Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Extremely violent execution video in the body section

There is an extremely violent execution .webm file from the body section. During the video, a civilian is shot in the head by Hamas. Subsequently a large blood pool is seen emerging from the victims body. Such extreme content should not be included. Ecrusized (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I already reverted your edit per WP:NOTCENSORED. "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." FunLater (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also there is WP:OM, and that says that the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". I am not sure if having graphic content is in line with this. Awesome Aasim 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is just not born out in standard Wikipedia practice. The article for 9/11, for instance, has footage of the plane crashing. I beleive showing readers the actual event that happened does a much better job of imparting information than words do, particularly in a case like this where there will be strong efforts from both sides to selectivly edit and word things in a way favorable to thier own point of view. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks It is ridiculous to compare footage of planes crashing into a building (or, as in this article, a building blowing up) to someone being executed and bleeding out in the street and another person being bayoneted. Your belief that "showing the real event" is beneficial to the reader does not overcome Wikipedia's image content policy. Moreover, the video in question is taken from an unsourced reddit post, so it is not clear that this is Hamas, that this actually happened where it is claimed to have happened, or that this actually happened when it is claimed to have happened. This is not a NOTCENSORED issue. It is a WP:IMGCONTENT, WP:GRATUITOUS, and MOS:OMIMG issue.

From MOS:OMIMG: Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. A dubiously sourced snuff film is not encyclopedic. lethargilistic (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If the argument is about authenticity and sourcing, that is another matter. Of course if it cannot be verified it should not be included (offensive or not). My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value, particularly in a conflict which is complicated and confusing for many. Trying to create levels of offensiveness (i.e. Bombing, plane into building, murder with a gun) is not really relovant. If the video has encyclopedic value, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter if it is "5" offensive or "10" offensive. The verifiability of the content is an entirely separate issue. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"My point is that the seeing exactly how an attack was carried out has obvious informative and encyclopedic value" - No it doesn't. The most obvious example is illustrating an anatomy article where censoring would compromise the informative purpose of an encyclopedia. Uncensored doesn't mean an image can't be removed: The article already has too many shellshock images. More maps and informative images you would see in an encylopedia would be an overall improovement. Ben Azura (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks We'll deal with verifiability separately, then. What, exactly, does CCTV footage of a murder inform a reader about how the (overall) attack was carried out? You say it is obvious, but what does it clarify about this, in your words, confusing situation? lethargilistic (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic So I think you made a few assumtions there. The first is that the image has to show to how the "overall" attack occurred. There is nothing to say that it can't serve to provide the specific details of how an attack was carried out. Additionally, you seem to assume that media must clarify something ambiguous to be used. WP:IMGCONTENT states clearly:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article
— wp:IMGCONTENT

So the video can be encyclopedic simply by illustrating a fuller picture of the article content. By your own acknowledgment this article contains many media depicting airstrikes. I presume that you do not wish for these to be removed as well? I believe that those videos are encyclopedic for the same reason, as they provide the reader with a fuller picture/understanding of the events described. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PLA is also applicable, specifically that content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain (from wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). I think whether the video should be on Wikipedia is better suited for an FFD discussion or Commons Deletion Request, rather than here. Wait there already is one at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm. But I don't see how the media being described can't accurately be described in words alone without crossing WP:SYNTH. Awesome Aasim 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article" - Wikipedia:Image use policy

This is a video which purports to DIRECTLY depict people (hamas militants) doing things (killing israeli civilians) as described in the article. It's relevant.

"Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." - Wikipedia:Image use policy

Are we claiming here that this is being used to bring attention to an article? I don't see how you can make that argument. What is the argument for removing it exactly? If the argument is "but these actions are already described in the text", then why have pictures at all on wikipedia? Why have videos? This is literally the purpose of them. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks: [Reply edit-conflicted with above comment front Chuckstablers] I would theoretically be in favor of removing the airstrike footage, frankly. However, airstrike footage is normalized by the media. Therefore, I don't think it's disqualified by the part of WP:IMGCONTENT about reader expectations.

Yours is a good argument based on that guideline. To articulate where I think we are actually disagreeing, I reviewed WP:NOTCENSORED again and I think this recenters to why I think this article should be removed: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. If we turn to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, we see the picture captioned This image of a helicopter over the Sydney Opera House shows neither adequately. My problem with the image is not that it depicts a military action, really.

My first problem, with regard to appropriateness, is that it does not clearly show the activity of the fighters. The person is shot from offscreen and bleeds out in the foreground, fighters come across the field in the background, and then the other person is attacked with the bayonet almost out of frame. Im not sure if we would disagree here, necessarily. Even if, as a general matter, footage of Hamas fighting is relevant and encyclopedic, unclear or sufficiently inappropriate depictions would still be kept out.

Second, I think that what this picture does show adequately is not suitable for Wikipedia even under WP:NOTCENSORED. In my view, at least part of the video is WP:GRATUITOUS:

Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

The man being stabbed does not appear especially clearly, so I'm more concerned about the man bleeding out in the foreground. We disagree as to whether depiction of death is encyclopedically valuable in principle, but I think we should be asking whether depicting this man bleeding out is unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous. Regarding the broad conflict, it is unnecessary to show someone bleeding out like this. Regarding the desire to depict Hamas fighters in action as an activity under the war's umbrella, it is irrelevant and draws the focus away from the Hamas fighters' depiction. And showing a dead person's blood slowly seep into the stones is gratuitous. It is far in excess of what a reader would expect to find on Wikipedia, even under an article about a war. Moreover, I think it's extremely disrespectful to the dead person to immortalize their death so clearly on Wikipedia, however besides the point that may be regarding policy.

I contend that this video is sufficiently out of bounds that it should overcome WP:NOTCENSORED on its own, but the alternative suggested by that policy and WP:GRATUITOUS is to find a video that is a more suitable alternative if we want to show Hamas's (or Israel's) ground fighting. Another option would be an image of fighters. (And if the purpose of the image does happen to be depicting death specifically, perhaps there is a CC-licensed image of ZAKA handling bodybags available.)

I think we could find consensus on an alternative image that shows a military action by Hamas and does not show someone bleeding out like that. That compromise would satisfy your belief that showing a military action by Hamas is beneficial to the article and my belief that these specific deaths are not appropriate depictions of the action and are beyond what should be tolerated under WP:NOTCENSORED. Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic Well I'm glad we now (mostly) agree on the policy :) While I understand and appreciate your point of view, to some extent I think that this just comes down to a simple difference of opinion which may be irreconcilable. I think that the footage is both relevant and uniquely so. That is to say, I don't think replacing it with general footage of "Hamas ground fighting" would be as informative unless it is also of one of the similar Kibbutz attacks. I think that there is an element of the type of attack that was carried out that was unique to this round of fighting and is relevant to the article and to the developments.

As an aside, I think I disagree with your take on the Sydney Opera house picture in that I think the policy there is designed to guard against images that do not properly depict the thing that makes them relevant (in that picture, a helicopter or the building). In our case, I think that the video shows unambiguously the attack that occurred and also the broader type of attack that was carried out in the opening phase and is described in the article. I do not think that that is diminished by a knife that is partially out of frame or an unideal camera angle, but I suppose I would be open to some of the CCTV footage from the other Kibbutz attacks, as they might also accomplish this goal. Yet I digress as this is really usurped by our more fundamental disagreement. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic I just wanted to follow up two parts of our previous discussion. Your (correct me if I'm wrong) main objection was that you thought part of the video was GRATUITOUS enough to overcome NOTCENSORED. I have since researched the practice in a lot of other articles and found there to be a general trend to include such material such as at Abu Ghraib abuse and Einsatzgruppen. Does this alter your perspective at all, or do you feel that a)This video is different or b)They got it wrong?

Also, have you made any progress in identifying a possible less graphic replacement? I think that that would honestly be the least contentious way to resole this?

Thanks, Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks I think it's pretty easy to distinguish them for the purposes of WP:GRATUITOUS, but you'll forgive me if this is not based in policy quoting because (not directing this frustration at you) I have a life outside of this video and I did not anticipate this dispute blowing up like this.

Firstly, they're images, not videos. If I could wave a magic wand, I would remove the video from 9/11. Readers can watch footage of people dying elsewhere. And the flowing of the blood in particular makes it disturbing, as I talked about before. Secondly, the point of documenting those topics is at least in part that those events are so excessively violent that people regularly do not believe occurred. People die in wars all the time, and I do not align with the view expressed in this thread that that this death's brutality was educational because of its excessive brutality. There's nothing notable about any one person dying in a war. If they had gone further and defiled the corpse, it would not be more notable or educational. Third, I understand the reasoning behind looking to mass murder events for a comparison, but I think the person's death here is more comparable to an assassination or (perhaps counter-intuitively) a suicide. I know you don't think the camera angle here is a particular issue, but I do, and the killing is center-stage in this video and arguably its subject. There is no footage of the deaths in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Suicide of Ronnie McNutt, or Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém despite the footage of those events literally being the complete subject of the article. (And in McNutt's and Lem's cases, the footage is the reason it's notable at all.) Nor should there be.

No matter the textual interpretations we get into, the fact is that your position is an aberrant one as far as Wikipedia norms go. If you take this beyond this thread, the policy is more likely to change than this sort of video becoming more accepted/common.

No, I have not yet begun looking through footage to find a suitable alternative. I am a law student and booked solid. I'll point out that I did not remove the video when I joined this, so this isn't me trying to worm out of our compromise. I'm busy. (If the resolution of this is to remove it, I'm not going to replace it myself, tho.) lethargilistic (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and civility. It can be difficult, especially in contentious articles such as this one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: I think I've clarified my position well enough in my last reply to Lenny, so check that out. Remember that WP:NOTCENSORED is, by its own text, not categorical and the various other guidelines we've been discussing have things to say about its limits. lethargilistic (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I get more where you're coming from, and I appreciate the concern. It is a bit over the top. My issue is that it displays, in a short video format, the type of thing that happened in so many of these massacres against civilians. Civilians running away from militants who chased them down and killed them. This was not combat, this was not an engagement, it was a massacre. The brutality, which is unprecedented, helps explain the way the conflict has evolved (to a degree). Portraying that adds value to the article.

With that out of way, I can agree that it's over the top. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." What equally suitable alternative would you have in mind to replace it with that achieves that purpose? Displaying the nature of the thing that actually happened here, which I think is kind of important here. Just like it's important to display the blood stained kitchen in the image below (that is a very effective way to show that militants entered their homes and murdered civilians). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, the photo should go too (though it is a much less problematic and pressing issue); both pieces of media are indecorous to our purely educational purposes here. To frame the policy considerations here in the terms you raise above, we don't need the video to illustrate that militants went around killing people in the streets, just as we don't need the photo to demonstrate that they went into homes to kill civilians: both facts are easily, efficiently, cogently, and completely imparted to the reader by simple textual descriptions.

And the key word there is "facts"; the media in question do not add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone. They add emotive emphasis and subtext, which makes the content potentially powerful and possessed of significant social value if presented in the right forum (news media, editorial media, social media), but such emotional and visceral emphasis does not tonally serve a significant enough encyclopedic priority to even begin to offset the immense potential (or indeed, certainty) of harm that will result from keeping the video in the article, where it is likely to be stumbled upon by countless people merely looking for an encyclopedic summary of events.

And all that is putting aside the numerous other policies this content violates. By my tally, the video (at least) clearly violates WP:OM, WP:BLP, WP:NFC, WP:IUP, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:DUE, and at the moment WP:ONUS as well, insofar as it was re-added before there was consensus to do so, in violation of WP:BRD. That's a pretty impressive list of core policies we'd have to turn a blind eye to here to keep the video, for essentially no factual/encyclopedic context added that prose cannot satisfy. This is just not the place for this content. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your argument that they have to "add factual information that cannot be fully depicted by text alone" is not in the image policy, and if applied equally would essentially result in 90% of the images on this wiki being removed. I have to strongly disagree with you on that one. See the image policy: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". That does not read "the purpose of an image is to add factual information that cannot be described by text alone". Those are very different things. Chuckstablers (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important nuance of that language, though you are by no means the first person, and it is largely down to an issue with the ambiguity in the phrasing in the policy itself: just because an image exists and "directly depicts" a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it "increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" as a per se matter. Those are conjunctive predicates, not a predicate and a result.

An example to clarify the distinction: this image of a carcinoma is the lead image of our skin cancer article. It both depicts an aspect of the subject matter of the article and can be reasonably expected to increase the reader's understanding of that aspect, since a) the average reader will not be aware of what such a mass looks like and b) purely textual descriptions are unlikely to impart all of the features of such a growth with substantial clarity in the reader's mental imagery. By stark contrast, the video here does not enhance any description in the article, because pretty much any reader can intuitively conceptualize what is involved when we describe that the militants roamed these communities shooting people. The reader is going to know what guns are, what it means to be shot, and what death is. Factually, no empirical information is added by the video as an illustrative feature. In terms of anything other than an emotional element, events can be perfectly competently captured by words here, with pretty much zero lose of accuracy and detail in terms of information imparted.

