
Alaexis驴question? 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know how to help you: it's clearly part of the Shin-bet quote.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article says Moshe Ya鈥檃lon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) 鈥 a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government 鈥 using emergency defence regulations.
Where did you see Shin-Bet here? There are no quotes or attribution in the subordinate clause.
Alaexis驴question? 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Where it actually talks about Ramy Abdu? The guy you're talking about? (Though
"Assistant to the Director" is not the same as "assistant director". And what about the rest? "He was a project and investment coordinator for the World Bank and other internationally-funded projects addressing the financial sector and the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. He holds two Masters, in Research and Finance. His fields of interests include international aid to developing countries and economic cooperation between EU and the MENA region. He is PhD candidate in Law and Finance at the Manchester Metropolitan University, UK."
Anyway, any of that is for the article about them, not EMM.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
One bad apple spoils the bunch. His work at World Bank isn't likely to indicate a bias to one side of the conflict.
Alaexis驴question? 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So what? Should we not cite anything with an IDF connection? nableezy - 11:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Any organisation which lobbies on behalf of Israel would be a biased source as well.
Alaexis驴question? 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The thread you cite is from the
Steven Bonnell subreddit, which is a juvenile internet streaming subculture well-known for aggressive brigading and (recently) aggressive promotion of Israeli propaganda. The thread cites nothing of import except alleging a "double standard." It suggests a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (notably with respect to
WP:FALSEBALANCE and
WP:RS) in general. There is no reason to take this seriously.
JDiala (
talk) 08:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone there accused you of schochastic terrorism for editing Wikipedia. What little point the people there originally had wrt this article is losing any trace of credibility.
Sincerely, Dilettante 20:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there a reason for the map?
Given that this is a constantly changing situation, should the map simply be deleted?
Valereee (
talk) 02:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the map should be moved down to the body of the article once the war ends and infobox should be replaced with a gallery of photographs, similar to article
World War 2. At this point, Israel seems poised to launch an final offensive on
Rafah, after which the active phase of the war will presumably end.
Ecrusized (
talk) 09:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point complete removal of the map seems like the best choice. ISW is a biased source which will not admit Israeli withdrawals and we seem unable to produce an accurate map. Removal of the map ought to be carried out ASAP.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 21:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Citation errors
The named reference ToI was invoked but never defined for reference no. 54
Only the webpage, without the full citation is mentioned for reference no. 52
The named reference Iran Update, December 27, 2023 was invoked but never defined for reference no. 33
The named reference "auto" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 24
Another Israeli magazine saying the figures are falsified. That's so easy now they've gone and destroyed most of the the hospitals. It is quite long and would need a good study and it is not peer reviewed so it would be best to see what some other sources say first. They refer to Wyner's similar thing for support but if they can't see what a piece of rubbish that is I rather doubt it amounts to anything more.
NadVolum (
talk) 11:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This should clarify where Fathom sympathies lie. Anything from there needs attribution, assuming it is due in the first place.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
One can see their bias from the start talking about a pretence of verification at the start when Israel had the ID numbers and if they had ever found a live person with one of these ID's I'm sure they'd have shouted it from the roofs.
NadVolum (
talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a lot of problems with that article. I think the really big major one is that they assume that women and children and men are all equally likely to go into hospital if injured or dying. This is simply not so. Even before the hospitals were mostly put out of action one could see that the numbers of children killed in the statistics compared to women was too low - one should expect about twice as many children killed by the bombs as women as they are both protected status. In the later figures from the hospitals compared to the ones from outside the ratio got even smaller so you got less children registered killed than women in the hospitals. The hospitals are warning people to stay away unless desperate. Children can be looked after by their parents but adults are less able to stay away from hopital if injured. I'd guess women would try harder to stay awy with their children we have no basis for estimating that effect.
Then there's the problem that once they allowed people to tell them about deaths rather than needing to have actually seen each one people would have told them about deaths they had previously not been recorded, in particular all those children that had died away from the hospitals. Since we know from other information that they were probably only registering about two thirds of the deaths in the first couple of months, their figures for the missing dead were only about half the true figure and I guess they are still about that but it is an unknown. They'd be getting more reports from outside but the hospital system is broken and communications are down. And another big unknown is the number of militants under the rubble.
I haven't checked if it is happening here but a problem with Wyner's 'study' with the negative correnlations was the assumption that when a person is killed the figures sort of go up like in a shooting gallery whereas the different categories are almost certainly checked and tallied up in batches separately and take a couple of days to be added in.
I don't know why the figures for men were reduced. There was a case of data being duplicated by mistake and removed but I don't think that is it. Mistakes are possible when you've just got a few people working with spreadsheets trying to check through such masses of data. Overall it would help if they had a look at the obvious alternatives rather than trying to prove their hypothesis.
NadVolum (
talk) 22:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
News compliation
The article is increasingly turning into a news compilation articles instead of something encyclopaedic. While this is understandable considering that the war is ongoing, I think more care should be taken when inserting day-to-day events, and we should instead insert a more broad and general narrative.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are quite a number of sub articles that could be used certainly. How does one achieve that is the problem though.
NadVolum (
talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggestion for a subsection on destruction of Gaza's education system?
Hi all
Can I suggest the article covers the damage and destruction done to the education system in Gaza? I found these sources on the topic, the most recent one I can find states that Israeli forces have destroyed every university in Gaza and killed dozens of academics, hundreds of teachers and thousands of students.
More widely there is
List of universities and colleges in the State of Palestine and articles for most universities but they appear to be very out of date. I don't know about this topic so if anyone else would like to add it that would be great.
Hi
CommunityNotesContributor thanks, I agree for including information in that article describing the impact on schools but most of the information I can find is for adult education, universities and colleges.
John Cummings (
talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. There's a quite good NBC report I added to the Further reading section of the List of universities that summarises this, and it's worth its own subsection. Specifically higher education (rather than children's education) has been discussed, labelled "
epistemicide by some scholars.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Photos
As with other I/P war articlesm while editors strive for narrative balance, some editors surharge the images in favour of one party, here and elsewhere Israel. Alaexis insists that we need to strengthen the already existing imbalance in Israel's warpics, one of a blooded room in a kibbutz. For every such photo, probably a hundred exist of blood-strewn homes in Gaza, or pictures like
this.
So we need to analyse the existing body of pics to determine the ratios between the two sides
Nishidani (
talk) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The subsection from which the photo was removed (7 October attack#Towns and rural communities) is about the attack by Hamas and the images should illustrate the content. The subsection currently has just one image (the satellite view of fires) and surely it's not unreasonable to have one photo showing the destruction wrought by the attackers.
Alaexis驴question? 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed; the minimal visual representation of the attack on Israel is an NPOV issue - and Nishidani, I note Alaexis wasn鈥檛 adding the image, they were restoring it.
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't sidestep the point, as you both do. The article throughout on its range of photos shows a strong bias towards representations of an Israeli perspective. One cannot tinker with one subsection after another with complete disregard to the imbalance already present on our page. Address that and you may have, later, a reasonable argument for the inclusion of a picture like the blood-stained image, next to one showing a parallel scene, and there are thousands to choose from, of bloodshed among Palestinians. Not to observe parity is to privilege the victimizer as victim strain in the Israeli official spin (the war coverage must focus overwhelmingly on the devastations of the kibbutzim on Oct.7 and sideline the same havoc, repeated everyday over the succeeding 400 days, under the most massive bombing of Gazan civilians and their homes in modern history). The article is about the 7 month war, not only about day 1. It is about what happened to Israelis and Palestinians.
Nishidani (
talk) 08:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only "tinkering" here is by those removing these long-standing images.
We have pictures of the days after day one - and in a ratio that favours the Palestinian POV, with five images showing the impact on Israel and eleven on Palestine. What you are trying to do is make the ratio even more disparate, and that鈥檚 not NPOV.
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A good reminder that the war has been ongoing for 200 days; the attack on 7 October was finished by 9 October. 1:100 ratio is the reality on the ground.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hamas didn't stop fighting on Oct. 9. I think the more accurate ratio to assess relative impact or harm is number of casualties (1:30). And to elaborate on the OP, balance isn't just about numbers but also about content of the photos. We don't want a situation where we have gruesome photos on one side and sanitized photos on the other, regardless of numerical quantity or ratios.
Levivich (
talk) 05:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Although, neither is a good way to assess what is
WP:DUE; 30 times more Chinese people died in WWII than French people, but that doesn鈥檛 mean we should have 30 times the coverage in
WWII.
BilledMammal (
talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not the context we are discussing. The war has been overwhelmingly taking place in the Gaza Strip, as attested by the number of casualties, as attested by the few days of the attack in Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This *section* is about the 7 October attack on the towns and rural communities. It's not overly long and reflects the weight given to the initial attack by RS, e.g.,
[22]. The sections describing the situation in Gaza are illustrated with images as well.
Alaexis驴question? 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is about notions of parity and imbalance as there is no blood image of the other victims. Every reader hopefully already knows that crime with arms = blood. Redundancy.
Deblinis (
talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is - in the image captioned "Wounded child and man receive treatment on the floor at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City". However, there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚 - your logic would require we remove images of wounded Palestinians.
BilledMammal (
talk) 04:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚"
Because there aren't any, and if there were they probably aren't even free images Abo Yemen鉁 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. We have an entire video of first-responders responding to the scene of the rave attack with dozens of bodies visible. This is already unprecedented and not done for any comparable military operation. I can accept the one video, but the bloody home photo on top of that is too much. Reminder that the ratio of Israeli deaths to Palestinian is like 1:30 or something (and this is an underestimate 鈥 only God knows how many bodies are under the rubble, or how many additional undiscovered mass graves there are). With the exception of perhaps two days (7-8 October), the now six-month long war has not taken place in Israel proper at all. Thus for proper balance the overwhelming majority of media should be from Gaza.
JDiala (
talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
To complete the chain,
WP:DUE and
WP:NPOV necessitate a balanced representation of the conflict. The war鈥檚 impact is not confined to a single day or location, and the majority of the conflict has occurred in Gaza. The image selection should reflect this reality. While it鈥檚 important to depict the impact on all sides, we should be mindful of the overall narrative the images convey. A disproportionate focus on one side could inadvertently skew the reader鈥檚 perception of the events. --
Mhhosseintalk 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point. The video does provide an illustration. I didn't think of it as the first frame doesn't show much. I wonder if it's possible to get data on how many users watch videos.
Alaexis驴question? 12:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
With the removal of this photograph, we don鈥檛 have any photographs showing the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians - are people really saying that this is in line with
WP:DUE?
BilledMammal (
talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We have a video which is worth more than a photo!
JDiala (
talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You're right, I overlooked the video - which is why I don't believe it is worth more, as it is only if the reader views the video (and most won't) that they'll see the murdered civilians.
BilledMammal (
talk) 03:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be happy to replace the video with a photo. How do you feel about that?