Now, mind you, that description matches a great number of images on this project; not every image has such specific educational value as that of a clinical photo of a medical phenomena, of course, and we tolerate large numbers of these images with very indirect and minimal informative/educational value. This is in part because the "cost" of including such images is generally very minor, so even trivial demonstrative benefits are enough to justify many such images.

Such is not the case here though: there are massive policy problems with this video and significant real world harms (again, not potential, but pretty much certain) that will arise from including it, and on top of all of that, it really does nothing that a couple of well-crafted sentences can't accomplish. The cost-benefit is all wrong here, which is part of how this video fails community expectations on such content. And that includes IUP: it is by no means the only policy which leverages for removal here, nor indeed even in the top four major policies that require this content to be removed. But it is yet another guideline that converges on the same conclusion all the same, if all of its requirements are applied in full. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, I hear what your saying but I really don't think it accurately reflects WP:IMGCONTENT. You are right to say that "just because an image exists and 'directly depicts' a subject does not mean that we are meant to conclude that it also satisfies the condition that it 'increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter'". Where I think you are making a jump is concluding that since it does not impart new factual information that is not in the text (which, by the way, it does) that it also does not increase the reader's understanding. This project and this article itself are full of media that are there not strictly to give new information but to enhance the picture of the information contained in the text and there is certainly not consensus for your interpretation of that policy to suggest that that is not good enough. Would you suggest that we should also remove all off the images here of airstrikes (which is a huge percentage)?

I think that the airstrike images are valuable and I think this footage is valuable as well. Not only does it shows the readers this particular attack, but it also provides understanding of the kind of attacks that were carried out throughout Israel and are emblematic of start of this particular war. It is an example of a type of action that was unprecedented until this round of fighting and helps explain how the war has developed. I certainly think that this is sufficient to "increase[s] the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter" per wp:IMGCONTENT.

Once the media has encyclopedic value, it does not matter if it is graphic.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
— WP:CENSOR

Lenny Marks (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers I agree with strongly your position above. I think that if we could find a less graphic video to show one of/the various kibbutz massacres it would be more appropriate, but in lieu of that I think there is good reason to include this video. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to find a more typical video (which this one might be, for all I know), instead of one deliberately selected for making killing people seem as non-violent as possible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

why include a less violent video?that reasoning is flawed. wikipedia is a not a censored encyclopedia. its absolutely educational video.it teaches readers about the extent of what humans can do to other humans in cold blood.it teaches the difference between a professional moral army and a millitant group with no code of conduct. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s not censored, period. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, there is a parallel discussion on Wikipedia Commons as to whether the video should be deleted. lethargilistic (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This CCTV footage was verified by multiple WP:RS as authentic. and also WP:NOTCENSORED."Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Codenamephoenix It has not been verified. It is cited to a reddit post. Post a verifying source from an RS. lethargilistic (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

an example is wall street journal news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0&ab_channel=WSJNews Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Codenamephoenix The footage is not included in that video and you know it. lethargilistic (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

i agree the exact footage which is used in the body is not included that link.my bad for prematurely posting it. if no concensus to keep the video is reached maybe another video can be used in its place(altough the current clip used in body looks genuine enough) for eg https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/toi-original/caught-on-cam-how-hamas-ruthless-terrorism-spares-no-innocents-in-its-wake/videoshow/104349952.cms Codenamephoenix (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep it. It's important. 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The poll is below if you are trying to !vote -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'''Keep'''. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz The poll is below if you are trying to !vote Lenny Marks (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is this anyways? 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@CooperGoodman The video was removed for now due to this discussion. It can be found on Commons here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that it should probably not have been removed, but I can see why it was, as it could potentially be traumatizing to a younger viewer like me. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand that concern, but this is an article about a terror attack and a war and, unfortunately, many people have been killed. By longstanding policy, Wikipedia is not censored and by policy, graphicness alone is not a reason to remove a video. It must also lack an encyclopedic purpose. (See wp:GRATUITOUS). Lenny Marks (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So do you oppose or support the removal of the video? I oppose the removal of it but don't know where I can express my opinion. 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 If you scroll down on this discussion there is a poll where you can vote Support or Oppose removal and put a sentence or two explaining yourself. Personally, I oppose the video's removal -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If you wish not to see such graphic photos or videos but want to read the article then see Help: Options to hide an image. It will help on the coding on hiding certain images. Cwater1 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - I agree that it is a WP:GRATUITOUS issue, and that while it is relevant to the article, it is not irreplaceable. Offensive Material shouldn't be on Wikipedia just for the sake of it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933. If it's replacable could you provide us with a sufficient replacement? The people opposing removal do not want the image "because" it's offensive. It has been clearly put in the discussion that many feel that a video of the unprecedented kind of attack that occured on October 7, and the way in which civilians were targeted, adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. If you have a less graphic video that accomplishes this please, by all means, provide it. I (and I believe many others) would support a less graphic alternative if we had one. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks

I would support the same video but with the killing cut out. (E.G. The video cuts before the trigger is pulled). SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933 The video before the killing is just a few seconds of a man running down a path. In that instance the video really would lack any reason to be here. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I would absolutely love it if the video showing the killing was removed. Nobody needs to hear or see that, and nobody gains any more understanding of the situation by seeing an execution by Hamas than if they saw some other video/image. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We have the right to not watch said video. Cwater1 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly incredibly inappropriate content for a generalist encyclopedia article, nevermind the dubious sourcing (though this is in itself cause for removal). It's not that this content is merely "objectionable", in thin-skinned, weak-stomached, moralistic, or value judgment terms: this content is likely to be be deeply traumatic for many of our readers, especially (but very far from exclusively) those directly impacted by these events. To say nothing of the questions regarding the privacy and dignity of the individuals shown being violently murdered in the video (and in one case bludgeoned/hacked up). I can't imagine a more profound BLP violation than showing a person's last instant of life and the mutilation of their body with very little compelling argument for how this actually advances the abstract, encyclopedic understanding of the topic or the content of the article in a way that prose would not suffice to convey.

The mere fact that we do not censor ideas in our content in no way means that we check all respect, decorum, social responsibility, or concern for the possible impacts on our readers at the door, in exchange for some robotic moneky-see, monkey-share mentality for such media. What would you say to the family of one of these people if they saw that this content was up here for the entire world to see? "Oh, sorry, we needed to see exactly how your husband's body crumpled as everything he was or ever would be was stolen from him in an instant. Oh gee, terribly sorry that five million people watched your daughter's head beaten to a pulp with a cudgel. We needed to see it in order to understand that real people died here!" We are WP:NOTNEWS: we provide high-level, abstract summaries of our subject matter. We don't have a mandate to create a compelling representation of the real human costs of these events; that's what primary and secondary sources are for. This kind of imagery is not necessary to our educational purposes and it deeply violates principles of least astonishment that could easily cause significant real world harm to a non-trivial portion of our readers, while simultaneously shredding our protections of the privacy of non-notable persons.

Those (mostly relatively newer, I think) editors reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED might want to stop to ask themselves why they don't see more such content elsewhere on en.wikipedia, despite no shortage of articles on massacres that have footage out there. It's because we have other policies which expressly and specifically limit that principle, including WP:OM and our image use policies. Which actually allow for the restriction of media with much lower concerns than those involved here. Further, this is hardly the first time the community has had to face such an issue, and the general consensus is that media needs to have more than shock value in terms of informative quality. There's also the fact that this almost certainly violates our non free content policy. There's just so many reasons this video cannot stay. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well said @Snow Rise! Not censored means that an image being offensive or having shock value is rarely a good reason to be included or removed. BTW I already put a request to blacklist the media for now on the bad image list due to its potential for vandalism and disruptive additions. Awesome Aasim 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Good call: I also left a notice of this discussion at WP:VPN to help speed along discussion and action here, since I think there are concerns for harm that justify a rapid response. I almost took the matter to AN to see if an admin was willing to revdel on some of the grounds discussed above, but ultimately decided that was not the ideal route, as I didn't want to unintentionally give the impression that there are behavioural issues here: everyone here is clearly contributing in good faith, regardless of the fact that some of the arguments are emphatically not sustainable under policy or (imo) good sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. I never even noticed the second part with the beating to death, only the first with the man being shot on mobile (was under the impression there was some blurring there, but no, there's not, and it's in HD, so yeah, no). Apologies for arguing for it's inclusion in light of that; That's brutal, horrific and goes well above any lines that would warrant it's inclusion.

That being said; I'd still say there should be some replacement in image form for it regarding the killings at "Kibbutzum" (Mefalsim, which is what the link in kibbutzim in "as well as in kibbutzim around the Gaza Strip" should be changed to), given that we have an image displaying the blood stained kitchen of a family in another kibbutz described in the text of the article. We're describing militants driving around in SUV's gunning down civilians, while you don't have to show the graphic part as discussed there's nothing wrong showing the whole "militants driving around in pickup trucks in fatigues" thing.

I'd also have to push back against the BLP violation claim? That's a bit of a stretch. By that logic you basically can't show any photos of any human being, and that's not what that policy is about (I just re-read it)? There's plenty of valid reasons to object to it's inclusion. I bring this up because I don't want a BLP objection from you to replacing it with images of militants as previously discussed. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be content out there that would satisfy the value of presenting the brazenness and brutality of the attacks that is still well short of depicting the actual massacre of random civilians--although it may take some time to find a free-license option (as noted above, that's another issue with this media). In other words, there must be a satisfactory medium here.

As to the BLP issue, I don't think it's a stretch. I'm the first person to push back against that policy being talismanatically invoked, believe me, but the entire purpose of the policy is to protect the privacy and dignity of inherently non-notable individuals, and I can't see how it is not imputed in the context of a decision which puts a depiction of their brutal, dehumanizing ends directly into the article for all the world to see. Other institutions (journalistic in particular) might make a value judgment that the social benefit of animating reactions in their audience outweigh that intrusion, but I don't think we can make that same argument here, since the factual depth (our own focus) added to the article is so minimal, compared against the likely harms. It's not the single biggest policy reason for removing the video, but it's a pretty compelling reason in and of itself, imo. But for the record, you won't hear objections of the BLP variety from me with regard to representing the militants generally (or even all their acts of violence). It's just that this particular video raises particularly strong concerns in this area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This is potentially, slightly traumatizing material that adds nearly no benefit to the article, along with violating several community expectations and Wikipedia guidelines. I think this video should be replaced by something less graphic. Jon.yb093 (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jon.yb093 Which Wikipedia guideline does it violate? Can you be specific? I appreciate that the material is graphic but that on it's own does not disqualify it per wp:CENSOR. I agree that if we found less graphic footage that also depicted a kibbutz massacre then that footage would be preferable, until we do I think that there is strong reason to keep the footage we have as it clearly depits a tupe of attack that was unprecedented and carried out en mass at the start of the war, and it enhances reader's understanding of the conflict. Lenny Marks (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, I appreciate your concern, but I'd like to say that people won't develop PTSD from this video. When it's not you or your own (close) loved ones under threat, the DSM-5 requires "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others". A video of a stranger being murdered may be "deeply upsetting" and or "extremely distressing", but it isn't traumatizing. (See also Therapy speak, which I recently wrote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey WAID, it's nice to see you. I appreciate your perspective as well, but if I can be blunt without giving offense, a short quote from the DSM does not much alleviate concerns in this area. The concern is not for PTSD in particular; "trauma" is an idiomatic catch-all term for a much broader spectrum of biopsychological phenomena that impute a variety of harms. Here my major concern is for readers who have recently had their lives touched upon by the violence, as well as those who may not have observed it first hand, but may have suffered personal loss connected to it.

And then there's another another major vulnerable category: children generally. Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content (you'll have to trust me on this, but my work and field of inquiry puts me in a position to be well informed on childhood traumas). And indeed, this concern is one reason why violent content has been an ongoing contentious issue on the project whenever it has come up. I've avoided completely avoided broaching this big wrinkle of the situation here thus far because I was concerned about triggering certain voices to double down on reflexively citing WP:NOTCENSORED, as there's a few editors here under the mistaken belief that CENSOR is a much more absolute principle on this project than it actually is--the reality is that it's anything but. And with so many other compelling policy violations, risks of harm, and other practical reasons to not allow this media to be added to this article, I didn't see the point in raising an issue that might draw an outsized reaction.

But yes, children read our articles. Lots of children. And the way we structure our content should always take that into account. Now it goes without saying that we have major, major constraints that sometimes mean we cannot accommodate protecting children in every context. But when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose, the possibility of children seeing their first murder absolutely becomes a situation where the huge potential for traumatic exposure massively outweighs the countervailing considerations. That has in fact been a major concern anytime the subject of especially violent content has been discussed on the project, and I don't doubt that it was also a major factor in the WMF's adoption of the principle of least astonishment standard.

To the maximum extent possible without substantially compromising our educational purposes with regard to the rest of our readers, we want children to benefit from this site. That's less likely to happen if parents can't be confident that their child won't see their first death/murder/someone's face bashed in, simply because they were reading a high traffic article on a current event that they wanted to know more about. Likewise, juvenile educational institutions would be very likely to reconsider open access to this project if such content were to start to proliferate on the encyclopedia. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. This law concerns itself, among various other subject matter, with violent content and child welfare on large online platforms, and the DSA administrators have already designated Wikipedia as one of the 18 sites that it per se applies to. And there have been indicators in the last few days that they are looking to aggressively enforce these rules (which were promulgated last year but just went into effect) with regard to the current Israeli-Palestine conflict.

But we shouldn't need that extra threat of headache / inviting state oversight of the project in order to decide that the cost-benefit calculus is off the charts in the red if we include this video. The mere fact that we would inevitably be sharing a "faces of death" equivalent video with a non-trivial number of children, just to add something that doesn't demonstrate a single act (or any detail identified by any editor in this discussion) that couldn't be easily, fully, and accurately described in prose really ought to be enough.

Our outrage and desire to expose the savagery of men who would murder innocents is an understandable impulse stretching out from our humanity. But here it has to take a backseat to the numerous and compelling considerations arguing against adding content that adds only emotive subtext, violates the privacy and dignity of the depicted in their final horrific, agonized, and dehumanizing moments, and shoves that imagery in front of many readers who aren't seeking it and can reasonably be expected to be harmed by it. Especially considering that such motivations to expose such evil to the light of day, natural as they are, are not particularly well-aligned with the purposes of this particular project (said purpose being to provide a high-level, relatively dispassionate summary of the events in question). There are other places to accomplish the goal of sharing the brutality of these attacks with the world.

Nor do you have to be especially young or sensitive to be negatively impacted by that video, especially if you had a loved one killed in the attacks or one held captive at this very moment. Or, you know, you just happen to be Jewish. All of which includes people who might reasonably take an interest in this article. So, I'm standing by my assessment of the potential for traumatizing significant portions of our readers, some of whom may not have the capacity to appreciate the consequences of hitting that play button. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Children absolutely could be deeply traumatized by viewing such content Then parents shouldn't allow their children on Wikipedia (much less the Internet as a whole) unsupervised. That's why editors have written advice for parents on how to manage Wikipedia for children. This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be "traumatized". when a video of lives being snuffed out adds precisely zero explanatory value to the article that cannot be accomplished with prose Here's another reductive argument. There's a reason that we use and rely on images on Wikipedia. People are visual learners and images of pogroms and executions of Jews are far more impactful at an immediate glance than 10,000 words of text going into the Holocaust. I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere. I don't doubt that such an image would be distressing for a very young child. That's why as a parent/guardian you should guide your children when exposing them to the bad parts of history. There's also the very real possibility of landing the project in hot water with regulators in a variety jurisdictions, including especially the European Union, with the new Digital Services Act. That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me. Plenty of countries outright censor and block access to Wikipedia already. You sound like you're either not aware of that or are trying to get editors to self-censor down to the lowest common denominator—again: a shutting down of the project. You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia. -- Veggies (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"This argument is one, which, taken to its absurd conclusion, would cause Wikipedia to have to be shut down. Somewhere, somehow, some kid might find something and be 'traumatized'.

No...not "something": the violent, sadistic murder of two people and the frenzied mutilation of a corpse. We're not talking about some speculative span of possible content here. This is not a philosophical debate about possibilities or a slippery slope scenario. We're debating the appropriateness of a very specific, concrete piece of content, and it's pretty much as absolutely bad is anything could be in respect to the potential for harm to our readers and invasion of the privacy and dignity of the subject,

"Here's another reductive argument."

I don't find it particularly reductive. Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video that is not already perfectly well imparted in the prose already (or easily could be). For the most part, the few responses to this inquiry have a decidedly begging the question quality to them, with vague "well it illustrates how the attacks unfolded" language repeated ad nauseum, but without any indication that there is so much as a single fact (I mean one small thing, even) that the video is necessary to communicate that isn't ably done with prose.

In fact, the closest anyone has gotten to an actual, meaningful answer to that question was an editor who (and I think this is the honest and understandable answer at the heart of the support for this video) that the video demonstrates the barbarity and cold-bloodedness of the attackers....and then they immediately went on to opine about how it illustrates the difference between a restrained, honourable "professional army", versus the irredeemably malignant and animalistic "militants"; i.e. a not-at-all subtle comparison of the IDF and Hamas. They said the quiet (if somewhat understandable) part out loud: this is seemingly at least partly about showing how evil Hamas are, for at least some of the minority of editors who want to include this grossly gratuitous video.

And even for those of us who might be inclined to agree, on a personal level, to this reading of the video as an unambiguous demonstration of sociopathy, that's still just too subjective and emotional a subtext to use to justify this image, considering its potential harm to our readers, and its profound BLP implications. To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified and isn't available under an established free-use license, and so can't be used on en.Wikipedia regardless...

"I think that's the reason why you didn't even attempt to answer what was the content difference between this video and the image of the execution of a Jew during WWII below or Lenny Marks's rebuttal of your point elsewhere."

No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with other matters off-project when you both commented. I happen to be a very busy person in my professional, home, and volunteer lived who, apropos of nothing, has a member of the household just out of the hospital and has had about seven hours of sleep in the last three days... I don't contribute on your schedule and I'm not compelled to answer every comment you think I should. And b) I've said as much as anyone in this thread, if not more, and there comes a point at which you need to stop responding to every comment, especially if you perceive the discussion to be going in circles. And the fact of the matter is, you haven't given me the impression of someone who is open to having their mind changed on any of this, so I did not feel highly motivated to respond to you in particular. I actually have several paragraphs of a response to Lenny's post, which I found polite and cogent, if not terribly compelling, but by the time I found the time to finish it, WAID had pinged me on another aspect of the discussion which I felt was more fruitful ground for discussion, so I made a choice. I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.

That said, if it's that important to you to have a response, here's just a partial list of the reasons that comparing The Last Jew in Vinnitsa to this video constitutes a non-sequitor and a false analogy:

1) One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.

2) the video depicts the deaths of people who were until very recently alive, meaning they are covered by our BLP guidelines. The image does not.

3) The image is WP:verified, as all disputed content on this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.

4) The image is free-use content, as all media used in this encyclopedia must be. The video is not.

5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. The video is not.

6) I'm quite sure from your previous comments that you won't find this compelling, but it actually pulls some weight with me as someone who comes from a cognitive science/biopsych background: the image, horrific though it undeniably is, does not actually depict the completion of the act of murder. The human brain processes a high-fidelity, real-time representation of a violent act in motion differently from an illustration implying that act. It just does.

Now you and I might actually agree that as an abstract, rational matter, the difference is arbitrary and the result of a cognitive bias, not a logical analysis of any substantial difference in the levels of brutality between the two acts. But for a vulnerable person stumbling upon that image (say a child for example, or someone whose loved one was murdered in one of these attacks), it actually makes all the difference in the world in terms of the harm done. You may not agree with that, but good news: you can still take your pick from numbers 1-5.

"That sounds like you're flirting with legal threats to me."

I clearly am not or anything that even remotely looks like it. I didn't threaten to take legal action. I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles, which is perfectly valid and appropriate subject matter for a policy discussion. That is neither a bad faith action nor anywhere in the same universe as [[WP:NLT]--and if you can't tell the difference, you really, really, really' need to re-read that policy.

And if I'm blunt, at this point your behaviour here towards all your rhetorical opposition is getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND, acid-toned, inclined towards unjustified WP:ASPERSIONS, and verging on WP:DISRUPTIVE . We all managed to get through this very loaded discussion perfectly politely until you joined the discourse, with your sarcasm and no-holds-barred mentality. Ever since consensus shifted strongly away from support for your perspective, you keep trying to chill, curtail, or define the focus and manner of other users' !votes and responses, in ways you just are not permitted to on this project--all of it wrapped it in hostile, derogatory tone. It appears you haven't been a super heavy contributor in recent years, but if you've been on the project since 2007, you should really know better--and regardless, you should drop this course of action immediately: it isn't doing the appeal of your arguments any favours and if you keep it up, your conduct is likely to end up scrutinized at ANI or AE. Which won't help consensus here in any way. You don't have to like the outcome or the arguments of the majority / emerging consensus, but the snideness is patently unhelpful to your position and to the rest of us.

"You also amusingly sound as though you're not aware of all the other much more graphic content on this encyclopedia or in Commons. This video is hardly a unique landmark in Wikimedia."

Well, you're both very right and very wrong about that. You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it. Please don't expect further direct engagement from me here. Beyond that fact that I don't think engaging with you would be particularly productive, I think I've more than said my piece in this discussion in general. I nevertheless hope you have a pleasant rest of your day, however. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I see you didn't even attempt to address the very valid point that parents should not let their kids have unmonitored access to Wikipedia, much less the internet as a whole. In fact, you pretty much dropped the "think-of-the-children!" argument in this last reply. There's a reason Wikipedia has and has had for a long time a content disclaimer which reads Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts. and Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.

"Indeed, I (and others) have attempted a significant number of times to get a more substantive definition of what "information" that is relayed in this video"

The same "information" that, say, The video of the killing of Kelly Thomas provides to understanding what happened to him. The same "information" that the photos of the lynchings of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels provide in understanding the brutality they went through. The same "information" that a photo of a child victim of the 1929 Hebron massacre adds to the understanding of that event to readers. The same "information" that images of the casualties of war bombings add to their articles. War and violence produce harrowing images. Harrowing images are, often, graphic, but necessary to include in articles in order to further the reader's understanding of what occurred—especially if we recognize that most readers are not going to do a detailed poring through from title to citations of all the text. They will skim, jump to sections that interest them, and pause to look at images. Humans are very much vision-oriented. A perfectly cited text-only Wikipedia article on the Holocaust would not be as moving as one with images, harrowing that they may be.

it's profound BLP implications

There are no serious BLP implications. Nowhere in this video are any of the victims named. Hell, the video blurs the face of the most prominent victim, making recognition extremely difficult by anyone. Also, even if this victim was recognizable, they aren't portrayed "in a false or disparaging light".

To say nothing of the facts that, again, it's not WP:Verified

Verified how, exactly? Are you claiming that it isn't Kibbutz Mefalsim or that this didn't actually take place as it shows? It's likely that the IDF released this video, which then filtered down to Reddit, and finally to here. Someone with a better understanding of Israeli freedom of information or beaurocracy could probably find the original press release for the video.

and isn't available under an established free-use license

Who says it isn't? It's on Commons under a PD-CCTV license. I'm a little unfamiliar with that license, but it's false to say it isn't actually available under that license.

No....I didn't respond to either of you because a) I was busy with ...... I'm sorry that you felt that your point demanded a response: I didn't.

If your time is so short and your sleep deprivation is so bad, you should probably spend less time writing paragraphs about it and more time responding substantively (after a full night's rest). The fact of the matter is: Lenny made a counterargument at ~08:00 on 16 October which you didn't respond to (despite having "many paragraphs" at the ready) even though you replied to others. Again, you should probably go sleep if you're that admittedly short on time rather than making long, drawn-out "think-of-the-children!" pleadings that I find quite unconvincing.

One is a historical image depicting a, yes, unfathomably heinous act, but also one from which we are temporally distant. The other depicts a recent massacre which has traumatized countless people who could be impacted by how we approach the presentation of this subject, including many who may take a special interest in this article.

The former is an argument of time, not whether or not the content is encyclopedic or too graphic. The latter is more special pleading about how somebody might find this video and consider it offensive. Again, I find it quite unconvincing. I've covered 1 through 4 of your list already.

5) The image in question is WP:notable in its own right as an encylopedic subject and covered by robust discussion in reliable sources. This video is not.

Again, that's rather the point of this discussion, isn't it? If things that haven't been discussed about whether they are notable in their own right, then new images to Wikipedia can never be notable in their own right because they haven't been discussed yet.

I pointed out the very real possibility of consequences for this project's interests if we start including depictions of close-up murder in our current event articles

Legal ramifications to Wikipedia over our edits are not something to discuss or bring up in article-space. If you really feel like including the video in Wikipedia or Commons is a violation of some law, you should contact the Wikipedia legal team or start a discussion at an admin noticeboard. Regular editors are not qualified to make legal judgements for Wikipedia.

You're wrong in that I guarantee you that you can't find a video in an article depicting two people being shot and hacked to death. You're right in that the situation is not unique and the reason you can't find such a video or anything even particularly close to it is that every time someone has tried to force encyclopedia across that line, the community has rejected it.