JDiala (
talk) 04:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not ideal; it doesn鈥檛 address the issue caused by the removal of this image, which is that we now have too few depictions of the impact on Israel.
In addition, the video, while less accessible than the photograph, provides important context for readers who choose to watch it - we shouldn鈥檛 make it less accessible.
BilledMammal (
talk) 04:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, sure, but I've already given my arguments for why there should be at most one piece of media from 7 October, for sake of balance. You haven't engaged with this point.
JDiala (
talk) 05:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument isn鈥檛 based in policy; sources give sufficient weight to the events that started this war that more than one piece of media is warranted.
BilledMammal (
talk) 05:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only applicable policy here is
WP:DUE. But that applies to viewpoints, not events. We're not promoting a particular viewpoint here. We're chronicling an ongoing armed conflict. Naturally, the start of the conflict will attract more attention from media sources, but that doesn't mean it should figure disproportionately in a chronology of the war. Consider the
War in Afghanistan article. It has only one photograph from 9/11, despite 9/11 figuring far more in reliable sources than any particular engagements in Afghanistan.
JDiala (
talk) 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BALASP is the relevant policy, and it does cover events. Coverage isn鈥檛 disproportionate if it is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources - however, it is if it isn鈥檛, and at the moment, particularly with the removal of this image, it isn鈥檛.
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree, and think it is perfectly appropriate, all things considered. We should also count the satellite photograph as it displays burning homes. Thus, we have at least two pieces of media for the 7 October resistance operation. That's more than enough. I find that you're engaged in
WP:LAWYERING right now, and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the project's goals. The goal here is to create a coherent article chronicling an ongoing war. We are also allowed to ignore rules if they interfere with this (
WP:IGNOREALLRULES). In this case, a great chunk of the photos of the war being on the events of a single day undermines that goal. Your other arguments are also tendentious. You're claiming that most people won't view the video so it shouldn't count more. But where is this argument based in policy? Do you have any evidence proving that people don't watch videos on Wikipedia articles? And is viewing rate a consideration in media selection? Even if I grant that's true, those that do watch the video will get a far more intimate scene in Israel than anything in Gaza.
JDiala (
talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@BilledMammal: The removal of the photograph doesn't necessarily compromise the representation of the impact on civilians, given the existence of a video that provides a comprehensive depiction of the events (
WP:DUE). The suggestion to replace the video with a photo could address accessibility concerns while maintaining neutrality (
WP:NPOV). If disagreements persist, consider seeking dispute resolution to ensure the article remains balanced and serves its purpose effectively. --
Mhhosseintalk 13:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. This image depicts the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians, attacks that have received and continue to receive expansive coverage in media, and are the reason this war began. Non-trivial coverage of them is warranted and required under
WP:NPOV and
WP:BALASP, and removing this image would leave us with only one piece of media depicting this impact, which would be insufficient to meet the requirements that we cover these in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources.
BilledMammal (
talk) 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support removal and/or replacement with any image that is not uploaded by the Israeli government. Plus showing blood without any bodies is giving pure propaganda vibes Abo Yemen鉁 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't oppose replacement with a different picture that depicts the impact of the attacks on civilians (and would support it over removing the image entirely), but I'm not sure why we care who uploaded the image?
BilledMammal (
talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Israel, especially after the oct. 7 attacks, tried to make one of the most embarrassing and absurd propaganda campaigns I've ever seen (I'm sure that you still remember the 40 imaginary beheaded babies) Abo Yemen鉁 17:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Israel (ditto IDF) totally unreliable in the conflict, equivalent to Hamas as a source, or worse, since Hamas haven't been caught out telling porkies half as often.
Fact Sheet: Israel鈥檚 History of Spreading Disinformation (and that's just through October).
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That doesn't appear to be a reliable source; for example, one of its examples that it uses as evidence of Israel spreading disinformation are Israeli "claims that Hamas fighters raped women during their attack on October 7".
The indications are that those claims are correct. Regardless, that doesn't seem to be relevant here, unless there is evidence that images uploaded by Israel are not what they are claimed to be?
BilledMammal (
talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Plenty of sources for Israeli fibbing. Including the doctoring of images and vids. Therefore unreliable.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Read [
[23]]. I thought everyone knew this? Apparently not.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As part of a PR campaign, pro-Israeli advocacy which is Israel's practice of shaping narratives; in one word for that image: sensationalism.
Deblinis (
talk) 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh boy this is going to be fun to watchAbo Yemen鉁 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sensationalism, putting forward an emotional narrative to impact Western populations and obtain a blank check from Western allies for military actions, without any right of inspection.
Deblinis (
talk) 00:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment There are other similar images that can be considered such as these:
1,
2,
3,
4. In any case, there should be at least one image to illustrate the attack besides only a map, reminding
WP:NOTCENSORED too. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
#1 is too remote - it isn't clear that the impact is on civilians - while #2 is from after the attacks, from rocket barrages. I would support #3 or #4.
BilledMammal (
talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I strongly oppose anything uploaded by the Israeli government (I'm talking about number 3 here). I remember number 2 being from that video where IDF soldiers we're shooting at empty hallways (Correct me if im wrong with this one). Now, with number 4, while I don't want to look like im defending the killing of a child here, I personally find it kinda weird for the uploader of the image not uploading the full video where the supposed Hamas militant kills the child. I mean it would definitely cause more reputation loss for Hamas, no? Plus cctv footages are "ineligible for
copyright and therefore in the public domain" and could have been uploaded easily Abo Yemen鉁 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
#4 isn't from CC TV; it has been released with a compatible license ("These footage are free to use, in hope the world will see the true horrors that took place here. All we ask is that you attribute "South First Responders" group for the important work that the guys are doing."), but it's a still image taken by first responders. I have corrected it on commons.
BilledMammal (
talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think this should automatically mean exclusion if it is attributed unless there are reasonable doubts about its authenticity. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 13:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose removal, or support replacement. I agree with the reasoning of BilledMammal. A photo like this illustrates the human impact of the events that took place on civilians. Wikipedia is not censored. There was a 2009 RfC to remove a picture of a killed Palestinian baby from the
2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict article, and I think that was wrong for the same reasons. We wouldn't remove the picture from the
My Lai Massacre article either.HenryMP02 (
talk) 18:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think everyone knows of
WP:NOTCENSORED. That's not the problem. The main problem here is how reliable the photograph is. According to
Abo Yemen, the photograph was taken for propaganda purposes, citing the picture being taken by the Israeli government, and the fact that there are no bodies and only blood.
The 馃弾 Corvette 馃弽 ZR1(The Garage) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I accept that it probably was distributed for propaganda purposes. Propaganda doesn't have to be false. I don't see reason to suspect of being fake, even if there are no bodies visible. There are videos which show Hamas militants going into homes. Many were killed and injured on October 7th. From what I know at the moment, I believe the photograph is authentic, if that's what you mean.
HenryMP02 (
talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On the right is another picture of the supposed crime scene taken by the same photographer,
Kobi Gideon. If you zoom in, you'll find your average
murder mystery Netflix-level of a scene. Random pictures scattered on the ground, your usual art colored by the 6 year old living in the house, whatever that tripod is doing inside the home of this unheard of influencer/tiktoker/youtuber who could have made a video of the crime or something close to that.
Now I might be wrong with my somewhat quick investigation, but my point is that pictures taken by either israel or hamas should not be included in the article, unless it is made clear to the reader who took the picture and/or who distributed it Abo Yemen鉁 11:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTCENSORED says that rated R photographs should not be excluded by default. That doesn't imply they need to be included.
JDiala (
talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove. There is already a thread immediately above about this and I've outlined my rationale there. The number of media for 7 October is adequate in my estimation. There is a full video dedicated to showing corpses from the music festival. Possible compromise position: I might be willing to consider photos or videos of Hamas killing or having killed Israeli soldiers if the opener of the RfC and others are open to this. I am worried that the media we have currently paints Hamas in the worst possible light, and portrays 7 October as having been purely a massacre of innocents rather than the military operation (with some complex and tragic consequences in execution) it was. By adding media of deceased soldiers, it could signal to the reader the military nature of the operation, which would be more balanced.
JDiala (
talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose this compromise. Two thirds of those killed on 7 October were civilians, so this would be misleading (just as it would be misleading to only show pictures of Hamas fighter casualties and not civilians)
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the compromise wasn't suggesting replacing the image in question, but supplementing it. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't oppose supplementing it with images of Israeli military casualties. I read JDiala as saying instead not also, but that might be my misreading.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Multiple editors have brought up
WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a highly disingenuous strawman argument which no one on the other side has made.
WP:NOTCENSORED states that being graphic isn't a sufficient condition to force removal. That doesn't imply that other reasons aren't sufficient conditions. Reminder that the editors here all have 500+ edits so are aware of
WP:NOTCENSORED. Bringing it up repeatedly is just muddying the water and responding to an argument never made.
JDiala (
talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, I struck it from my comment above -
HenryMP02 (
talk) 15:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed, it is interesting that there no photos of bodies of Hamas fighters who died on 7 October. I recall seeing videos of Israelis urinating on their bodies, should that be added to contribute to the balance?
JDiala (
talk) 12:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I Support doing so Abo Yemen鉁 11:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose adding videos of Israelis urinating on bodies to the 7 October article, given these do not have any reliable source but appeared on self-published social media. One or two images reflecting the Palestinian victims of IDF actions on 7 October would however be due there, just as one or two images reflecting Israeli and other victims of the actions of Hamas and its allies on that day are due here.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose removal on account of
WP:NOTCENSORED and, like others have said, it serves best to show how the conflict has human impact. I don't think the fact that Israel posted the photo is sufficient enough to remove the image (this did happen in Israel, it's going to come from an Israeli source no matter what happens). That being said, I agree with
JDiala in that we should include images of military action whether by IDF or Hamas to give a more through picture of what happened 鈥 there was a lot going on that day, and focusing solely on one aspect would be detrimental. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove The pictures are unbalanced for the article. For this one there's lots showing dead Palestinians. At the very very least one would expect parity. Also I don't think the photo shows he scene of a death. If somebody was killed there I would have expected blood spatter around the place whereas it looks like the blood was put on the floor and shoved around. I hate to say that about the possible death of someone, it sounds like one of those damned conspiracy theory types, but unfortunately that's what it looks like to me. I would downvote the picture as authentic of anything.
NadVolum (
talk) 17:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove as completely and utterly
WP:UNDUE. The
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (which has its own article and a video in this one) is a small part of this war in which the overwhelming majority of the casualties (by a mile) are Palestinians. As for the "human impact" that keeps getting mentioned, we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten).
M.Bitton (
talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten) Just a heads up, this really ruins your first (entirely valid) point/opinion 鈥 it makes it sound like you think this should be/is a
coatrack article.