You sure about that? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. -- Veggies (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Shit's Crazy bro, I may be making a whole ass youtube video on how you can find fuckin gore on wikipedia 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

UPD: You can find VERY GORY VIDEOS ON WIKIPEDIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ricardo_Alfonso_Cerna_committing_suicide_in_California,_December_2003.ogv 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@CooperGoodman: That video is not used on Wikipedia. You can see that in the "file usage" section. That image exists on Wikimedia Commons, which is a file repository and does not have the same rules as Wikipedia. That link is valid for Wikipedia's API for convenience (and IIRC Wikipedia once did store files locally), but it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. lethargilistic (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic:That's not exactly true. That video was used on Wikipedia, but the corresponding article was deleted for reasons unrelated to the video itself. Graphic imagery is absolutely used in articles. -- Veggies (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies:Thanks for the catch and clarification. Nobody here has ever said that graphic images never appear in Wikipedia articles. lethargilistic (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To respond to the verifiability part alone because I've said my piece on the rest (and images like your Vinnitsaexample) elsewhere: WP:VERIFY's opening sentence defines verifiability: verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. That is, the issue of verifiability is not an abstract "did this factually happen?" question that can be answered by "someone could theoretically go through IDF releases and find it." The limited question is whether this is cited to a reliable source, and it simply isn't. It's from reddit. Moreover, it could even (theoretically) be footage of Hamas attacking a kibbutz last year with the current date superimposed and it would not belong in the article as it was not part of this conflict. I have seen video debunkings in the last several days where IDF violence with no timestamp has been attributed to Hamas. (Again, this is applying policy, not an argument that it didn't take place or wasn't Hamas or whatever.) We don't know what this is because the video has not been connected to a WP:RS. The WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to include the footage to provide that RS. Until one has been provided, it is not verified.

Believe me, that policy does not particularly bring me joy. It means that Wikipedia is not about the literal truth. It occasionally reproduces information that I know to factually be untrue, but it is "verified" because it was reported in the New York Times. How does a person get the literal truth into a reliable source to correct the record and Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not (perhaps cannot) provide a great answer.

In any case, Verifiability means giving a Reliable Source for the video, not "it probably filtered down to reddit and we might be able to find it." WP:V, unlike NOTCENSORED, is categorical and absolute. If someone who wants the image in cannot provide an RS, the video is out of the article and the rest of this discussion is merely theoretical. lethargilistic (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic on the verifiability issue, the video has been independently verified and geolocated by Human Rights Watch. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks Link? lethargilistic (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

[1]. Sorry, thought I put it in. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, does "idiomatic" mean "the definition some people use on social media"? A modern linguist wouldn't call that (or any understandable use of any word) wrong, but I'm looking at the DSM-5, under the heading of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for Children 6 Years and Younger", pages 272–273, where I find the words "Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others, especially primary caregivers.  Note:  Witnessing does not include events that are witnessed only in electronic media, television, movies, or pictures" (emphasis added).

IMO children can "absolutely" be terrified, upset, and distressed, and they can absolutely have a biopsychological Stress response, but it appears that the DSM does not call watching a distressing video trauma, no matter how horrified the viewer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we have the right to not watch the video and move on. Wikipedia can contain disclaimers. There are options to hide certain content. Cwater1 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content

Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

In this case, this offensive material is nowhere near the criteria to keep it. Whether we do or do not have the right to watch said video is irrelevant.

SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

100% well said. 100% true. I agree fully, and I will work to make sure this video is taken down. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Last Jew in Vinnitsa

Can anyone explain to me the content difference between The Last Jew in Vinnitsa and this CCTV footage, because I can't see it. -- Veggies (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

For starters that is a still image clearly showing the victim still alive and no insides spewing out and is a publicly available artefact in its own right. And as much as corpses are never eye candy, the circumstances in which they were captured (esp. Black and White) make them slightly more stomachable for users. In the context of the Holocaust (which is generally agreed to be a genocidal operation) that photo also serves its purpose to educate.

as for the video, yes that blood is way too WP:GRATUITOUS and the way editors have been reacting to this has indicated that it has not been as educative as it was expected to in an encyclopedic article now that some editors seem to be using this as none other than political football to call editors they hate as either anti-Semites or Western lackeys. (See every discussion we had relating to NPOV) Borgenland (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland This is, I believe a total misreading of WP:GRATUITOUS, which's simple point in that the graphic nature of content should not be a reason to include or not include any material. It is not a comment on subjective levels of graphicness.

"Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive"
— wp:GRATUITOUS

I'm sorry, but nothing in there states that becuse you think pictures are more offensive in color than in black in white that they should not be excluded. The policy goes on to state:

"Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"."
— wp:GRATUITOUS

In conclusion: Editors have made strong arguments as to why this image enhancies the understanind of the article topic. You are free to dispute that, but you are not supported by GRATUITOUS in saying it should be removed because other massacres are shown in black and white. Lenny Marks (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And since WP:OTHERSTUFF exists has been invoked might as well we included Jihadi John videos in this discussion? Borgenland (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is really sad . 😢😢😢 MrBeastRapper (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What "insides spewing out"? You mean blood? There's plenty of images of blood and wounds on Wikipedia. If you mean the person being bayonetted at the very end, it's obvious what's happening, but there's no graphic "insides spewing out" like you're asserting. I guarantee that if this video was desaturated to black and white, you would still oppose its inclusion, so let's throw that argument out as frivolous. Images of the Holocaust are "stomachable" for you only because the images have become part of the historical canon and have been widely shared and discussed and you live in the era of HD video where an older photograph isn't as shocking to you as motion video. That's simply an argument of medium, not content. Why wouldn't this video serve an educational purpose? It's CCTV, so it certainly wasn't framed to capture this specific event, unlike the Vinnitsa photo. And this is a major event in regional, if not world history—much like all the wars in the Middle East. You need to cite what part of WP:GRATUITOUS you think this falls under. I've read the guideline and can't find where this meets any Wikipedia definition of gratuitousness. As for "the way editors have been reacting to this", that's irrelevant to a rational discussion about policies and image use. It's certainly educational, regardless of a few editors' emotional reactions. I haven't called anyone any names and I'm fully in favor of including this video (as I would be a copyright-free video of Israeli settlers running down, killing, and bayonetting Palestinians). As for Jihadi John, his videos are edited to be blatant ISIS propaganda so would obviously be less neutral than CCTV footage, but, yes, if they were copyright-free, I'd be fine including them in an ISIS or Jihadi John article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Veggies Since you don't want discussion down there, I'll answer you up here. Regarding the police brutality video, I think the main distinction is that the subject matter of that article is whether the police officers' conduct constitutes murder, and hence a video showing their precise actions (apparently cited by the prosecutor as grounds for bringing charges) is highly relevant. In the case under discussion here, it would seem incontrovertible that the civilians were brutally murdered. Regarding the copyright issue, I would say that if the blood-gushing and head-dropping motions are relevant to an enhanced understanding of the incident, we could theoretically create a model animation depicting Daniel Pearl's beheading. Would you support inclusion of such an animation in the article, since it would show what the copyrighted videos show, without violating copyright? I am trying to test your logic here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore I don't think that there needs to be real ambiguity (such as in the police brutality video) in order to justify an image. I think it's clear per wp:IMGCONTENT that an image can be used to enhance readers understandings of what is in the text. This is especially true here where the image represents not just this particular attack but is illustrating an unprecedented type of attack that occurred many times on October 7. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Lenny Marks: I am not persuaded by this reasoning. Setting aside copyright issues for the purposes of this argument, if your reasoning is correct, then our article on sexual assault should have a video of a person being sexually assaulted (preferably, in all the various ways--groping, male-on-female penetration, female-on-male penetration, male-on-male, sodomization via objects, etc.), the article on revenge porn (setting aside BLP issues for the sake of argument) should include an actual revenge porn video and the victim experiencing extreme shame and ridicule as a result, the beheading video article should have a beheading video (if copyright is an issue, then a visual animation model), the article on crushing videos should include a video of a cat being crushed (the article currently contains a video of a kiwi fruit being crushed), the article on exsanguination should show someone bleeding out, the various school shooting videos should show and so on and so forth. Applying your reasoning, all of these videos should be as graphic and sharp as possible so as to enhance the reader's understanding of the type of pain and anguish experienced by the subject. I think this reasoning would lead to a situation that is simply distasteful. This is an argumentum ad absurdum that I am presenting here. I think it is simply not true that a person needs to watch immense suffering in order to understand that immense suffering occurred. I think a person who looks up the October 7 attacks is not wanting to see the attacks, but rather learn about the attacks. Certainly, learning can be aided by images, but there is a point at which the shock and obscenity of some of the images detract from the learning. I am not confident that I can articulate where that point is, but I am confident in saying that the examples I have described (and the video under discussion here) are beyond that point. And thus is the nature of obscenity generally: an extremely subjective and nebulous concept that evades definition but not recognition. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's words in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio are by now a cliché, probably for this very reason: The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, stating that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography". He wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (from the article).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore I was not making a blanket statement that all graphic images should be used in every article. I was merely pointing out that there are good reasons to include here. I understand the argument you're trying to make but I don't really think it's analogous. Obiously, neither one of us is interested in going through each of those instances on their merits to see why the media wasn't included. Equally, though, I could list many articles that do have graphic and extremely disturbing media, such as: Abu Ghraib abuse (actual torture), Einsatzgruppen (mass murder), and 9/11 (planes and buildings exploding). Ultimately, it comes down to the individual topic and the level of understanding, fact, or context drived from the images. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note There were some editors who had raised questions about verifiability and I would just point out that the video has been verified by Human Rights Watch [2] --Lenny Marks (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to point out that on Wikipedia, we don't remove content just because of its graphic nature. If it is in a encyclopedic tone and it don't have copyright issues, then it can probably stay. Cwater1 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Cut to the chase: Should the violent video be removed from the article?

• Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely not STRONG oppose per reasons already given (and those tellingly not given by the opposition). -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Addendum - If this is for !voting, it should just be for !voting, not for hashing out yet another section to make the same arguments. Go make/retort arguments above. -- Veggies (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I have carefully read and considered the reasons for an against. Ultimately I do not think it should be removed because words do not convey the savage casual violence against unarmed and innocent civilians shown in the clip. WCM_email 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I have been carefully following the discussion and beleive there is definitely encyclopedic value to satisfy wp:IMGCONTENT. The arguments against inclusion would also apply to a huge swath of material on this article and other well regarded articles on this project. No better alternative has been proposed. --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Veggies. While the video is indeed graphic, there is precedent for using graphic media, and I have a better understanding of the atrocities committed by Hamas having watched this video. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove I have seen multiple videos of the conflict that show dead and wounded people on both sides. This particular video is one of the most gruesome ones out there. If I were someone who had not seen any gore or murder footage before, watching this execution video on Wikipedia would deeply disturb me. Ecrusized (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• SNOW support. Look, let's just for the moment put aside the WP:OM issues, the BLP concerns, the substantial potential for causing traumatic responses in our readers, the WMFs principle of reader expectation rule, the likely knock on effects of Wikipedia hosting such content that could lead to the article as a whole reaching less eyes, and any other perennial issues that come up with such material. And by the way, this is a good place to say that I'm very impressed with everyone for keeping the tone polite and even-keeled all through the discussion so far, despite clearly strong feelings on the editorial considerations and the highly contentious nature of the article: it's very nice to see and speaks well to priorities, good faith, and level-headedness of those commenting.