There is an entire article on Palestinian Genocide, we're not talking about that, we're talking about whether or not to include an image in a section talking about the initial attack. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just a heads up, the genocide point is definitely valid Abo Yemen鉁 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's entirely possible I'm missing something, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove. The article already has an adequate number of images; but beyond that, images that are released by an official government organization and which are plainly intended to be emotionally evocative or impactful should be viewed from a default position of caution - even if they are accurate, they may be non-representative, specifically framed or chosen to maximize emotional impact, and so on. This doesn't render them unusable but I would prefer other images when available (and they are available.) I would also echo the people above who are bothered by the continuous attempts to cite
WP:NOTCENSORED when nobody has asked that the image be removed due to its graphic nature - the flip side of NOTCENSORED, in my opinion, is that of course the graphic nature of an image is not inherently a reason for inclusion; we don't include shocking images simply for the sake of shocking people. As a general rule, when people cite NOTCENSORED in an overly-defensive manner like that it makes me nervous that an image is being used primarily for its shocking impact, which is not a valid rationale in and of itself. See the essay
Wikipedia:NOTNOTCENSORED for some discussion about how reflexively defensive invocations of NOTCENSORED can be a warning sign that an image has problems. --
Aquillion (
talk) 22:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Aquillion: Would you support replacing it with NoonIcarus鈥檚 #4, which was taken and released by civilians?
BilledMammal (
talk) 22:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove there is a video which is already a strong bias, this was explained in the section above this one. Re: my previous replies.
Deblinis (
talk) 23:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. There should be at least one photo in that section illustrating the attack on Israeli communities. It's good that we have a video but it's not a replacement. If I read this
report correctly, very few people watch it, compared to the number of readers of the article. I'd be fine with using alternative images #3, #4 suggested by u:NoonIcarus. I'm not sure that the reliability arguments are made in good faith. There are hundreds of similar photos in every newspaper showing the destruction
[24].
Alaexis驴question? 14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well I certainly would like a good reliable source to have a look at the photos and say what they think they illustrate. There must be plenty of crime scene experts around the world who could do that. Sorry if you think that is bad faith but I can't just unquestioningly accept everything from the government press office of a country engaged in a war. I think a picture like those in the Guardian illustrate what was happening much better and it is a reasonably independent source.
NadVolum (
talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have nothing against using other photos. There are obvious copyright problems as we'd have to prove fair use (or whatever it's called nowadays) but if someone is willing to do it we could replace this photo.
My point was that we have very similar photos from other RS (
one more example), with the destruction and blood, so I don't think there are real grounds to doubt the authenticity of the image in question.
Alaexis驴question? 22:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that example also is a far better illustration. Surely someone had a camera and took a photo there and was willing to release it rather than everything being newspaper reporters and the government office? Those government office ones are just uninformative photos except perhaps for shocking people who have a thing about blood. They don't really illustrate the subject matter never mind about any other worries about them.
NadVolum (
talk) 13:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No. Why would some even raise such question? Terrorists from Hamas have massacred people and this image directly represents the event. An attempt to censor Wikipedia is not a good thing to do. With regards,
Oleg Y. (
talk) 03:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Attributing figures, and saying other sources dispute them, are too different things; in this case I think it is appropriate to do both - we can鈥檛 give these figures in Wikivoice, and we can鈥檛 ignore the fact that these figures have been questioned.
BilledMammal (
talk) 07:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BilledMammal: There is no need for attributing majority of reliable sources which have cast no doubt on the figures.
You have also made even more controversial edits changing "children" to "minors"
[25] despite "children" being used almost exclusively by RS.
Also you have removed mention of how the mentioned women and children are the majority of killed.
[26].
Waiting for your self-revert on these three edits that go against reliable sources reporting.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Almost all reliable sources attribute; as such, we have to do the same.
Saying "majority" and providing the figures is redundant and bad writing; we should do one or the other, and trust that our readers know how numbers work.
"Children" has different meanings depending on the culture; "minors" are clearer. In addition, "minors" are what we use in the body.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Then you change the body. Most
WP:RS use children. I have reverted your edit.
JDiala (
talk) 10:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevant definitions for the two words:
Child:a young person especially between infancy and puberty or a person not yet of the age of majority
In this case, the sources are referring to individuals under the age of 18; shouldn't we use the word that clearly conveys that meaning, rather than the one which might result in the reader misunderstanding the sentence?
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Red herring, no one is discussing these definitions. We are discussing what RS have used in their reporting of the war and they have exclusively used the term children because legally speaking those under 18 years of age are called children; which is an objective definition not relating to any subjective culture.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We're not obliged to use the exact wording used by reliable sources; in this circumstance, why would we want to use less precise words when more precise words exist and ensure that our readers won't misunderstand our content?
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, we will not be using euphemisms for what is universally reported as 13,000 dead Palestinian children.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean if you're going to POV push I'd suggest not being so transparent about it. The word "child" is not imprecise.
JDiala (
talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, no need to attribute the death toll. That the death toll is attributed in
WP:RS is immaterial if it is clear from the context that the reliable sources are taking the death toll as a statement of fact, which in most cases they are. See for instance
[1] the title explicitly says "30,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians" indicating reliable sources have a confidence in the health ministry.
JDiala (
talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:HEADLINES; we don't consider headlines reliable. In the body, which we can consider reliable, reliable sources almost without exception attribute - and often in more detail than we have done in the article, with the sources mentioning that the health ministry is run by Hamas.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No one said either that we consider headlines reliable, but that the figures were not cast doubt on by majority of RS.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If you read the comment I was replying to, you would see that JDiala was basing their argument on the headlines of an article.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I did read it. JDiala was giving an example and did not say that headlines are reliable.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a significant number of sources you can find which explicitly state, within the body, the 30,000 toll. See e.g., [
this] or [
this]. It's true that some other sources choose to attribute within the body. The point is that figures are not really contested in the mainstream. If we make a decision to attribute, that's in effect casting doubt on the numbers when no such contest exists. (I know you cited the TabletMag piece but that was debunked many times)
JDiala (
talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"An analysis published in the
Lancet medical journal in December found that Gaza's health ministry has "historically reported accurate mortality data.".
[27]Deblinis (
talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't expect all readers to do maths while reading and conclude that Israel had mostly killed Palestinian woman and children, this is a removal of an important piece of information.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Majority of killed Palestinians are women and children
Why is this important piece of information being removed from the lede despite it being completed sourced?
[28]Makeandtoss (
talk) 14:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's fine. Reader can do math; it's clearly over 50%. Explicitly using the word "majority" is a bit unnatural.
JDiala (
talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JDiala: Not all readers can do maths, or bother to do the maths, so why not just state it explicitly as it is?
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
it think it's okay. By the way did you see the bit about
Mirna El Helbawi who helped get Gaza connected again so things like this can get out? I'd be just a bit careful about using a phone though if I was there!, the IDF are almost certanily monitoring them and I can see it making even quite innocent people more likely to be targets.
NadVolum (
talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying it explicitly this way with the word 鈥渕ajority鈥 is apt.
Deblinis (
talk) 14:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's clunky and the maths isn't that complicated, so missing it out isn't withholding any information. (I note we don't use this editorialising language in the corresponding sentence of the lead of
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.) If editors insist we need this, I'd suggest less clunky wording. For example, could say "41% of whom (14,000) were children and 26% (9,000) were women".
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd like to think our readers can add.
Cremastra (
talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably a good idea, but does someone need to check all the content is actually present on the the child page first? Not that I'm really volunteering.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We can just copy the material to the talk page in case any is missing. Idk if the lead of the child article is sufficient though.
Selfstudier (
talk) 18:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. That too. The child appears distinctly neglected/underdeveloped.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I copied the lead from the child to here, needs work to update with latest summary type sourcing. I copied all the other material to the child talk page for comparison and checking to match up the material there. I will make a start on the work, anyone can help, that would be good.
Thanks to Chessrat, for their work on streamlining the article.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Similarly, do we have any articles on the extensive evidence showing Hamas militants and Palestinian civilians looting Israel?
BilledMammal (
talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
we don't and the only few sources about this are old and currently irrelevant Abo Yemen鉁 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No, not irrelevant. If such an article is made it should cover both sides, not just one. It is a fact that there was extensive looting of property from Israel on 10/7 and some of the stolen property was recovered by the IDF in Gaza. If we're to be neutral both sides must be mentioned.--
RM (
Be my friend) 23:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. We would only "cover both sides" if reliable sources show through their coverage that both are notable enough. No
WP:FALSEBALANCEEvergreenFir(talk) 04:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The UN says Gaza had a 80% poverty rate
[29] , human rights organizations say Gazans live in an open air prison , and Gaza has a high unemployment rate with people dependent on humanitarian aid, so I am confused about what valuables soldiers are looting.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 04:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hm it looks like that NBC source about the poverty rate is wrong. Guardian says it鈥檚 two thirds in poverty with 80% relying on aid.
[30] US News also says 60% poverty
[31].
Hamas leaders have large sums of cash, but I think some fraction of the civilians probably had some money/gold as well鈥 this New Arab article says that Israeli soldiers have 鈥 seized sums of money exceeding five million shekels (roughly $1,320,000)鈥, as well as 鈥 systematic theft of cash, gold, laptops, and mobile phones by Israeli soldiers, estimated at a value of $25 million.鈥
[32]Wafflefrites (
talk) 05:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The New Arab is owned by the Qatari royal family. Considering the Qatari ties with Hamas and the state of press freedom in the country we should be conscious of the source's bias.
Alaexis驴question? 21:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The New Arab article does quote "Tahseen Elayyan, a legal researcher at Ramallah-based human rights organisation Al-Haq... 鈥Israeli occupying authorities justify [the looting] under the pretext that the money belongs to Hamas鈥.
The New Arab linked to a Euro-Med article, which also quotes a man saying $10,000 USD was stolen from his home... $10,000 USD is a lot of cash to be storing within a house when they have/had banks in the Palestinian territories like the
Bank of Palestine, or the Palestine Islamic Bank
[33]. But the Euro-Med article does not mention anything about him having ties to Hamas, although it does mention Israeli soldiers bragging on social media about the looting, so some of the soldiers are looting.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 23:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israel鈥揌amas war article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This page is currently under extended confirmed protection. Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The
policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce
arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the
talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by
consensus.
A: Not right now. There is currently a three-month moratorium on changing the article name (i.e. no filing of
requested moves or direct moving) which began on 27 February 2024 and will end on 27 May 2024. This was the prevailing opinion in
this discussion and can be lifted early only "if there is a significant change in the scope of the war".
Q: Why is the article named the way it is? Should we name it something else?
A: Please consult the list of "requested moves" listed at the top of the talk page to see the history of multiple extensive discussions that have led to the current name.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the
Arab鈥揑sraeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
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.
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen articles
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2023, when it received 13,647,220 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report9 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Beit hanoun was withdrawn from in December, and the map didn't change.
Lukt64 (
talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Because it shows maximum Israel advances not current control.