Now, all that said, even putting those substantial editorial and harm concerns aside, this content just isn't going to stay, longterm: if nothing else, it violates WP:V and none free content policies. Both of which are pretty much never abrogated in circumstances like these, ultimately. We can't confirm the provenance of the video and we don't have an appropriate license for it. For those reasons alone, it has to go. The other concerns represent important and heavy editorial issues and I think it's a valuable thing to have that discussion in parallel--and indeed I think we should continue to have that discussion simply on the principle that we might be looking at other similar media in the future, that is licensed properly. But those are simply additional reasons to consider removing the video, whereas verifiability and NFC are buck-stops-here concerns that there aren't any viable arguments to get around. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out, it has been verified now by HRW. If the video violates copyrights (I am not an expert but it seems like it does not) then that is a separate discussion to be had. This is just about the suitability of the video in this article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Remove - There is now a video of a trench in Gaza where Palestinian bodies are being buried in a mass grave because the morgues are full and the population forced to leave. Will we end up with competing videos? We are here to dispassionately document, not to push for one side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Is this really a question? Yes, we should remove snuff films. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it shouldn't be a question; material should not be included solely because it is offensive, nor should it be removed solely because it is offensive. But grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia; especially when less offensive alternatives exist. WP:BLP also applies, specifically "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". This might also be a good application of WP:IAR, but consensus gets muddied in discussions like this. The straw !poll will help a bit with assessing consensus. Awesome Aasim 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Videos showing someone being hurt badly or even murdered shouldn't be in the article. While Wikipedia don't censor things, this is too extreme in my opinion. Context clues without looking, snuff films sound like the film is violent. Cwater1 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Awsome Aasim You say that "grossly offensive and traumatic material universally crosses the line and is out of scope of Wikipedia". This is simply untrue and not in line with standard practice of articles covering large traumatic events. (see Einzatsgruppen, Abu Ghraib abuse, 9/11.) --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1 It may be too extreme in your opinion, but I do not think that is the cuttoff for inclusion in Wikipedia policy. Graphicness is neither a reason to include or exclude material, encyclopedic value is. If there were too equally illustrative videos and one was less graphic, it would obviously be the better choice. But since that is not the case, it is not policy to remove the video because someone thinks it is too far. --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with you. As long as it is legal, then it can stay. We don't have disclaimer warning saying, "it may be disturbing to some." It is implied in the WP:Content disclaimer that Wikipedia can contain something graphic. Cwater1 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1 Thanks. I appreciate that this is intense material but this is an intense topic. Will you be changing your poll response? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks I strike out the comment. <s> I put a new reply saying keep video. Cwater1 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cwater1 I dont see your new reply, is it possible you forgot to add it to the poll? Lenny Marks (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Reasons described in the above thread. Broadly agree with Snow Rise. lethargilistic (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove - Senseless snuff film amounting to propaganda that serves no encyclopedic cause. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as I know there is no auto-play on Wikipedia, so every reader can make their own decision whether to watch it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support citing Snow Rise. Borgenland (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Didn't know Wikipedia has turned into a gore site now. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal per Snow Rise. This has clearly been chosen specifically because it is WP:GRATUITOUS. It is possible to present comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of an armed attack without showing videos of people being killed. Even so, BLP issues (which applies to both the living and recently deceased) should make it overwhelmingly clear that removal is the correct answer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal I have refrained from watching the video based solely on what has been said about it here. I saw the Daniel Pearl beheading video, many years ago, and it disturbed me for a long time. Same thing goes for some of the Islamic State beheading incidents and James Foley (journalist) videos circa 2014. It's worth noting, by the way, that the Daniel Pearl, beheading video, Islamic State beheading incidents, and James Foley (journalist) articles all lack beheading videos. Images (especially videos) are very powerful in conveying things that words cannot, and the grotesque character of the attacks help explain the forceful reaction and unprecedented unity of the Israelis. It is not the same to say, "Innocent civilians were chased down and shot at close range" as to show a video of an innocent civilian being chased down and shot at close range. But my opinions is that we should leave it to the Wikipedia reader to google that for themselves if that's what they want to experience.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Orgullomoore: This isn't the place for a discussion, but since you didn't contribute in the greater discussion above, I'll have to retort here. Daniel Pearl et al. videos are copyrighted and wouldn't fall within fair-use. This one is evidently not and doesn't have to meet that strict requirement. The article Killing of Kelly Thomas contains CCTV footage of his killing by police officers (with audio). The video is copyright-free, graphic, and was included in the article. Shocking, right? -- Veggies (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Remove per SnowRise. Andre🚐 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  •Remove: Don't see the justification on including something that goes to THAT level of violence. I can see a justification somewhat for some violent or graphic videos/images, but someone literally gets their brains blown out in HD and someone gets stabbed to death and beaten to death (after being shot I believe). All in one video. It's brutal, and on balance I can't justify including it for all the reasons discussed above. It doesn't add enough to justify it's inclusion (given it WILL reduce viewership, and probably traumatize several people, it's pretty damn bad). Text with images that don't involve depictions of murder suffice. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would oppose most of the pro-removal arguments as Wikipedia is not censored and the video serves to illustrate some of the violence of the events for the reader. This article is about inherently violent events, so the inclusion of violent/distressing images is certainly due. However, we do not seem to have a good source verifying this particular video at present and the video should be removed unless/until we do. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 'Support inclusion of video. The video has now been authenticated by Human Rights Watch, who thought it significant enough to write about. Our article contains a number of distressing images of Palestinian casualties, so I think it is only due to include this video of Israeli casualties as well. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Ficaia the video has been independently verified by Human Rights Watch [3] Given that, you would support keeping? Lenny Marks (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - I see no compelling reason to deviate from policy. Riposte97 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - WIkipedia is NOT censored, period. This is by far not the most graphic video out of the conflict, and the suggestions by some that less violent videos be used as a replacement are egregious and against policy. Our goal is to depict incidents as they occurred, not depict what we think might be pleasing to the eye of the reader. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Removal - There are far more illustrative videos we could use. Frankly it's not even a good video and does not much of anything to the reader's understanding compared to, for example, video of the paragliders, the invasion itself, or rocket fire. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  What are some other videos that we can use? 🤔🤔 I have no clue! MrBeastRapper (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Huh? How would a video of a paraglider (if you could even find a copyright-free one) be "more illustrative" to educating readers about this war than this video. And you didn't explain why it "does not much of anything to the reader's understanding"—whatever that means. -- Veggies (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • This response being right below mine and repeating the same incorrect idea about far more subtle "suitable" videos is quite ironic.
    See WP:GRATUITOUS (incorrectly cited by many who want a removal) :- Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

    On the flip side, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. This is what most of the support comments have been arguing - that issues like WP:BLP and wmf:Resolution:Controversial content also greatly apply here. We don't (or at least shouldn't) keep offensive material unless if it adds value to the encyclopedia; I don't believe this clip does that. Its sole purpose is to offend, not to educate, and we are not LiveLeak or Daily Mail or New York Post (or any news agency for that matter that aims to be sensationalist) and there isn't significant cultural significance in this CCTV that merits keeping this, unlike The Falling Man which conveyed a powerful message after 9/11. Awesome Aasim 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

    The argument that the video is only intended to offend should not have arisen given the discussions above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

    I agree with the fact that we shouldn't remove an image or video just because it is graphic. There is that disclaimer on top of the talk page saying that there are options to hide such content. Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Precisely. Media's sole purpose here is to enhance the encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

*Support - Sounds too graphic. Who would want to watch a bloody scene. Not I. I am aware Wikipedia isn't censored and there are ways to hide certain images and videos. Cwater1 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Wikipedia:Gore . Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. It is not censored. Marokwitz (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Just because a video or image is graphic don't mean we remove it. Visitors don't have to watch the video of they don't want to. That's why we got the ability to hide graphic content, see Help: Options to hide an image.

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

• Oppose removal I strike out my original comment. I agree with @Lenny Marks. Cwater1 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose/Keep per WP:GORE. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (killing video)

Is there now enough of a consensus to remove the video? 10 votes to 5 looks pretty strong to me. The footage has not been in the article for very long (only maybe a day or two), so I don't think that "implicit consensus" counts for anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, nobody is voting here. This isn't a democracy. Second, the discussion has only been active for less than thirty-ish hours. A bit quick to be making snap (ahem, "executive") decisions on such a contentious issue. Third, consensus is not about mathematical ratios of poll results. If if you were at the right time to close a discussion (much less knowledgeable about how to do so), your rationale needs to be more than "10 > 5". You should probably read what closing a discussion requires. I suppose I should be gobsmacked that an editor with almost 45K edits isn't aware of these fundamental guidelines and procedures, but very little surprises me anymore. -- Veggies (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? You've been here since 2005, long enough to understand the concept of consensus and WP:ONUS. It's incredibly rare in AFD discussions for instance, for a 2:1 vote to be overturned, and you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based. The results of this discussion show that so far there is no consensus to include the video and therefore it should be removed, per ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You also apparently know that the copyright status of this video is unclear, but voted keep on Commons anyway [4], so maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So how long is this discussion supposed to run for? A week? A month? As long as necessary. We might even choose to go to WP:RFD if arguments become intractable to get a broader opinion. A far less graphic but far more heated discussion took years (and many archived pages) to resolve. There was a template long ago called Linkimage (also dealing with graphic or "offensive" images on Wikipedia) which was nominated for deletion three separate times over the course of over a year before it was finally (and rightly) deleted. So, what's the rush? I'm fully aware of ONUS. you've provided no evidence that the arguments for removal are not policy-based I can't quote the entire discussion in a reply. The arguments are in the main discussion section above. Those who oppose removal (myself included) have made counterarguments to the pro-removal editors which are strongly policy-based and at least two of us have yet to read a response. You, again, are relying on mathematical ratios to further your points. maybe it's too much to expect a coherent argument from you As for the deletion discussion on Commons, I didn't come up with PD-CCTV and I don't have a strong legal understanding of the inherent basis behind that public domain justification, so I'm fully in favor of keeping the video if it's truly copyright-free, but I'm unsure whether it is. But, again, I didn't come up with that template on Commons. I have to defer to the more knowledgeable people who did. It's perfectly "coherent" to say 'I think this is fine content-wise, but I'm unsure about the copyright status.' -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We've all remained civil up until this point, let's try to continue that trend. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of the !votes are to make it easier to assess consensus especially when discussions gets muddied like this. Because the original question was about what to do with the media the straw !polls serve to make assessing consensus easier. Awesome Aasim 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Except two things: 1) Many people who cast a !vote didn't contribute to the larger discussion and/or didn't cite applicable policies, either making incendiary statements "snuff film" "gore site" etc. or just saying "per [another user]" and 2) not everyone who contributed to the discussion contributed to the poll. -- Veggies (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I havent voted and dont intend to, but ONUS applies to inclusion of content, and with the straw poll as it is now I think it is fair to say that at the very least there is no consensus for inclusion so it should be out. You, Veggies, should self-revert unless and until there is a consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. I'll do it now. -- Veggies (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That being the case, I feel obliged to offer my opinion in support of @Veggies. Images and video media are included in articles to help illustrate a point to the reader. The video in question unequivocally helps to illustrate what occurred during Operation Al-Asqa Flood.

Most of the arguments against inclusion implicitly rely on a moral assertion that people should not see certain things, due to vaguely-invoked and unquantifiable harm. Despite claims to the contrary, these arguments are motivated by the same censorious impulse as most moves to restrict content on Wikipedia, and can be dismissed for similar reasons.

We have a policy (WP:NOTCENSORED), and we should apply it. Riposte97 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As Mr Obama was fond of saying, dont boo, vote. nableezy - 04:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an important point. The guidelines on closure state clearly that consensus is to be found through the arguments (consistent with policy) made by responsible Wikipedians. Not just a head count of people who were not involved in the discussion at all, polling with an argument that flatly contradicts policy. I would suggest that when the time comes that we seek an outside party at Requests for closure. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). Simply arguing "Wikipedia is not censored" or "we need to show how brutal/savage/gratuitous it was" is not enough to meet the requirement for inclusion. There's some irony in people making those arguments and then saying that exclusion violates policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, consensus is still a thing. For the record I haven't commented up to now or watched the video. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Per WP:Offensive material: Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship (emphasis mine). wp:GRATUITOUS is not an inclusion criterion it is a policy which states that graphicness is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion, and that less graphic options should be used when possible. The people arguing that the video can't be excluded for graphicness are not precisly correct, but they are correct barring an alternative with the same encyclopedic value. Simply saying that the video is offensive is not a reason for to remove it. GRATUITOUS goes on to say Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. The inclusion requirements for images are clear:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.
— wp:IMGCONTENT

-- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir. Could you provide some of the more illustrative videos you think there are? There are several people in this discussion that have agreed that they would be open to changing to a less graphic video that also displayed the attacks on civilians. If you could provide it would go a long way towards reaching consensus. --Lenny Marks (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Videos and Creative Commons is not my forte, but here's what I found that I think would be acceptable for Wikipedia:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMkm7XidLo
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlVgqsQC83A
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgXk_mz_8E
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g3ewJZXdsg
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqrXWzZhTw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67EYVdfgzo
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlwbWhQaMw

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look through these Lenny Marks (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A few more:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHydKv0_Do
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kC1J4W5sd4

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not impressed.

The first is a twelve-hour stream of talking-heads. If a CNN or Fox News twelve-hour stream were free-use, I don't see what it would add to the article if included in-line. Maybe as an external link, this is valuable. Also: it has commercials which I have serious doubts about whether they are actually free-use.

The second is drone footage of an excavator moving rubble. Given how many rubble photos we already have in the article, I don't see what this adds of any value. More importantly, however, Kanal13 is a copyright-washing account. (see [5] vs [6]). NowThis News has a live stream of Trump at a courthouse and Kanal13 straight-up snipped their footage and uploaded it as their own CC content. No way we can trust any of these videos you have of them as being actually copyright-free. That disqualifies the third, fourth, sixth, eighth, and ninth of your videos. As an administrator, I expect you to be aware of copyright washing, so, as I said above, I should probably be gobsmacked at your careless citation of these shady channels, but very little surprises me anymore.

The fifth is a little bit better, but it's a compilation of videos from various sources as well as just "breaking-news"-style talking heads. Not worthless, but not any better at describing the horror of the initial Hamas attack than the video we're discussing.