Borysk5 (
talk) 06:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Institute for the Study of Warstill displays most of Gaza as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. If you can find a better, more up to date source, I could change the map. So far, ISW has been the only reliable source providing updates on the conflict map.
Ecrusized (
talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
ISW is reliable in that sense, but the only thing here is that they show areas cleared as blue even if the IDF has withdrawn so it was basically a 鈥渇urthest extent鈥 map. Note that the areas still remain blue even after the ISW acknowledges that israeli forces withdrew from the area
I added a map with withdrawal areas.
Borysk5 (
talk) 09:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User
Borysk5 has made a map citing a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker, it links to a custom Google Maps page. If this source is considered reliable enough, I can update the main map file with it. Let me know what you think.
Ecrusized (
talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is a possible revision of the map showing only Netzarim corridor as being under Israeli control. According to
reports, only one IDF brigade remains in the Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor.
Ecrusized (
talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would recommend adding areas they withdrew from
Lukt64 (
talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They are included in blue dashed lines.
Ecrusized (
talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone
Lukt64 (
talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered.
Ecrusized (
talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho.
Lukt64 (
talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess.
Ecrusized (
talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for
Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The 鈥渆asy鈥 solution in this case is for the map to have 鈥渁reas under Israeli control鈥 renamed to 鈥渕aximum extent of the Israeli invasion鈥
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be better if it were just represented by a dashed line (like the maximum extent of the Gazan advance at the beginning of the war) and the respective blue and red colors indicated present control. Maybe blue/red stripes in contested areas if its possible.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I heard ecrusized has tried that in the past and got into issues because of the 鈥渙riginal research鈥 policy, which is why he is reluctant to deviate from one source. Just changing the label on the caption can be good short term and be less misleading
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree changing the label is a good short-term fix, and should be carried out ASAP. We do need to start thinking long-term, though, because a lead infobox in a highly visible and important article should be as clear to the reader as possible.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Userd898: Please participate in this discussion before making any changes. It was argued here that a distinction couldn't be made by separating where Israel currently and formerly operates. You also appear to have drawn incorrect boundaries as to where Israel operated.
Ecrusized (
talk) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
He showed an incursion into Rahat, and as the map labels the 鈥渕aximum extent of the Hamas invasion鈥 it should show the incursion there as it appears a few militants launched an incursion into Rahat on October 7-8, quite a few sources back this up
That revision is a complete mess. The user who made it appears to have zero experience with svg's hence they completely removed the Hamas resistance pockets/enclaves in Gaza and Khan Younis, and drawn a made up boundary which does not cite a single source. They also ruined the translations, and drew a weird yet another original research boundary for where Israel currently operates and 7 October incursions. See
https://oct7map.comEcrusized (
talk) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If needed, the original one can remain but with netzarim corridor shown as blue and the rest as purple, based on this source
If you dont wish to do that with constant updates of movement and don't want synthesis issues even with two sources only the blue on the map can be labelled "maximum extent of the israeli invasion" or "furthest extent of the israeli invasion" instead of "areas under israeli control" without changing any colours and still relying solely on the ISW.
As for the ocotber 7 map it can be modified to include the rahat incursion, which apparently did not include any fatalities and hence isn't included on the october 7 map, but is well-substantiated and confirmed to have happened by several sources
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 08:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Institute for Study of War is still coloring new areas outside of "Netzarim" corridor as being under Israeli control. I cannot create a synthesis file based on a single news report. If needed, the legend can be changed from "Areas under Israeli control" to "claimed extent of Israeli control".
Ecrusized (
talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How about we have the maximum Israeli advance represented by a blue dotted line, just how the maximum Palestinian advance is represented by a red-dotted line? Then leave the blue and red colors corresponding to what most sources say. If ISW is still claiming Israeli control in certain areas despite many other sources claiming otherwise, then again, it should not be seen as reliable as a basis of this article's map, respectfully.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I鈥檓 not very well versed in the synthesis policy but I don鈥檛 think it would be an issue to label it 鈥渕aximum advance鈥, the ISW uses 鈥渞eported clearing operations鈥, but they have acknowledged Israel 鈥渃ompleting its mission鈥 or withdrawing from areas even though they鈥檙e still coloured blue which makes it likely that they went for a maximum extent map
I think constant updates of movement are necessarily because its what Wikipedia readers deserve. No offense, but we cannot be misleading just because we want to take the easy road.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Evaporation123 and
The Great Mule of Eupatoria: You guys are saying that I should show thing on the map based on my own initiative. I cannot do that since adding content to Wikipedia requires citing
reliable source. Above in the discussion, you can see that a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker is talked about. If that can be considered an RS, than I could change the map according to the examples above. However, I doubt that source can ever pass a an RS since its a self published work. You might want to discuss it at
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.
Ecrusized (
talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you know anything about what sources the Gaza War Unit Tracker depends on?
Evaporation123 (
talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Including the primary title is not necessary here, and given the size of the lede we are better off omitting it in the interest of conciseness. We should exclude the alt names for the same reason, as well as, since there are at least three alt names of sufficient significance to warrant inclusion,
MOS:ALTNAME which instructs us If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section.
BilledMammal (
talk) 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per BilledMammal. Lead is already far too large.
JDiala (
talk) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please, could you read the discussion that has been open yesterday
here and answer there as well.
Deblinis (
talk) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The number of sources mentioned in that
last RM discussion is far more than the 5 sources you cited, with editors putting forth sources from both sides. I recommend reading that entire thread and also skim through the sources mentioned, and decide from there. NasssaNser 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Appendix: Everyone is invited to read this before commenting and answering.
It shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources respondingto the highest standard of journalism, are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. As of April 2024, fact is that the following major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. The Washington Post which is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, does it - see
linkarchived. Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, does it - see
link. El Pa铆s which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, does it - see
link1 see
see link2.
BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, does it - see
link. The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner, does it - see
link. This new discussion and rfc happen because of that factor. The "Israel鈥揌amas war" also known as the "Israel-Gaza war" - bolded in the lead for now until May as there is a moratorium on move requestsDeblinis (
talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deblinis (
talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)war" category.reply
Israel-Gaza war or Israel's war on Gaza per Nasssa in the discussion. This is how the war is being referred to in reliables sources.
NadVolum (
talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(invited by the bot) No need to bold, and it only needs one title, the current one Israel鈥揌amas war. That is the two parties engaged in the war. North8000 (
talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above, no need bold in the lead.
Yeoutie (
talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please, could you read the "Appendix" written above and answer after聽?
Deblinis (
talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose the inclusion of any name in the article lead, in other words treat the article title as purely descriptive, as it is currently ("An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups[s] has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023."). If, otoh, the consensus is to include "Israel鈥揌amas war" (whether bolded or not) then the altnames 1 and 2 should be included as well on the same basis.
Selfstudier (
talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please, could you read the Appendix" written above and answer after聽?
Deblinis (
talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per length, strongest possible opposition for any measure replacing/excluding Hamas in one of the primary titles.Weak oppose to alt titles per footnote due to number,Oppose other inclusion. The first and third position are primarily based on LEAD and conciseness to prevent excessive length per the arguments made above. The second is based on NPOV, secondarily IAR should the primary lack strength: searchability, 'common sense' and the move to a (more) NPOV title are the significant arguments against.
FortunateSons (
talk) 10:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding Israel鈥揌amas: this is not an RM and we aren't discussing the primary title anytime soon. NasssaNser 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am aware of it. This is specifically about listing a secondary title in the style of Israel-Gaza, as implied by some above. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify聽:)
FortunateSons (
talk) 08:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per SelfStudier. If we include the article, then I would start a discussion as to which of the numerous alt names to add. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion
On the alts, "Israel's war in Gaza" is effectively identical to "Israel's war on Gaza", and mostly synonymous with "Israel鈥揋aza war". "Operation Swords of Iron" and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. NasssaNser 09:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think if we are going to include alt names we should include "Operation Swords of Iron", which is
Israel's official name for the war. I think I remember "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" being used in a similar manner, but I can't find any sources for that.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reliable sources hardly ever mention those names.
NadVolum (
talk) 10:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nah, official names are just POV and no-one really calls them that anyway except those that create them.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Al-Aqsa Flood generally strictly refers to the initial attacks from Hamas, and I guess Swords of Iron is a similar situation of strictly referring to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Both has their dedicated articles. NasssaNser 07:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Palestinian militants use 鈥渂attle of Al aqsa flood鈥 to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and 鈥渙peration of Al aqsa flood鈥 or 鈥渂attle of October 7鈥 to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has 鈥溬呚关辟冐 胤賵賮丕賳 丕賱兀賯氐賶鈥 even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are really only two altnames of any significance, the first two. So the 3 or more thing doesn't really apply.
The new rfc doesn't present what are the challenges of the terminology and the presentation in the lead. Some users already reply without answering and they don't take in view the editorial line of some of the most prestigious journalism sources worldwide, this is what the discussion (and rfc) should be about. That dead end in the first sentence of the lead is political: the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text, the fact that it is not the case serves Israeli narrative's state. If this rfc is about voting with this in view
[1] and that
[2]: the
wp:neutrality issue in the lead will remain. @
Selfstudier:, can one write a new rfc below this one聽?
Deblinis (
talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point it feels like
WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". NasssaNser 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Everyone has their own opinions", indeed >
[3][4]Deblinis (
talk) 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text This isn't necessarily the case for descriptive titles,
MOS:AVOIDBOLD and
MOS:REDUNDANCY, for example, we don't want to say "The Israel鈥揌amas war is a war between Israel and Hamas."
There can be another RFC that asks a different question, and that does not conflict with this RFC, "Is the existing title NPOV?", for example.
Selfstudier (
talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The name of the war is already confined to "Hamas", which is already even more of a mis-scoping than 'Gaza'.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes and my point is we need to start thinking of alternative names. I'm not satisfied with the current name either.
RM (
Be my friend) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rfc: Media coverage > Several media outlets (Washington Post, The Guardian), name it the "Israel鈥揋aza war": a mention of that in "Media coverage"聽?
Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section聽?
If so, could this draft work聽?
In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.
[5][6][7][8][9][10]The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".
[11]BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".
[12]El Pa铆s called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".
[13]The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.
[14]CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.
[15]Deblinis (
talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is (i) not significant enough to warrant an entire subsection in an already unusually large article, (ii) an instance of
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH as the meta-narrative of a naming controversy isn't discussed in the cited sources. Rather, you are yourself inferring that there is a controversy because there is disparate naming, (iii) not relevant to
WP:NPOV as I'm not sure why "Israel-Hamas war" is somehow a pro-Israel characterization. Elaborating on (iii), the irony is that the claim itself that "'Israel-Hamas war' is biased" is tacitly making a pro-Israel assumption, namely that Hamas is somehow a bad actor and mentions of Hamas are shameful to pro-Palestinian people. Many pro-Palestinian people are proud of the resistance of Hamas fighters against what they consider a genocidal onslaught; thus the exclusion of Hamas in the title is itself biased against Palestinians as it fails to credit the bravery of Hamas fighters.