The seventh is sensationalist rapid-fire jump-cutting with ostentatious music. Did you not watch it? Even if the channel actually had the right to use all those clips (and I'm skeptical that it does), it's editing is way too NPOV. -- Veggies (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I had the sound off, so I did not know about the music. I am making a good faith effort. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir Thank you for your efforts. I appreciate your work but I share many of the concerns listed above. Most notably, we haven't found a video that shows the unprecedented type of attacks that were carried out and that shows the careful and thorough targeting of civilians that occurred. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lenny Marks is correct. @EvergreenFir has made an effort, as have I, but I don't believe other videos are as good as the one under discussion. I think we should try to gain consensus for re-addition, seeing as the video was removed during the vote above (and the conversation seems to have moved past it). Riposte97 (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97 I agree, especially considering that verifiability issue has been resolved by Human Rights Watch's verification of the video. I would say that we should review consensus/maybe push for independent closure as this discussion has been so contentious. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

While I initially was in favour of this; it's just too much. I genuinely think it's so out of place. It's brutal, violent, and in hindsight I don't think it really achieves much. Not enough to warrant it's inclusion given the issues it introduces. I get the arguments, not saying anyones arguing for it's re-inclusion in bad faith, but I really have to agree with snow here that there's no way this would ever stand long term. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that its brutal and violent, but that doesnt affect the validity in any way per policy. I might still accept this argument if there were any issues that the video raised - But there arent. The only claim made is that the video is gratuitous (i.e. of no meaningful value) which seems rather absurd for a video about a massacre in an article about a war started by said massacre. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers; exactly as @CapnJackSp says. There seem to be two main arguments against inclusion here: 1) that the video has no encyclopedic value (which is just false as many on the opposition have acknowledged) and 2) that the video violates wp:GRATUITOUS due to the degree of its violence. But that very policy says that if a video does have encyclopedic value it should be included even when graphic, unless there is a less graphic but equally valuable video to replace it with. As you say, I think that (most) of the arguments against inclusion are made in good faith, but are based on a misreading of policy and this idea that though Wikipedia is not censored, it does not include things that are just too graphic. As I enumerated above, there are plenty of articles that contain extremely graphic content when appropriate (particularly articles about conflict and massacres). -- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I made the close req a couple of minutes ago - Wikipedia:Closure requests. Riposte97 (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Question 2: Should the video be blacklisted from the English Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support as proposer, per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support also per reasons by Snow Rise and above. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wrong venue, blacklisting is discussed at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list when it becomes necessary due to disruptive use of the image/media. —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Kusma Would I need to start an RfC to get global consensus to blacklist the image? Awesome Aasim 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Put an 18 + symbol on the video , so people know not to watch it. MrBeastRapper (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @MrBeastRapper I would agree, but we have WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Awesome Aasim 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Awesome Aasim, just go to the Bad image talk page when there is evidence that the video is being used disruptively or against consensus. It seems sufficient for the moment to debate here whether it should be included. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wrong venue as explained above -- Veggies (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• (No &) Wrong venue per @Kusma (talk) --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• (No &) wrong venue per Kusma. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Decapitation

Yet another reference to decapitation has just been added, during discussion. There are now 18 references to decapitation/beheading despite the fact that the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine, said "We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can't definitely say it was from beheadings." Frankly, as this is a trope, the article appears to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

??? the article appears to border on Islamophobia This is such a bizarre accusation. There is no disputing that Hamas murdered civilian Israelis, including children, in cold blood during the initial attack. There is ample proof of this, such as the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not matter at all how they were killed. That's my point. Why use the term eighteen (18) times, even when the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine says this cannot be determined, if the manner of death does not ultimately matter, as you say? That's why gratuitously using a trope like beheaded eighteen (18) times makes the article appear to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Using ctrl + f, I found that variants of "decapitate" and "beheading" are used briefly in the 10 October subsection and then again (extensively) in its dedicated subsection under the "Media coverage" section. One could argue that the subsection on decapitations is given UNDUE weight (and the page is already massively too long as it is), but I don't see this topic being given pervasive coverage throughout the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used at all since it cannot be determined according to Israel's own expert. It is a highly contentious term due to its actual use by ISIS in the past and the connection some people make between Muslims and beheadings. It fails WP:V and has no purpose other than to inflame. We certainly have plenty of other text about atrocities that are verifiable. There is much to document about this war that is verifiable and important without dwelling on a trope. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making beheading videos, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Just like everything else in this article, the topic is included because it has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources. You seem to be hung up on the number of times the word "beheading" or "decapitation" is mentioned instead of focusing on the context of what's been written. Whether the subsection on beheadings is too long or given UNDUE weight is one thing, but to accuse editors of Islamophobia for arguing for some inclusion of the topic is not helpful. Many independent observers doubt Hamas's narrative of the al-Ahli Hospital incident, but we still mention it in this article because it was given significant media attention. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have condensed the subsection in question. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

First, I am not "hung up". I am making an argument based upon Wikipedia policies. Secondly, I accused no one of Islamophobia. Please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. The media gave claims along the lines of someone said someone else said they observed something with which they do not have forensic knowledge. The al-Ahil inclusion makes it clear that it was false. This is an encyclopedia, not The Enquirer. Using the trope wordings of beheadings and decapitation violates WP:NPOV and WP:V, particularly with repetition so severe it pushes an unconfirmed narrative for no reason that I have seen stated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to identify what you're suggesting be done. Removal of the discussion entirely? Removal of certain parts of it? Reducing the amount of times the words "decapitation" and "beheading" appear? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal. There is no question atrocities occurred. So we document those atrocities which pass WP:V. Wikipedia is much easier if one just follows the policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you can keep the mentions of beheading as long as it's clear that no evidence was ever presented that proved that they ever happened, even according to the IDF. Ashvio (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Support removing most of the content from that section and merging it with the discussion under the 10 October subheading. The two things I think worth preserving: that the allegation was repeated by President Biden, and the assessment by the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be WP:NOTNEWS and reflect properly substantiated information. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've performed an initial trim of various quotes with no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed in this section. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. Kfar Aza and Be'eri.

For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:

Infinity Knight (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Infinity Knight (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [7], [8], [9] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. WCM_email 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Really?

“ Still images showed a decapitated soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [10] ”

“ In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [11] ”

The BBC also described the same incident.

“ Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to decapitate someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[12] ”

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

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

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.” [13]

”

“ The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and decapitation from the southern Israel assault. [14] ”

WCM_email 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In what way does it fail verification? WCM_email 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. 98.151.160.96 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Graeme Wood reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated." Infinity Knight (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight@Wee Curry Monster@BilledMammal@CapnJackSp@Veggies@Hemiauchenia please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. Mindhack diva (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

How to handle the Battle of Zikim

There has been several minor content disputes surrounding this battle's topic, so a discussion is needed to once and for all clear up it. In a previous (now archived) talk page discussion, the situation was described previously: Talk:2023 Hamas attack on Israel/Archive 1#Ongoing?. In short, sources state Bahad 4, an Israeli military base was captured by Hamas during the Battle of Zikim. No source that I am aware of claims Bahad 4 was directly recaptured by Israel, and sources (all the way to October 16) indicated fighting was still ongoing - See battle article for further details on the various clashes.

Here is the main issues at hand: (1) Does the Battle of Zikim count as a battle of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood? (2.1) If yes, is the operation still ongoing? (2.2) If no, did Hamas "win" the battle? Right now, to not violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH territory, we need a source directly stating the battle ended to say the battle ended and who won. Just a few minutes ago, two editors The Great Mule of Eupatoria and BilledMammal disagreed on this exact topic, without actually realizing it. Their disagreement was on whether or not Israel recaptured all (key word) territory. Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured and sources (post the supposed 9 October recapture of all territory) indicate fighting was at least ongoing there until 16 October - See battle Wiki article for info & sources.

So, can we either have a discussion about how to handle the situation or can someone locate a source specifically stating whether or not the Battle of Zikim ended? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I’ve looked through, the only evidence supporting that all, and I mean all of the territory with militant presence from Gaza was retaken is a claim by the idf on October 9th, if it is to be mentioned then it should only be “Israel claims”, not written as if the case is 100% proven. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any claims that the IDF has not retaken all territory - that Hamas remains in control of any territory outside of Gaza? For this to be true would be extraordinary; that despite the mobilization of 360,000 soldiers the most powerful military in the Middle East has not been able to regain control of all of its territory sixteen days after the war began. As such, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, such a claim would need strong sourcing, and as far as I can tell no sourcing for the claim exists. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You may have to wait years until an extremely comprehensive analysis of the military operations is published to get the precise answer you want. However, here and elsewhere it states that Israel retook all of its territory two days after the initial attack: October 9th. I don't think it's a violation of SYNTH when citing the sources I mentioned to reasonably conclude that the "battle" for that base was over, at the latest, by the 9th. Israeli territory means territory in Israel. -- Veggies (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Key phrase: “Israel said” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Do you have any sources that state (or even hint) that any part of Zikim is still under Hamas control?... No? Ah, I didn't think so. -- Veggies (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The battle occurred on 7 October, what we are looking for is a source that properly states Israel retook all (stressing on all) territories on 9 October, aside from “Israel said”. The burden is on them, not us The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess you'll have an ongoing battle with an undefeatable Hamas force in the Israeli rear going on forever since you seem devoid of common sense. It doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Your assumptions of common sense do not matter when it comes to citations The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I and many others have provided them already. If you don't want to accept them: again, doesn't bother me. -- Veggies (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent infiltrations and skirmishes near zikim, let’s see how your superior common sense holds up this time The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria, all accounts of the 24 October incident at Zikim indicates that the Hamas force involved were naval forces/"frogmen"/"divers" who entered Israel by sea; the IDF claimed that they used tunnels from the Gaza Strip and emerged from the Mediterranean. By no means does anything that happened yesterday indicate that Hamas has held Israeli territory for seventeen straight days, don't be disingenuous now. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware, but raids indicates the border hasn’t been pacified like Israel claims has done in two days. Also a good bite back at veggie’s snarky comment about “common sense” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It's more an impotent gumming by an elderly dementia patient than a "bite back". Use your head, please. This is a comment section about whether Hamas controls to this day an Israeli military base on Israeli soil, not about whether Zikim or the waters around it will be permanently quiet for all time. There can always be attempted infiltrations of anywhere on the front lines in the future, but we're discussing whether there's still an ongoing battle over a captured military base. -- Veggies (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Last time I checked the map the key was using “presence of militants” instead of “occupied territory”, maybe you should use yours too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There's been plenty of attempted infiltrations all over the Gaza-Israel region since October 7th, including in Zikim. None of that changes anything about the question over whether a military base in Zikim is and has been in Hamas' control since the 7th. I'm not sure why you think this news of militants killed on the beach is some kind of 'gotcha!'. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources say yes, but no source has actually point blank said Bahad 4 was recaptured If sources say that all Israeli territory was recaptured, and sources say that Bahad 4 is Israeli territory, then I don't believe it is WP:OR to say that Bahad 4 was recaptured. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then how do we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October? Those are cited in the battle article. Is it ongoing during that time? Did Israel win? That’s the problem. Capturing “all” territory doesn’t really work when there is 6 more days worth of battles cited in the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Zikim is on the coast and can potentially be infiltrated by land and sea. It's possible that those clashes (I'd need citations to examine them) were due to isolated groups of Hamas militants still roaming the countryside or secondary infiltration attempts after Oct 7th. This is a really good summary of the situation in Zikim circa Oct 16 by India Today. -- Veggies (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A new article from Haaretz disputes the initial claims from October 7th that Bahad 4 fell.

...the death of the four fighters signaled the first “successful” incursion by terrorists at Zikim. It’s still not clear why the attackers did not exploit the opportunity to take over all the positions at the base.. Shay thinks they were exhausted and concluded the battle with seriously diminished forces. However, in one case at least a terrorist succeeded in penetrating Zikim.

Additionally, in response to your question on how we explain the subsequent clashing from 10 October to 16 October: as the person responsible for most of the content on the Battle of Zikim article, I can tell you that most of these subsequent clashes have been isolated incidents involving the discovery and immediate killing of small groups of typically less than 5 fighters, which in no way indicates a continously ongoing battle with a force capable of holding Israeli territory.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that article, too, a few days ago, but it was paywall-blocked, so I didn't want to cite it without having read through it. -- Veggies (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies You can bypass the paywall by reading an archived version here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Jesus, what an amazing article. It'll take me a while to go through it in great detail. Thanks for sharing it. -- Veggies (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Such a detailed account of the battle is exactly what's been needed here. I'm happy to have been able to share it with you. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WOW! That is such a detailed article. I'll let others fix the article, but I think that source alone will solve/answer any questions related to the article. Amazing find! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, a minor nitpick here, but you should not suggest that there were reports indicating fighting at Bahad 4 up to 16 October. Those reports concerned Zikim Beach, as has, from what I gather, every report after the first day of the war. In other words, there are no reports indicating fighting at the Bahad 4 base since 7 October. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict

A new report by Axios[15] states that U.S. has sent a three star general and several other U.S. military officers to Israel "to help advise the Israeli military's leadership in its ground operation in Gaza." Additionally, it was reported on Friday that a U.S. Navy destroyer had intercepted a Houthi cruise missile over the Red Sea[16] which was potentially headed towards Israel. In light of these developments, notably the first one, it might be time to place U.S. in the belligerents section of the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.[17] Although this is more of a support factor rather than active involvement in the conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope. US advisors are in Ukraine, too but US is not a belligerent as such. I would think, without looking at sources, one would need to see actual combat with an existing belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ukraine is a conflict where U.S. is seeking to avoid appearing as a direct belligerent in order to avoid confrontation with Russia. That is not the case here. Ecrusized (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The only way that the US is a "belligerent" is in the Red Sea naval action a few days ago when it shot down Houthi cruise missiles and drones. If you include that in the theater of war, then, yes, the US is technically a belligerent—but, so are the Houthis, now. -- Veggies (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We could roll out the ever-popular "Supported by" subheading for the US but to list it as a belligerent on par with Israel is simply incorrect. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training." BBC Putting that one in next? And then maybe Qatar... Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the same thing. One is during the conflict, other is in general. Ecrusized (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I have to put "Iran backs the group [Hamas], providing it with funding, weapons and training except during this conflict (according to a WP editor)" Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The USA is not a belligerent, why are they added to the infobox? WCM_email 06:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note, an RfC (Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox) was started below to figure the content dispute out. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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

SOHR has reported that several Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghani militiamen (presumably under the Popular Mobilization Units, Liwa Fatemiyoun, and National Defense Forces banners) have deployed themselves to the Golan Heights border with Israel. If SOHR's reports are to be believed, they have placed themselves under the command of the Lebanese Hezbollah, and are allegedly acting against the orders of Syrian military officials.