JDiala (
talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Being factual with these sources that are some of the highest standard sources of journalism is
WP:NPOV. Some users should realize that they have to search
compromise with valid suggestions, wikipedia is a collaborative project.
Many people and journalists have realized that initial name of this conflict, doesn't fit anymore with the actual situation six months after. Around 16,000 children killed in Gaza (without counting the disappeared children), potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza, potential incitement to genocide and possible genocidal intent in Gaza, starvation as a weapon of war on an entire population;
urbicide with destruction of all the ancient buildings, destruction of all the universities, destruction of all the schools, will to erase any trace of Palestinian culture, an entire area made uninhabitable. And Hamas only got 30篓% of votes in Gaza. Whatever, these Western sources known worldwide and their approach to the conflict and how they name the conflict, should be brought to the attention of the readers.
Deblinis (
talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Might this be better as part of an etymology section? Many conflicts have multiple names, so it wouldn't be out of place to have a short etymology section to explain the different names that are used.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!鈿 07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On condition of relying on Western media sources.
Middle East sources in this case are irrelevant, because history is not written and named by the belligerents in power and patriotic partisan media.
Deblinis (
talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per u:JDiala. This is WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources examining the coverage itself.
Alaexis驴question? 08:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Time to underline that even just one another conciser sentence like this one "In April 2024 certain Western media outlets including The Washington Post, BBC, El Pa铆s, The Guardian, CPJ, called the war as the Israel-Gaza war" in the 'Media coverage' section, would be seen as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for some users. The WP:NPOV rule looks trampled and wikipedia is in a
cul de sac.
Deblinis (
talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry to throw a curveball into this RfC, however, based on the sources cited I Support overturning all prior consensus and renaming the entire articleIsrael-Gaza War per sources cited. With recent (as opposed to early) RS coalescing around the term "Israel-Gaza War" (as cited in the examples uncovered by OP), maintaining the term "Israel-Hamas War" is outdated. It's also, per OP, violative of
WP:NPOV, as well as simply being confusing and inconsistent with the infobox, by inaccurately aggregating the conflict into a binary engagement between exactly two belligerents. Beyond that, I'm neutral about listing it in the "media coverage" section as this seems
WP:EXCESSDETAIL, unless we are to spin out a separate etymology section as suggested above, in which case that seems fine.
Chetsford (
talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Hi I think most people know it by Israel-Hamas war, if anything maybe change it around (to Hamas Israel cause of the alphabet) but it really should stay the same. And I think it's kind of stated that the goal of Israel is to destroy Hamas in this war and Hamas is the main power so it makes sense. I mean it's also like the US went to fight Houthis in Yemen, they aren't at war with Yemen but with the Houthis.
ElLuzDelSur (
talk) 07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This editor is a blocked sock.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As an additional note, they were not blocked at the time of the !vote - socks can only be struck and discounted if they made a duplicate !vote, or if their master was blocked at the time of the !vote.
BilledMammal (
talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods. Sometimes, a combination of these methods is best. The goal is to make it obvious they are a sock so when the discussion is closed, their input will not be considered. This should be done for all blocked sockpuppets and sockmasters in a discussion
That one editor wants to make a burocratic issue out of this practice is neither here nor there.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Major media outlets known worldwide (see also RTBF[16]) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner.
The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media.
[17] On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict".
[18]Deblinis (
talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per
WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate
Deblinis (
talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But then you also need to mention what all the other sources call it? You can't cherry pick just to suit a POV.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Israel's war in Gaza" is used only by Le Monde, among the high standard Western sources. Adding it might be
wp:undue.
Deblinis (
talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean you also need to mention all the sources that call it the Israel-Hamas war.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks.
Deblinis (
talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is the latest on
NYT bias "..restrict the use of the terms 鈥済enocide鈥 and 鈥渆thnic cleansing鈥 and to 鈥渁void鈥 using the phrase 鈥渙ccupied territory鈥 when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine 鈥渆xcept in very rare cases鈥 and to steer clear of the term 鈥渞efugee camps鈥.." There is plenty of material out there to make the case that major newsmedia have a bias and we should be focusing on that. This, plus actual facts on the ground, together with the fact that IH war is not commonname but descriptive was the basis for the "no consensus" outcome at the last RM and that is what will be replayed at the next RM.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article size and child articles
Currently the prose size is 23,000+ words, which is
WP:TOOBIG by at least 8,000 words.
Regarding numerous child articles that have been split off, most notably but not exclusively:
WP:SUMMARY guidelines appear pretty clear but not followed here: Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.
None of these sections are lead-like summaries, whereas ideally they would simply be lead
excerpts of the main article. I'm also aware this is similar to many other articles that are too big, but this shouldn't be an argument for why these guidelines aren't being upheld elsewhere. The bottom line is this article could easily be around 10,000 words(*) if guidelines were correctly followed and upheld, as well as encourage improvement of the child articles, namely the lead sections that aren't all as strong as they could be (some are very weak). (*) Excluding excerpted content that wouldn't contribute to article size but probably still be upto 5,000 words from numerous strong child leads.
Digging deeper, the Humanitarian impact section contains "grandchildren"(*) article content which simply don't belong in the "grandparent" article, but instead simply summarised in the parent and referenced in the lead of that article, ie:
Casualties,
Healthcare collapse,
Gaza famine,
Scale of destruction and
Environmental damage (assuming these all are correctly referencing main articles). This is also the case with other grandchild type articles in other sections, whereas the child article should be referencing this all in the lead sections, for a summary in the grandparent. (*) Ie, a child of a child article.
To make this article readable, ideally it would only "directly" contain the events and other confrontations (where this is the main article), and the other split off sections are treated as the child sections that they are. For example
7 October attack is a lead-like summary of
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and
List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023, and much of these two sections have their child articles well summarised (excluding
Invasion of the Gaza Strip that goes a bit beyond). So why can't the rest of the article follow suit?
I'm aware this is a controversial suggestion, because of the importance of documenting the other aspects of the war, but this is exactly why they have their own articles as children and are treated as "a complete encyclopedic article in [their] own right". For example next up would be a split of
Reactions, which is all that's left to split, but this wouldn't bring the article down to a readable size anyway. So without summarising/excerpting the child sections and removing the grandchildren, this article will otherwise never be a readable size.
Which means when reading between the lines basically erasing almost everything that could tarnish and goes against a certain narrative. Strong oppose. Instead erasing any view/quote from patriotic partisan media advocacing their own country, would be a good thing, to start.
Deblinis (
talk) 12:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No need for assumptions of bad faith and ad hom attacks on other editors.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Why not "do" one of them, Allegations of war crimes, say, so we can see what effect it would have?
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
My suggestion wasn't so much as to reduce these sections to lead excerpts immediately, but more so to encourage improving the leads of the child articles so they can be used as excerpts in the future. The closest example would be Regional effects, but the lead doesn't reference the Economics child article (which it should). This is more of a bottom up proposal rather than top down, ie improving the child article leads to include the links and references to the grandchildren would be the way to reduce article size here. Naturally this wouldn't erase anything, it would simply be summarising it per guidelines.
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As an example 鈥 and this is by no means intended as a comparison between conflicts but simply article size management 鈥 if you look at
Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and attacks on civilians, it's a lead-like summary of the main articles (that totals a combined 23,000 words), and an example of how child articles should be summarised in the parent, as well as how to keep an article around 15,000 words as opposed to 23,000. By comparison, this articles Allegations of war crimes section is clearly not a summary of the child article.
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree The article literally contains an entire list containing the full text of resolutions adopted by the UNSC on 5 April. Editors on this article are frankly being highly irresponsible or are inexperienced in their liberal decisions to include additional material in this already giant document.
JDiala (
talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Like the man said, the problem is the child articles, that's what needs fixing first, then the leads of them form content here.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree and support the spirit of
this edit made following this suggestion even if it may have jumped the gun.
Yeoutie (
talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Example (sort of)
See this diff:
[19] shown here
[20] regarding
Humanitarian impact section. It's not a big reduction article length wise, even if removes 2,000 words. Other sections are more difficult. @
Moxy section doesn't require references as doesn't contain any content, per
Template:Excerpt. --CommunityNotesContributor
First...
Wikipedia:Template documentation " Editors should also avoid "quoting" template documentation pages as though they are policy". Sub pages not ready for this yet. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for 'statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic sources ..even more so on " contentious topics" like this. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. As linked at
MOS:CITELEAD...
H:TRANSDRAWBACKS "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors...." plus "Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. "Moxy馃崄 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks?
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure what your saying?
this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy馃崄 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting.
CommunityNotesContributor (
talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The articles leads would need to be sourced.....or do your own summary.Moxy馃崄 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Off-wiki concerns regarding reliability of source
An off-wiki thread on Reddit contests, among other things, that the page cite[s] the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med) to falsely claim that 90% of casualties were civilians. On the surface, the Euro-Med Monitor looks like a generic human rights organization however, the Euro-Med Monitor has actually been a significant source of pro-Hamas propaganda on social media. In fact, it is owned by a man named Ramy Abdu, who is a literal Hamas lobbyist.
I have no issue with the article citing an ostensible Hamas lobbyist so long as it is in conjunction with someone from the opposite side, which it is (an IDF spokesperson and the State of Isreal). After all, NPOV reads A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. However, I'm posting this A) to make editors aware of the possibility of canvassing and B) to see if anyone agrees with the post.
Sincerely, Dilettante 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So best go through those before answering your question, methinks, don't want to go through all that again.
Selfstudier (
talk) 18:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It pretty certainly is an overestimate but I can see how they could have come by it using the recorded casualty figures. Those don't include all the people under the rubble and a large portion of the militants that have been killed are probably under the rubble or otherwise missing from those figures. So I wouldn't call it a false claim, just a claim from earlier in the conflict and where they haven't taken account of all the facts.
NadVolum (
talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On the general business of balance Wikipedia doesn't do the TV business of
WP:FALSEBALANCE where they bring in an expert on flat earth for balance against round earthers but it does try and give all sides a due balance.
NadVolum (
talk) 18:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I've removed it from the infobox; while it probably warrants mentioning in an article, it's unclear why their opinion is so significant as to warrant inclusion in the infobox. (I've also removed the Israeli estimate, for a similar reason).
BilledMammal (
talk) 06:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The Euro-Med Monitor has been described as being "close to Hamas" (
20242014) so I think we should always attribute what they say and make sure we don't give them undue weight.
Alaexis驴question? 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As explained at the article talk page, those are ridiculous sources based on an unreliable source, NGO monitor, in turn based on spurious allegations by the Israeli government.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's actually close to the UN, and those are daft, unreliable sources.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure that being close to the UN is a good sign, considering that the
UNHRC now includes such countries like China and Cuba known for their respect for human rights.