Should these accounts be added to this page?

Source: https://www.syriahr.com/en/314883/ Randomuser335S (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Two issues: I would want more than SOHR as a source to use this in the article. But also, it's not clear where it would belong in this article yet. This SOHR report does not allege that these militia fighters have participated in any fighting yet. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is actually reported in The Economist as well, I'll see if I can find the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Expansion to war crimes section

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

For editors generally, see also this discussion, regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. nableezy - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of WP:BALASP is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. nableezy - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this diff.

I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.

The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.

My problem with this diff is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named Tom Dannenbaum), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.

According to WP:RS, a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for WP:RS should be heightened.

How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?

I oppose the incorporation of this diff, along with BilledMammal and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the WP:ONUS in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That is called an expert view and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. nableezy - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are relying on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:

(i) Prefer secondary sources,

(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

(iii) Citation counts

(iv) POV and peer review

Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?

As per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.

You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with WP:RS.

Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.

Kindly do. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read WP:SPS youll see Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. You can see his relevant publications. nableezy - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Kazakhstan casualtie

add one citizen of Kazakhstan to the number of victims among foreigners and persons with dual citizenship. Ref: inform, adyrna, kt Нурасылл (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents & Units involved

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

Hi @Alikersantti, please see [1] and [2] for the archived discussions that went into this decision, where we determined that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are acting independently of Fatah despite their nominal affiliation. If you have references that suggest otherwise please provide them. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing me with this information, much respected! Alikersantti (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Guardian, reporting the same, said that "An increasing number of pro-Palestinian voices have been censored in recent weeks with conferences being cancelled and media appearances suppressed."Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

‘Iron Beam’ Missile Defense

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

It may be too early to add it to this article. You could certainly add it to the Iron Beam article at this point. If the Iron Beam is actually employed in the conflict, it can naturally be discussed here when that happens—e.g., "On X Date, Israel employed its Iron Beam system for the first time, destroying an XYZ missile ..." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Article becoming too long. Suggestions.

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

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

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

2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Reactions It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone working on Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, should make a dent. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the WP:PROSELINE sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. DFlhb (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per Alcibiades979's suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I tried that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, Iraq War#Background and Iraq War#Pre-war events, similarly Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background and Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude.VR _talk 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Undo the unreasonable removal of content by Abo Yemen here Chafique (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chafique: Abo Yemen didn't remove content. Rather, he reverted his own edit from 2 minutes earlier in which he (presumably inadvertently) added a second copy of that image, which was already present elsewhere in the article. That image is still in the article. SilverLocust 💬 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC - Adding the USA to the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussions: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21, Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14

• Comment — As RfC starter, I am going to refrain from commenting for now. This RfC was started given several content disputes and various talk page discussions around this overall topic. I attempted to look through some of the article history and I believe option 1-4 covered any previous styles of the US being added in the infobox. I added option 5 incase I missed a format style. Obviously, option 6 is for those who oppose it being added. Anyway, an RfC was for sure needed to solve all the various content disputes on this topic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @WeatherWriter: Could you point to where #4 was deprecated? That is currently used at Gaza–Israel conflict. SilverLocust 💬 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  If consensus is reached on option 4, Germany should be added and Iran and Russia should be added to Hamas and its allies.Parham wiki (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure. When figuring out the previous versions where the USA was listed, I saw this edit by Parham wiki saying it was deprecated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  there is a consensus, it can be added. Parham wiki (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Please link to the discussions that you consider constitute the WP:RFCBEFORE. Six choices is unlikely to provide a clear answer to the question, why not just ask the question directly, should the USA appear in the infobox? Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reconsidering U.S. involvement in the conflict is a discussion you participated in yesterday. That is enough for an RfC before. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If that is the only RFCbefore, then we don't need this RFC because the conclusion was to remove it and it was removed. I think that is not the first time it has been inserted and removed. That discussion is also only about Option 4. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are requesting more research on my end…here: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 21#Should the Yemen "missile incident" be mentioned on this page & Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14#USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah are two previous discussions related with USA in the infobox. Plus the content dispute early this morning (USA added for several hours then removed) is clear enough for RFCBEFORE. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I also don’t understand why you say the “Yes” and “No” question can’t provide a clear answer? Option 1-5 are all “Yes”, just deciding the format and option 6 is “No.” It will be obviously whether “Yes” or “No” is the option, and if it is “Yes”, the different options show that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Because past experience indicates that what will happen is that responses will be spread out among the options, resulting in nocon. An RFC should not really have more than 2 or perhaps 3 options depending on the question. If option 4 is in fact deprecated, it should not be there anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated unless a discussion consensus agreed to use it. That is what it is. It isn’t “deprecated”. Just deprecated unless consensus says to use it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 — Given the US military shooting down missiles launched believed to be going towards Israel, they are a belligerent now and deserve to be listed. Option 3 is the best as the US isn’t fully involved in the Gaza Strip conflict, but more around the region. Noting, option 3 was previously used in the article (within the last 24 hours). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option X USA should be in the infox iff it is a belligerent.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - If the US is included as a belligerent, then the Houthis will necessarily also have to be included. -- Veggies (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick question, could you give a reasoning for that? I think I know why, but since I was hoping to do one discussion at a time (US - Yes/No first), some extra reasoning would be helpful for all of us. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The only way I see that anyone is a "belligerent" is if it takes defensive/offensive military actions itself. The only place that I know of that the US has done so in direct connection to the war in Israel is in the Red Sea. And that was against Houthi missiles fired toward Israel. So, the Houthis would necessarily also enter the conflict, by definition. -- Veggies (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. I am thinking about canceling this RfC, (archiving the discussion) and opening a new, better formatted one, given this is a slightly more complicated discussion. Given the other discussions and content disputes, it does need to happen though. Would anyone else like to do the closing/re-starting of the RfC? I will not be able to for a few hours. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I want to sum up what might count as U.S. involvement in the conflict so far. First, on Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down Yemeni Houthi missiles that were headed towards Israel. According to Israeli channel 14,[18] this attack targeted hotels in the southern Israeli city of Eilat and consisted of 4 ballistic missiles, each weighting over 410 kilograms as well as 15 suicide drones. The website notes that the failed PIJ rocket which targeted the Gazan hospital by accident in comparison weighted only 60 kg's but caused hundreds of casualties. Had this attack been successful, it could have had catastrophic effects.

There are additional factors that might count as indirect U.S. involvement. According to Axios[19] U.S. has sent a three star general and several other U.S. military officers to Israel "to help advise the Israeli military's leadership in its ground operation in Gaza. Additionally, U.S. is reported[20] to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities.

Going by the first report of U.S. Navy engagements with missiles targeting Israel, I would say Option 1 would be the most appropriate option. Ecrusized (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - Infobox Belligerents (Adding)

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

United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia

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

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

Discussion2

• RfC Creator Comment – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to Axios, the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to advise ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given the new report from the Wall Street Journal saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. eyal (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. Ecrusized (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. eyal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A new report by WSJ states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by Saudi Arabia. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just added it to the list of options. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment 2 NBC News reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. Ecrusized (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option * Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait Selfstudier, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral? If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I made my comment and I explained it as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Let the closer worry about what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, my understanding is that @Selfstudier would respond your question Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent? with the answer Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no. I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any being listed as belligerents Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.

I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @Cinderella157 because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.

It may interest other editors to peruse Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and its archives, for an interesting case study.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, Parham wiki made the comment that consensus can change. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article Israeli–Palestinian conflict), then it can be used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. Bermicourt (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bermicourt, not sure if you made a typo, but the current version of the article lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Iran has now accused (Wall Street Journal article) the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that directly supports that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. nableezy - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did in my original reasoning. The US is supplying Israel with weapons and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. nableezy - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  “US military equipment pours into Israel”[21]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am WP:COALing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. BogLogs (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions.Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents, as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli POWs omitted from lead

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

The new wording, based on this revision adds no new information or sources, is not compellingly justified by the editor who made the change, raises NPOV issues, and is misleading, as RS are reporting that soldiers were also captured:

Al Jazeera: “Those held by Hamas include … Israeli soldiers.”

Additional sources are found in the discussion of the previous wording, which was discussed and agreed to by various users. As well, the sources cited for the current phrasing don’t suggest that the “hundreds” of “hostages” were or are all civilians:

The Guardian: "The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.Al Jazeera: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

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

@Monopoly31121993(2): This concerns an edit you made. I happen to prefer the older language. Whether or not the captured Israeli soldiers qualify (or are being treated) as POWs is a separate discussion, but I do think it is better in the lead paragraph to include the two broad categories of captives—civilians and soldiers—and let more detailed discussion occur elsewhere. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. I am not advocating for inclusion of "POW" in the lead or proposing any discussion of it here, since that conversation was already had, and it resulted in the language referred to above. WillowCity (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@WillowCity: I am going to BOLDly restore the prior language. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I don't think that should be too controversial; the prior language was discussed and represents a compromise between users who wanted to use "hostages" to describe both civilians and soldiers, and users who wanted to use "captives" as a blanket term. Disambiguation was considered preferable. WillowCity^(talk) 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Massacres

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

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

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

I agree, airstrikes kill civilians and it's bad. There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbutz, deliberately targeting civilians (no disagreement between the parties there, other than Hamas doesn't see them as civilians).

Ultimately though, we need reliable sources calling them a massacre. We have reliable source calling the massacres the palestinians did massacres. We do not have reliable sources calling individual airstrikes a massacre. Maybe there are some calling the overall death toll a massacre? Though I must caution that the quality of the sources between the two are different (we know that hamas lied and said there were 500+ killed in the hospital strike, we now know that it was probably not even Israel and that at best 200-300 died). If we have a reliable source calling a particular airstrike, or even the combined sum of airstrikes, a massacre then we can list them and go from there? Chuckstablers (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"at best 200-300 died" is a very vulgar and disgusting way that IDF and their propaganda wings dehumanizes the populations within Gaza, implying they must be killed (or "died" as if some disease randomly exploded the hospital. The bias in this article is inexcusable and something must be done to combat this. These airstrikes are massacres by every objective definition. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

We just now have an airstrike that killed several civilians in Wadi Gaza. It's important to note that this is a destination that IDF ordered Gazans to escape to in order to save their lives.

Some of the deads are Wael Dahdouh's family (his wife, son, and daughter). Wael Dahdouh is arguably the most prominent journalist that is covering Israeli crimes.

They also killed before on 16th of October

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html Classicalguss (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly a difference between that and killing 20% of the population of an entire Kibbut Sorry Chuckstablers, but do you rate this by a percentage of the entire population of Israel vs. Palestine, a city, a neighborhood, a Kibbutz, a family. One Palestinian family lost 19 family members. I don't think percentage is a meaningful measurement in general. Thousands of Palestinian children are dead. Hamas doesn't see them as civilians. Israel's defense minister said “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed” and “We are fighting human animals". You can say he was talking about Hamas. But, the electricity, food, and fuel affects 2.2 million Palestinians, which includes about one million children. So it seems Hamas doesn't see them as civilians, and the IDF thinks Palestinians are animals. we know that hamas lied All sides lie. Look, in no way am I trying to belittle the massacre of Israelis or excuse Hamas. But, to me, your post sounds insensitive to the overall suffering. And we do need to solve the problem that the media use different terms for different sides and keep the article balanced within our policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the usual thing, state actors are generally favored over non state and the sources then tend to reflect that legal reality. There is however no shortage of sources referring to Israeli actions as war crimes. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Npov tags

James James Morrison Morrison, you’ve added multiple pov section tags, can you explain them here please? nableezy - 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to remove any neutrality tags that aren't associated with a specific, actionable complaint here on the talk page. Otherwise we might as well just tag every section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, but who wants to use a revert on that? nableezy - 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed them, so that is my revert for today. Just adding bloat without helping our readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived talks about photos and Reactions section

Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion, since these talk sections were recently archived and not fully resolved:

[22] Started Oct. 17th: Archive_22#Photos_Thus_Far_--_Balanced_and_Concise?