Anyway, the fact that they referenced a source which we consider GUNREL is not a policy-based argument against them. Plenty or sources are not admissible per se, but are used by reliable sources which can in turn be used on Wikipedia.
It's quite amazing how you try to erase the EMEM-Hamas connection. Its current head, Ramy Abdu, has a history of working for
Hamas-affiliated organisations.
Alaexis驴question? 12:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bash the UN in your own time. Your last point here is a claim in that source by Shin-bet, not a fact, and your repeating of it is closer to a BLP violation than it is to a reasonable point to make.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 12:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope, the clause between the dashes in the author of the article explaining what CEPR is.
Alaexis驴question? 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know how to help you: it's clearly part of the Shin-bet quote.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article says Moshe Ya鈥檃lon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) 鈥 a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government 鈥 using emergency defence regulations.
Where did you see Shin-Bet here? There are no quotes or attribution in the subordinate clause.
Alaexis驴question? 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Where it actually talks about Ramy Abdu? The guy you're talking about? (Though
"Assistant to the Director" is not the same as "assistant director". And what about the rest? "He was a project and investment coordinator for the World Bank and other internationally-funded projects addressing the financial sector and the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. He holds two Masters, in Research and Finance. His fields of interests include international aid to developing countries and economic cooperation between EU and the MENA region. He is PhD candidate in Law and Finance at the Manchester Metropolitan University, UK."
Anyway, any of that is for the article about them, not EMM.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
One bad apple spoils the bunch. His work at World Bank isn't likely to indicate a bias to one side of the conflict.
Alaexis驴question? 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So what? Should we not cite anything with an IDF connection? nableezy - 11:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Any organisation which lobbies on behalf of Israel would be a biased source as well.
Alaexis驴question? 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The thread you cite is from the
Steven Bonnell subreddit, which is a juvenile internet streaming subculture well-known for aggressive brigading and (recently) aggressive promotion of Israeli propaganda. The thread cites nothing of import except alleging a "double standard." It suggests a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (notably with respect to
WP:FALSEBALANCE and
WP:RS) in general. There is no reason to take this seriously.
JDiala (
talk) 08:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone there accused you of schochastic terrorism for editing Wikipedia. What little point the people there originally had wrt this article is losing any trace of credibility.
Sincerely, Dilettante 20:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there a reason for the map?
Given that this is a constantly changing situation, should the map simply be deleted?
Valereee (
talk) 02:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the map should be moved down to the body of the article once the war ends and infobox should be replaced with a gallery of photographs, similar to article
World War 2. At this point, Israel seems poised to launch an final offensive on
Rafah, after which the active phase of the war will presumably end.
Ecrusized (
talk) 09:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point complete removal of the map seems like the best choice. ISW is a biased source which will not admit Israeli withdrawals and we seem unable to produce an accurate map. Removal of the map ought to be carried out ASAP.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 21:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Citation errors
The named reference ToI was invoked but never defined for reference no. 54
Only the webpage, without the full citation is mentioned for reference no. 52
The named reference Iran Update, December 27, 2023 was invoked but never defined for reference no. 33
The named reference "auto" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 24
Another Israeli magazine saying the figures are falsified. That's so easy now they've gone and destroyed most of the the hospitals. It is quite long and would need a good study and it is not peer reviewed so it would be best to see what some other sources say first. They refer to Wyner's similar thing for support but if they can't see what a piece of rubbish that is I rather doubt it amounts to anything more.
NadVolum (
talk) 11:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This should clarify where Fathom sympathies lie. Anything from there needs attribution, assuming it is due in the first place.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
One can see their bias from the start talking about a pretence of verification at the start when Israel had the ID numbers and if they had ever found a live person with one of these ID's I'm sure they'd have shouted it from the roofs.
NadVolum (
talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a lot of problems with that article. I think the really big major one is that they assume that women and children and men are all equally likely to go into hospital if injured or dying. This is simply not so. Even before the hospitals were mostly put out of action one could see that the numbers of children killed in the statistics compared to women was too low - one should expect about twice as many children killed by the bombs as women as they are both protected status. In the later figures from the hospitals compared to the ones from outside the ratio got even smaller so you got less children registered killed than women in the hospitals. The hospitals are warning people to stay away unless desperate. Children can be looked after by their parents but adults are less able to stay away from hopital if injured. I'd guess women would try harder to stay awy with their children we have no basis for estimating that effect.
Then there's the problem that once they allowed people to tell them about deaths rather than needing to have actually seen each one people would have told them about deaths they had previously not been recorded, in particular all those children that had died away from the hospitals. Since we know from other information that they were probably only registering about two thirds of the deaths in the first couple of months, their figures for the missing dead were only about half the true figure and I guess they are still about that but it is an unknown. They'd be getting more reports from outside but the hospital system is broken and communications are down. And another big unknown is the number of militants under the rubble.
I haven't checked if it is happening here but a problem with Wyner's 'study' with the negative correnlations was the assumption that when a person is killed the figures sort of go up like in a shooting gallery whereas the different categories are almost certainly checked and tallied up in batches separately and take a couple of days to be added in.
I don't know why the figures for men were reduced. There was a case of data being duplicated by mistake and removed but I don't think that is it. Mistakes are possible when you've just got a few people working with spreadsheets trying to check through such masses of data. Overall it would help if they had a look at the obvious alternatives rather than trying to prove their hypothesis.
NadVolum (
talk) 22:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
News compliation
The article is increasingly turning into a news compilation articles instead of something encyclopaedic. While this is understandable considering that the war is ongoing, I think more care should be taken when inserting day-to-day events, and we should instead insert a more broad and general narrative.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are quite a number of sub articles that could be used certainly. How does one achieve that is the problem though.
NadVolum (
talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggestion for a subsection on destruction of Gaza's education system?
Hi all
Can I suggest the article covers the damage and destruction done to the education system in Gaza? I found these sources on the topic, the most recent one I can find states that Israeli forces have destroyed every university in Gaza and killed dozens of academics, hundreds of teachers and thousands of students.
More widely there is
List of universities and colleges in the State of Palestine and articles for most universities but they appear to be very out of date. I don't know about this topic so if anyone else would like to add it that would be great.
Hi
CommunityNotesContributor thanks, I agree for including information in that article describing the impact on schools but most of the information I can find is for adult education, universities and colleges.
John Cummings (
talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. There's a quite good NBC report I added to the Further reading section of the List of universities that summarises this, and it's worth its own subsection. Specifically higher education (rather than children's education) has been discussed, labelled "
epistemicide by some scholars.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Photos
As with other I/P war articlesm while editors strive for narrative balance, some editors surharge the images in favour of one party, here and elsewhere Israel. Alaexis insists that we need to strengthen the already existing imbalance in Israel's warpics, one of a blooded room in a kibbutz. For every such photo, probably a hundred exist of blood-strewn homes in Gaza, or pictures like
this.
So we need to analyse the existing body of pics to determine the ratios between the two sides
Nishidani (
talk) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The subsection from which the photo was removed (7 October attack#Towns and rural communities) is about the attack by Hamas and the images should illustrate the content. The subsection currently has just one image (the satellite view of fires) and surely it's not unreasonable to have one photo showing the destruction wrought by the attackers.
Alaexis驴question? 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed; the minimal visual representation of the attack on Israel is an NPOV issue - and Nishidani, I note Alaexis wasn鈥檛 adding the image, they were restoring it.
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't sidestep the point, as you both do. The article throughout on its range of photos shows a strong bias towards representations of an Israeli perspective. One cannot tinker with one subsection after another with complete disregard to the imbalance already present on our page. Address that and you may have, later, a reasonable argument for the inclusion of a picture like the blood-stained image, next to one showing a parallel scene, and there are thousands to choose from, of bloodshed among Palestinians. Not to observe parity is to privilege the victimizer as victim strain in the Israeli official spin (the war coverage must focus overwhelmingly on the devastations of the kibbutzim on Oct.7 and sideline the same havoc, repeated everyday over the succeeding 400 days, under the most massive bombing of Gazan civilians and their homes in modern history). The article is about the 7 month war, not only about day 1. It is about what happened to Israelis and Palestinians.
Nishidani (
talk) 08:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only "tinkering" here is by those removing these long-standing images.
We have pictures of the days after day one - and in a ratio that favours the Palestinian POV, with five images showing the impact on Israel and eleven on Palestine. What you are trying to do is make the ratio even more disparate, and that鈥檚 not NPOV.
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A good reminder that the war has been ongoing for 200 days; the attack on 7 October was finished by 9 October. 1:100 ratio is the reality on the ground.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hamas didn't stop fighting on Oct. 9. I think the more accurate ratio to assess relative impact or harm is number of casualties (1:30). And to elaborate on the OP, balance isn't just about numbers but also about content of the photos. We don't want a situation where we have gruesome photos on one side and sanitized photos on the other, regardless of numerical quantity or ratios.
Levivich (
talk) 05:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Although, neither is a good way to assess what is
WP:DUE; 30 times more Chinese people died in WWII than French people, but that doesn鈥檛 mean we should have 30 times the coverage in
WWII.
BilledMammal (
talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not the context we are discussing. The war has been overwhelmingly taking place in the Gaza Strip, as attested by the number of casualties, as attested by the few days of the attack in Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This *section* is about the 7 October attack on the towns and rural communities. It's not overly long and reflects the weight given to the initial attack by RS, e.g.,
[22]. The sections describing the situation in Gaza are illustrated with images as well.
Alaexis驴question? 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is about notions of parity and imbalance as there is no blood image of the other victims. Every reader hopefully already knows that crime with arms = blood. Redundancy.
Deblinis (
talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is - in the image captioned "Wounded child and man receive treatment on the floor at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City". However, there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚 - your logic would require we remove images of wounded Palestinians.
BilledMammal (
talk) 04:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚"
Because there aren't any, and if there were they probably aren't even free images Abo Yemen鉁 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. We have an entire video of first-responders responding to the scene of the rave attack with dozens of bodies visible. This is already unprecedented and not done for any comparable military operation. I can accept the one video, but the bloody home photo on top of that is too much. Reminder that the ratio of Israeli deaths to Palestinian is like 1:30 or something (and this is an underestimate 鈥 only God knows how many bodies are under the rubble, or how many additional undiscovered mass graves there are). With the exception of perhaps two days (7-8 October), the now six-month long war has not taken place in Israel proper at all. Thus for proper balance the overwhelming majority of media should be from Gaza.
JDiala (
talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
To complete the chain,
WP:DUE and
WP:NPOV necessitate a balanced representation of the conflict. The war鈥檚 impact is not confined to a single day or location, and the majority of the conflict has occurred in Gaza. The image selection should reflect this reality. While it鈥檚 important to depict the impact on all sides, we should be mindful of the overall narrative the images convey. A disproportionate focus on one side could inadvertently skew the reader鈥檚 perception of the events. --
Mhhosseintalk 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point. The video does provide an illustration. I didn't think of it as the first frame doesn't show much. I wonder if it's possible to get data on how many users watch videos.
Alaexis驴question? 12:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
With the removal of this photograph, we don鈥檛 have any photographs showing the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians - are people really saying that this is in line with
WP:DUE?
BilledMammal (
talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We have a video which is worth more than a photo!
JDiala (
talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You're right, I overlooked the video - which is why I don't believe it is worth more, as it is only if the reader views the video (and most won't) that they'll see the murdered civilians.
BilledMammal (
talk) 03:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be happy to replace the video with a photo. How do you feel about that?
JDiala (
talk) 04:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not ideal; it doesn鈥檛 address the issue caused by the removal of this image, which is that we now have too few depictions of the impact on Israel.
In addition, the video, while less accessible than the photograph, provides important context for readers who choose to watch it - we shouldn鈥檛 make it less accessible.
BilledMammal (
talk) 04:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, sure, but I've already given my arguments for why there should be at most one piece of media from 7 October, for sake of balance. You haven't engaged with this point.
JDiala (
talk) 05:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument isn鈥檛 based in policy; sources give sufficient weight to the events that started this war that more than one piece of media is warranted.
BilledMammal (
talk) 05:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only applicable policy here is
WP:DUE. But that applies to viewpoints, not events. We're not promoting a particular viewpoint here. We're chronicling an ongoing armed conflict. Naturally, the start of the conflict will attract more attention from media sources, but that doesn't mean it should figure disproportionately in a chronology of the war. Consider the
War in Afghanistan article. It has only one photograph from 9/11, despite 9/11 figuring far more in reliable sources than any particular engagements in Afghanistan.
JDiala (
talk) 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BALASP is the relevant policy, and it does cover events. Coverage isn鈥檛 disproportionate if it is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources - however, it is if it isn鈥檛, and at the moment, particularly with the removal of this image, it isn鈥檛.
BilledMammal (
talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree, and think it is perfectly appropriate, all things considered. We should also count the satellite photograph as it displays burning homes. Thus, we have at least two pieces of media for the 7 October resistance operation. That's more than enough. I find that you're engaged in
WP:LAWYERING right now, and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the project's goals. The goal here is to create a coherent article chronicling an ongoing war. We are also allowed to ignore rules if they interfere with this (
WP:IGNOREALLRULES). In this case, a great chunk of the photos of the war being on the events of a single day undermines that goal. Your other arguments are also tendentious. You're claiming that most people won't view the video so it shouldn't count more. But where is this argument based in policy? Do you have any evidence proving that people don't watch videos on Wikipedia articles? And is viewing rate a consideration in media selection? Even if I grant that's true, those that do watch the video will get a far more intimate scene in Israel than anything in Gaza.
JDiala (
talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@BilledMammal: The removal of the photograph doesn't necessarily compromise the representation of the impact on civilians, given the existence of a video that provides a comprehensive depiction of the events (
WP:DUE). The suggestion to replace the video with a photo could address accessibility concerns while maintaining neutrality (
WP:NPOV). If disagreements persist, consider seeking dispute resolution to ensure the article remains balanced and serves its purpose effectively. --
Mhhosseintalk 13:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. This image depicts the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians, attacks that have received and continue to receive expansive coverage in media, and are the reason this war began. Non-trivial coverage of them is warranted and required under
WP:NPOV and
WP:BALASP, and removing this image would leave us with only one piece of media depicting this impact, which would be insufficient to meet the requirements that we cover these in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources.
BilledMammal (
talk) 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support removal and/or replacement with any image that is not uploaded by the Israeli government. Plus showing blood without any bodies is giving pure propaganda vibes Abo Yemen鉁 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't oppose replacement with a different picture that depicts the impact of the attacks on civilians (and would support it over removing the image entirely), but I'm not sure why we care who uploaded the image?
BilledMammal (
talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Israel, especially after the oct. 7 attacks, tried to make one of the most embarrassing and absurd propaganda campaigns I've ever seen (I'm sure that you still remember the 40 imaginary beheaded babies) Abo Yemen鉁 17:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Israel (ditto IDF) totally unreliable in the conflict, equivalent to Hamas as a source, or worse, since Hamas haven't been caught out telling porkies half as often.
Fact Sheet: Israel鈥檚 History of Spreading Disinformation (and that's just through October).
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That doesn't appear to be a reliable source; for example, one of its examples that it uses as evidence of Israel spreading disinformation are Israeli "claims that Hamas fighters raped women during their attack on October 7".
The indications are that those claims are correct. Regardless, that doesn't seem to be relevant here, unless there is evidence that images uploaded by Israel are not what they are claimed to be?
BilledMammal (
talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Plenty of sources for Israeli fibbing. Including the doctoring of images and vids. Therefore unreliable.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Read [
[23]]. I thought everyone knew this? Apparently not.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As part of a PR campaign, pro-Israeli advocacy which is Israel's practice of shaping narratives; in one word for that image: sensationalism.
Deblinis (
talk) 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh boy this is going to be fun to watchAbo Yemen鉁 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sensationalism, putting forward an emotional narrative to impact Western populations and obtain a blank check from Western allies for military actions, without any right of inspection.
Deblinis (
talk) 00:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment There are other similar images that can be considered such as these:
1,
2,
3,
4. In any case, there should be at least one image to illustrate the attack besides only a map, reminding
WP:NOTCENSORED too. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
#1 is too remote - it isn't clear that the impact is on civilians - while #2 is from after the attacks, from rocket barrages. I would support #3 or #4.
BilledMammal (
talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I strongly oppose anything uploaded by the Israeli government (I'm talking about number 3 here). I remember number 2 being from that video where IDF soldiers we're shooting at empty hallways (Correct me if im wrong with this one). Now, with number 4, while I don't want to look like im defending the killing of a child here, I personally find it kinda weird for the uploader of the image not uploading the full video where the supposed Hamas militant kills the child. I mean it would definitely cause more reputation loss for Hamas, no? Plus cctv footages are "ineligible for
copyright and therefore in the public domain" and could have been uploaded easily Abo Yemen鉁 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
#4 isn't from CC TV; it has been released with a compatible license ("These footage are free to use, in hope the world will see the true horrors that took place here. All we ask is that you attribute "South First Responders" group for the important work that the guys are doing."), but it's a still image taken by first responders. I have corrected it on commons.
BilledMammal (
talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think this should automatically mean exclusion if it is attributed unless there are reasonable doubts about its authenticity. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 13:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose removal, or support replacement. I agree with the reasoning of BilledMammal. A photo like this illustrates the human impact of the events that took place on civilians. Wikipedia is not censored. There was a 2009 RfC to remove a picture of a killed Palestinian baby from the
2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict article, and I think that was wrong for the same reasons. We wouldn't remove the picture from the
My Lai Massacre article either.HenryMP02 (
talk) 18:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think everyone knows of
WP:NOTCENSORED. That's not the problem. The main problem here is how reliable the photograph is. According to
Abo Yemen, the photograph was taken for propaganda purposes, citing the picture being taken by the Israeli government, and the fact that there are no bodies and only blood.
The 馃弾 Corvette 馃弽 ZR1(The Garage) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I accept that it probably was distributed for propaganda purposes. Propaganda doesn't have to be false. I don't see reason to suspect of being fake, even if there are no bodies visible. There are videos which show Hamas militants going into homes. Many were killed and injured on October 7th. From what I know at the moment, I believe the photograph is authentic, if that's what you mean.
HenryMP02 (
talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On the right is another picture of the supposed crime scene taken by the same photographer,
Kobi Gideon. If you zoom in, you'll find your average
murder mystery Netflix-level of a scene. Random pictures scattered on the ground, your usual art colored by the 6 year old living in the house, whatever that tripod is doing inside the home of this unheard of influencer/tiktoker/youtuber who could have made a video of the crime or something close to that.
Now I might be wrong with my somewhat quick investigation, but my point is that pictures taken by either israel or hamas should not be included in the article, unless it is made clear to the reader who took the picture and/or who distributed it Abo Yemen鉁 11:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTCENSORED says that rated R photographs should not be excluded by default. That doesn't imply they need to be included.
JDiala (
talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove. There is already a thread immediately above about this and I've outlined my rationale there. The number of media for 7 October is adequate in my estimation. There is a full video dedicated to showing corpses from the music festival. Possible compromise position: I might be willing to consider photos or videos of Hamas killing or having killed Israeli soldiers if the opener of the RfC and others are open to this. I am worried that the media we have currently paints Hamas in the worst possible light, and portrays 7 October as having been purely a massacre of innocents rather than the military operation (with some complex and tragic consequences in execution) it was. By adding media of deceased soldiers, it could signal to the reader the military nature of the operation, which would be more balanced.
JDiala (
talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose this compromise. Two thirds of those killed on 7 October were civilians, so this would be misleading (just as it would be misleading to only show pictures of Hamas fighter casualties and not civilians)
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the compromise wasn't suggesting replacing the image in question, but supplementing it. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't oppose supplementing it with images of Israeli military casualties. I read JDiala as saying instead not also, but that might be my misreading.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Multiple editors have brought up
WP:NOTCENSORED. This is a highly disingenuous strawman argument which no one on the other side has made.
WP:NOTCENSORED states that being graphic isn't a sufficient condition to force removal. That doesn't imply that other reasons aren't sufficient conditions. Reminder that the editors here all have 500+ edits so are aware of
WP:NOTCENSORED. Bringing it up repeatedly is just muddying the water and responding to an argument never made.
JDiala (
talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, I struck it from my comment above -
HenryMP02 (
talk) 15:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed, it is interesting that there no photos of bodies of Hamas fighters who died on 7 October. I recall seeing videos of Israelis urinating on their bodies, should that be added to contribute to the balance?
JDiala (
talk) 12:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I Support doing so Abo Yemen鉁 11:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose adding videos of Israelis urinating on bodies to the 7 October article, given these do not have any reliable source but appeared on self-published social media. One or two images reflecting the Palestinian victims of IDF actions on 7 October would however be due there, just as one or two images reflecting Israeli and other victims of the actions of Hamas and its allies on that day are due here.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose removal on account of
WP:NOTCENSORED and, like others have said, it serves best to show how the conflict has human impact. I don't think the fact that Israel posted the photo is sufficient enough to remove the image (this did happen in Israel, it's going to come from an Israeli source no matter what happens). That being said, I agree with
JDiala in that we should include images of military action whether by IDF or Hamas to give a more through picture of what happened 鈥 there was a lot going on that day, and focusing solely on one aspect would be detrimental. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove The pictures are unbalanced for the article. For this one there's lots showing dead Palestinians. At the very very least one would expect parity. Also I don't think the photo shows he scene of a death. If somebody was killed there I would have expected blood spatter around the place whereas it looks like the blood was put on the floor and shoved around. I hate to say that about the possible death of someone, it sounds like one of those damned conspiracy theory types, but unfortunately that's what it looks like to me. I would downvote the picture as authentic of anything.