[23] Started Oct. 18th: Archive_22#Jewish_diaspora

[24] Started Oct. 20th: Archive_22#Reaction:_Arab_world

JJMM (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

the information from those sections isn't obviously present in the other relevant pages like the international reactions page. I'm all for trimmming down the current page, but the content that is trimmed should ideally be placed somewhere else. Like now, I can't easily find on Wikipedia how some Jewish diaspora groups were pro-war and some are anti-war, and even protested in the US Capitol Hovsepig (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you follow whatever the reliable sources are saying in making your edits The majority of sources about reactions from the Jewish diaspora show many people (especially Jews in the US and UK) condemned the massacre of civilians in Israel on Oct. 7th AND Israel's subsequent siege on Gaza, while ALSO supporting the right of Israel to exist. So it wouldn't be correct to divide things into pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. What do those divisions even really mean? People can be "pro-Israel" because they want to support innocent Israelis that were killed and taken hostage, and still not want war. People can be "pro-Palestine" because they want to support innocent Palestinians that are being killed in air strikes and suffering because they need humanitarian aid, and want an end to the occupation, without supporting Palestinian militants like Hamas. The Israeli peace activists that were murdered and taken hostage were for Palestinian rights and they did not support Hamas. Maybe pro-war and anti-war would be better. However you decide to do it, it is important to include the deleted text/refs with Jewish voices from the diaspora that explicitly condemned the October 7th attacks. I am no longer editing this article. That's partly why I said, "Just FYI for other editors that want to fix, not for more discussion." But I wanted to respond to your specific comment. Good luck with your editing and thank you! JJMM (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hovsepig, I just realized that you might not have done enough edits to make changes to this article. If not, the best thing to do would be to ask another editor with editing privileges (other than me) to make the edits you want, by using this Talk page. JJMM (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Change it to be as Part of Iran - Israel Proxy war.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

The lead says Iran was not involved in the war "both Israel and the US have stated that there is no concrete evidence of Iran's involvement, and Iran has denied any role in the attack" Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if Iran was not involved in the attack, the country is still involved in the whole war, especially in Lebanon and Syria front, and the Iraqi millitias attack on US bases there.

Also now new information that atleast 500 hamas members were trained in Iran.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9 46.121.27.170 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That Iran and Hamas have a relationship is not disputed, nothing directly to do with this war, though. Can go in the Hamas article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I didnt talk only about hamas, The war includes hezbolla, Iranian militias in Syria (Israel bombed targets in Syria), and the Houtis which fired rockets on Israel.

They are clearly Iranian proxies which Iran push to attack Israel and interfere the war.

Not to include the attack on US bases in Iraq by pro Iranian militias.

Therefore it is only logical to put the article to be also as part of Iran Israel proxy war.

• since they are also included here as part of the war (atleast hezbolla) it clearly is a part of the proxy war.

46.121.27.170 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

also if we talking, the starting details should have USA as supporter and supplier of Israel, and same for Iran and Hamas, (training and weaponry prior to the event, and support of hezbolla and other miltias in Lebanon and Syria.

• also please stop "hearing" only half of what i say and refer to everything I'm saying here.

46.121.27.170 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

"The same day, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen stated, 'How can you agree to a cease-fire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?'"

We have the wrong link to Eli Cohen. The correct Eli Cohen is this one. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F878:1521:972F:9E26 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. WCM_email 13:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel casualties

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

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

Supported by

@Tamjeed Ahmed, concerning 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the source used as a reference identifies only verbal support and discusses the positioning of US military assets in the region. I don't think this meets the expectations arising from identifying the US as a supporter under belligerents in the info box. There are many other verbal supporters of both sides that aren't similarly identified. Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC — Please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, should have scrolled up. Thanks. I am going to restore the status quo ante, then. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

But USA sends military aid worth billions of dollars to Israel every year. They have also sent their troops in Israel as per several sources. Isn't it enough? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/17/us-deploys-sailors-marines-israel-hamas/ Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualty count

The current source for Palestinian civilian deaths originates from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry of health. given their history of exaggeration and that the number of casualties is in dispute we should find an alternate source or at least put a "per Hamas" tag on it YEEETER0 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think wee need to change the infobox, as it is explained in the #Casualties section in the article. Infobox is a quick summary. Perhaps you could add to the footnote "d", but that would then add more repetition to an already large page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

including "per hamas" would be consistent with how other wars are handled. YEEETER0 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating with Today’s news, for potential edit in casualties section. Updated US Government position (as stated by Joe Biden) is that Hamas Health Ministry numbers are unreliable and are likely over-inflated. Given that there are no independent sources on ground to verify Gaza Health Ministry statements, Palestinian casualties should be listed as “claimed” until independently verified.

Quote from Biden: "What they say to me is that I have no notion the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many are killed ... I'm sure innocents have been killed and it's the price of waging a war ... The Israelis should be incredibly careful to be sure that they're focusing on going after the folks that are propagating this war against Israel and it's against their interest when that doesn't happen but I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using."

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuses-palestinians-lying-about-civilian-death-tolls-1837971

Mistamystery (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden is not a reliable source that could be cited in the infobox. His impression that Palestinians are dishonest could be noted elsewhere, but I don't see why that would go in the infobox. WillowCity^(talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not just Biden:

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/italy-foreign-minister-questions-death-toll-gaza-hospital-strike-2023-10-24/

The simple fact is that single source verification is not verification. The casualties reported by the Gaza Health Ministry should say “claimed” until secondary verification is possible. Especially now that numerous voices have chimed in that the Health Ministry is not a reliable source (at least during this conflict).Mistamystery (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how any of this impacts the infobox. Can you provide me a source independently corroborating the Israeli casualty figures, if, as you state, "single source verification is not verification"? If not, I assume you would support saying "Alleged by Israel" in the infobox, in relation to those casualties. (Note also the policy on "claimed").

As well, FYI, this article from WaPo: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." The article likewise notes that Israeli casualty figures don't differentiate between combatants and civilians so there's really no justification beyond POV for flagging only one side's figures. WillowCity^(talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden also claimed he saw photos of the 56 billion babies decapitated in kfar aza. Just because Joe Biden says something doesn’t mean it’s true The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And he later retracted that and said he was misinformed. compare to the Gaza health ministry which still claims to have counted 471 dead in the hospital explosion. YEEETER0 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

When you indiscriminately bomb one of the most densely populated places on earth for 2 weeks straight lots of people tend to die, shocker I know. Just because you personally dislike the government in Gaza that the ministry serves under it doesn’t really mean much The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your comments on this talk page will likely be seen as a violation of your current editing block in place for this page. Recommend you self-revert recent comments and withhold from contributing until your block expires. Also - gentle reminder to keep a congenial tone as per ARBPIA rules.. Mistamystery (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the block also apply for the talk page? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't think so, still, keeping things on an even keel is advisable. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an RFC about this below, so this discussion has kinda been superceded .Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

United States involvement and Casualties sustained

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

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

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

 Not done MacGregor's claims are not corroborated. Such an extraordinary claim requires compelling evidence to include, and his assertions do not qualify as that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If a reporter translating hearsay in Kfar Azza was able to make everyone go crazy about the 40 babies myth as if it actually occurred, I don’t see why a claim by a former US colonel shouldn’t be believed. A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A.H.T Videomapping please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding other belligerents to the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Likud-Hamas or Israel-Gaza

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Q. Why does the conflict name use a political party for one side and a country for the other? A. That's what the press does. But this is an encyclopedia not merely a repeater of spin. Discuss here whether we should add a paragraph (or section) pointing out that the parties involved are Likud and Hamas and that they represent Israel and Gaza, respectively. I support. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic concluded just two days ago, with NO CONSENSUS as the result. Let's avoid relitigating this. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and this is frankly a dumb suggestion, and has nothing to do with "spin". Wars are generally not named for the politicial parties that headed them during the conflict, and the Israeli government is a coalition, and not governed by Likud alone. Hamas is not really comparable as it doesn't represent the government of all Palestinians, as it has no control over the West Bank. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that there was the previous discussion. Absolutely, I did not mean to start relitigation. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map

Please add a map to the article

World map with countries that have declared Hamas a terrorist organization

91.210.248.223 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I think this would make sense to add to the Hamas article, but I think it is only obliquely relevant here as background information. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body

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

I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the WP:COMMONNAME. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"2,500 infiltrated Israel"

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

 Done I agree. This is more appropriate for the infobox of the article on the initial assault. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Misspelling

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

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

infobox attribution inline

BilledMammal, you know your edit was challenged, you know there is no consensus for it, why are you returning it? nableezy - 04:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See this discussion. You'll notice that I'm attributing every figure; until we can determine which ones we don't need to attribute this is the safest option. The other option, per WP:ONUS, is to remove the casualties from the infobox entirely until we determine which need attribution and which don't. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Im well aware of that discussion, there is clearly no consensus for your position there. You think there is not consensus for having casualties in the infobox at all? Really? No, ONUS is met for the inclusion of casualties, and it is not met for your repeated attempt to force inline attributions beyond the endnotes that already exist. nableezy - 04:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I'm not aware of any consensus to include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution; if I am incorrect, can you please link it? BilledMammal (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Cmon, BilledMammal, removing casualties from the infobox entirely is a non-starter.VR _talk 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A 'non-starter'? There were like a bunch of previous talks where a bunch of editors were all like, 'Let's chat about casualties in the main article,'? Should we tally votes or something? Personally, I'm cool with that idea. Like, as of October 25th, the NYTimes is throwing in a disclaimer, saying a number that if verified At a minimum, we gotta make sure we give proper credit for a number when we use it, instead of hiding the source in some tiny footnote, right? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; it's not uncommon for us to not include casualties in the infobox and instead direct readers to a section or an article that can provide the necessary details and nuance. I believe that such an action would be appropriate at the moment, at least until we get a consensus on how and whether to attribute in the infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:POINT. You not getting your way in one discussion doesn’t entitle you to try to run around that with an edit that also does not have consensus. The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. If you’d like to demonstrate otherwise feel free but just demanding that unless you get your way with the attribution you will remove what does have consensus is something you can try I guess and we can see how that might go. nableezy - 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

POINT doesn't mean what you think it does.

The fact that we include the numbers and have done so uncontroversially from the start means there is consensus for that. With inline attribution for most of the first week, and with disagreement both in the article and on the talk page regarding how to attribute throughout the existence of the article.

So, I ask I again; please point to the consensus that says we should include casualties in the infobox without inline attribution. In the absence of such a consensus, we should replace the number with a link to the relevant section or article - we have both, I have no preference which we link to.

At the moment, these figures are controversial; we should be erring on the side of caution, and that means either attributing them or sending readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This just looks like an endrun around the NPOV discussion and I don't agree.

Editor @Hovsepig: made a suggestion at the board, worth looking at imo;

"I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:

"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).

And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too."

At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hovsepig's proposal isn't viable, because if we need to attribute we need to ensure the reader sees that attribution - this is also why the notes aren't a viable option.

At any rate, the decision is not just down to one editor. Which is why I am proposing a conservative interim measure while we hold an RfC; there is no harm done if we attribute unnecessarily - but there is significant harm done if we don't attribute when we needed to. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to proposals, just their implementation without consensus in the middle of ongoing discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If we can't identify a suitable interim version - if all versions are disputed and no existing consensus can be identified - then the only alternative, per WP:ONUS, is to direct readers to a section that can provide the details with appropriate nuance and detail while an RfC is held. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

you’ll need consensus for that change, there is obvious consensus for including casualties in the infobox as it stands now, given the editors who have have edited it over the last few weeks. You don’t get to just decide where the status quo to start an RFC is from, that starts from the stable version. nableezy - 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

For a version to be stable it needs to not be disputed either in the article or on the talk page for a sufficient length of time. How long are you assessing as sufficient? BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

One editor does not get to decide, end of. WP:ONUS doesn't work that way either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who disputes the current version. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Idk how many editors are on any side, I only see you here and no-one has supported your "interim" solution afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Even just here and not in any of the other discussions on this topic you've overlooked Infinity Knight. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Even then, youll need a consensus for your change. Again, you cant artificially impose a status quo from which to start an RFC. You didnt get the consensus you wanted at NPOVN, nor here, and so youre going to effectively demand that unless you get your way there then there can be no numbers at all. Sorry, but that isnt going to just go over unopposed. We all operate under the same rules here, and part of that is accepting when we dont have consensus for a change. Im not out here demanding that because we did not rename the article Israel-Gaza War that we must change it to Likud-Hamas War and that the ONUS for including Israel as a belligerent has not been met. nableezy - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well given it has had numbers since basically the beginning of this article and throughout the