NadVolum (
talk) 17:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove as completely and utterly
WP:UNDUE. The
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (which has its own article and a video in this one) is a small part of this war in which the overwhelming majority of the casualties (by a mile) are Palestinians. As for the "human impact" that keeps getting mentioned, we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten).
M.Bitton (
talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
we're talking about genocidal violence against the Palestinians (in case you've forgotten) Just a heads up, this really ruins your first (entirely valid) point/opinion 鈥 it makes it sound like you think this should be/is a
coatrack article.
There is an entire article on Palestinian Genocide, we're not talking about that, we're talking about whether or not to include an image in a section talking about the initial attack. -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 12:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just a heads up, the genocide point is definitely valid Abo Yemen鉁 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's entirely possible I'm missing something, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove. The article already has an adequate number of images; but beyond that, images that are released by an official government organization and which are plainly intended to be emotionally evocative or impactful should be viewed from a default position of caution - even if they are accurate, they may be non-representative, specifically framed or chosen to maximize emotional impact, and so on. This doesn't render them unusable but I would prefer other images when available (and they are available.) I would also echo the people above who are bothered by the continuous attempts to cite
WP:NOTCENSORED when nobody has asked that the image be removed due to its graphic nature - the flip side of NOTCENSORED, in my opinion, is that of course the graphic nature of an image is not inherently a reason for inclusion; we don't include shocking images simply for the sake of shocking people. As a general rule, when people cite NOTCENSORED in an overly-defensive manner like that it makes me nervous that an image is being used primarily for its shocking impact, which is not a valid rationale in and of itself. See the essay
Wikipedia:NOTNOTCENSORED for some discussion about how reflexively defensive invocations of NOTCENSORED can be a warning sign that an image has problems. --
Aquillion (
talk) 22:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Aquillion: Would you support replacing it with NoonIcarus鈥檚 #4, which was taken and released by civilians?
BilledMammal (
talk) 22:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove there is a video which is already a strong bias, this was explained in the section above this one. Re: my previous replies.
Deblinis (
talk) 23:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. There should be at least one photo in that section illustrating the attack on Israeli communities. It's good that we have a video but it's not a replacement. If I read this
report correctly, very few people watch it, compared to the number of readers of the article. I'd be fine with using alternative images #3, #4 suggested by u:NoonIcarus. I'm not sure that the reliability arguments are made in good faith. There are hundreds of similar photos in every newspaper showing the destruction
[24].
Alaexis驴question? 14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well I certainly would like a good reliable source to have a look at the photos and say what they think they illustrate. There must be plenty of crime scene experts around the world who could do that. Sorry if you think that is bad faith but I can't just unquestioningly accept everything from the government press office of a country engaged in a war. I think a picture like those in the Guardian illustrate what was happening much better and it is a reasonably independent source.
NadVolum (
talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have nothing against using other photos. There are obvious copyright problems as we'd have to prove fair use (or whatever it's called nowadays) but if someone is willing to do it we could replace this photo.
My point was that we have very similar photos from other RS (
one more example), with the destruction and blood, so I don't think there are real grounds to doubt the authenticity of the image in question.
Alaexis驴question? 22:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that example also is a far better illustration. Surely someone had a camera and took a photo there and was willing to release it rather than everything being newspaper reporters and the government office? Those government office ones are just uninformative photos except perhaps for shocking people who have a thing about blood. They don't really illustrate the subject matter never mind about any other worries about them.
NadVolum (
talk) 13:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No. Why would some even raise such question? Terrorists from Hamas have massacred people and this image directly represents the event. An attempt to censor Wikipedia is not a good thing to do. With regards,
Oleg Y. (
talk) 03:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Attributing figures, and saying other sources dispute them, are too different things; in this case I think it is appropriate to do both - we can鈥檛 give these figures in Wikivoice, and we can鈥檛 ignore the fact that these figures have been questioned.
BilledMammal (
talk) 07:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BilledMammal: There is no need for attributing majority of reliable sources which have cast no doubt on the figures.
You have also made even more controversial edits changing "children" to "minors"
[25] despite "children" being used almost exclusively by RS.
Also you have removed mention of how the mentioned women and children are the majority of killed.
[26].
Waiting for your self-revert on these three edits that go against reliable sources reporting.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Almost all reliable sources attribute; as such, we have to do the same.
Saying "majority" and providing the figures is redundant and bad writing; we should do one or the other, and trust that our readers know how numbers work.
"Children" has different meanings depending on the culture; "minors" are clearer. In addition, "minors" are what we use in the body.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Then you change the body. Most
WP:RS use children. I have reverted your edit.
JDiala (
talk) 10:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevant definitions for the two words:
Child:a young person especially between infancy and puberty or a person not yet of the age of majority
In this case, the sources are referring to individuals under the age of 18; shouldn't we use the word that clearly conveys that meaning, rather than the one which might result in the reader misunderstanding the sentence?
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Red herring, no one is discussing these definitions. We are discussing what RS have used in their reporting of the war and they have exclusively used the term children because legally speaking those under 18 years of age are called children; which is an objective definition not relating to any subjective culture.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We're not obliged to use the exact wording used by reliable sources; in this circumstance, why would we want to use less precise words when more precise words exist and ensure that our readers won't misunderstand our content?
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, we will not be using euphemisms for what is universally reported as 13,000 dead Palestinian children.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean if you're going to POV push I'd suggest not being so transparent about it. The word "child" is not imprecise.
JDiala (
talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, no need to attribute the death toll. That the death toll is attributed in
WP:RS is immaterial if it is clear from the context that the reliable sources are taking the death toll as a statement of fact, which in most cases they are. See for instance
[1] the title explicitly says "30,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians" indicating reliable sources have a confidence in the health ministry.
JDiala (
talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:HEADLINES; we don't consider headlines reliable. In the body, which we can consider reliable, reliable sources almost without exception attribute - and often in more detail than we have done in the article, with the sources mentioning that the health ministry is run by Hamas.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No one said either that we consider headlines reliable, but that the figures were not cast doubt on by majority of RS.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If you read the comment I was replying to, you would see that JDiala was basing their argument on the headlines of an article.
BilledMammal (
talk) 10:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I did read it. JDiala was giving an example and did not say that headlines are reliable.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a significant number of sources you can find which explicitly state, within the body, the 30,000 toll. See e.g., [
this] or [
this]. It's true that some other sources choose to attribute within the body. The point is that figures are not really contested in the mainstream. If we make a decision to attribute, that's in effect casting doubt on the numbers when no such contest exists. (I know you cited the TabletMag piece but that was debunked many times)
JDiala (
talk) 11:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"An analysis published in the
Lancet medical journal in December found that Gaza's health ministry has "historically reported accurate mortality data.".
[27]Deblinis (
talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't expect all readers to do maths while reading and conclude that Israel had mostly killed Palestinian woman and children, this is a removal of an important piece of information.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Majority of killed Palestinians are women and children
Why is this important piece of information being removed from the lede despite it being completed sourced?
[28]Makeandtoss (
talk) 14:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's fine. Reader can do math; it's clearly over 50%. Explicitly using the word "majority" is a bit unnatural.
JDiala (
talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JDiala: Not all readers can do maths, or bother to do the maths, so why not just state it explicitly as it is?
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
it think it's okay. By the way did you see the bit about
Mirna El Helbawi who helped get Gaza connected again so things like this can get out? I'd be just a bit careful about using a phone though if I was there!, the IDF are almost certanily monitoring them and I can see it making even quite innocent people more likely to be targets.
NadVolum (
talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying it explicitly this way with the word 鈥渕ajority鈥 is apt.
Deblinis (
talk) 14:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's clunky and the maths isn't that complicated, so missing it out isn't withholding any information. (I note we don't use this editorialising language in the corresponding sentence of the lead of
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.) If editors insist we need this, I'd suggest less clunky wording. For example, could say "41% of whom (14,000) were children and 26% (9,000) were women".
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 13:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd like to think our readers can add.
Cremastra (
talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably a good idea, but does someone need to check all the content is actually present on the the child page first? Not that I'm really volunteering.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We can just copy the material to the talk page in case any is missing. Idk if the lead of the child article is sufficient though.
Selfstudier (
talk) 18:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. That too. The child appears distinctly neglected/underdeveloped.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I copied the lead from the child to here, needs work to update with latest summary type sourcing. I copied all the other material to the child talk page for comparison and checking to match up the material there. I will make a start on the work, anyone can help, that would be good.
Thanks to Chessrat, for their work on streamlining the article.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Similarly, do we have any articles on the extensive evidence showing Hamas militants and Palestinian civilians looting Israel?
BilledMammal (
talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
we don't and the only few sources about this are old and currently irrelevant Abo Yemen鉁 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No, not irrelevant. If such an article is made it should cover both sides, not just one. It is a fact that there was extensive looting of property from Israel on 10/7 and some of the stolen property was recovered by the IDF in Gaza. If we're to be neutral both sides must be mentioned.--
RM (
Be my friend) 23:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. We would only "cover both sides" if reliable sources show through their coverage that both are notable enough. No
WP:FALSEBALANCEEvergreenFir(talk) 04:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The UN says Gaza had a 80% poverty rate
[29] , human rights organizations say Gazans live in an open air prison , and Gaza has a high unemployment rate with people dependent on humanitarian aid, so I am confused about what valuables soldiers are looting.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 04:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hm it looks like that NBC source about the poverty rate is wrong. Guardian says it鈥檚 two thirds in poverty with 80% relying on aid.
[30] US News also says 60% poverty
[31].
Hamas leaders have large sums of cash, but I think some fraction of the civilians probably had some money/gold as well鈥 this New Arab article says that Israeli soldiers have 鈥 seized sums of money exceeding five million shekels (roughly $1,320,000)鈥, as well as 鈥 systematic theft of cash, gold, laptops, and mobile phones by Israeli soldiers, estimated at a value of $25 million.鈥
[32]Wafflefrites (
talk) 05:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The New Arab is owned by the Qatari royal family. Considering the Qatari ties with Hamas and the state of press freedom in the country we should be conscious of the source's bias.
Alaexis驴question? 21:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The New Arab article does quote "Tahseen Elayyan, a legal researcher at Ramallah-based human rights organisation Al-Haq... 鈥Israeli occupying authorities justify [the looting] under the pretext that the money belongs to Hamas鈥.
The New Arab linked to a Euro-Med article, which also quotes a man saying $10,000 USD was stolen from his home... $10,000 USD is a lot of cash to be storing within a house when they have/had banks in the Palestinian territories like the
Bank of Palestine, or the Palestine Islamic Bank
[33]. But the Euro-Med article does not mention anything about him having ties to Hamas, although it does mention Israeli soldiers bragging on social media about the looting, so some of the soldiers are looting.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 23:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply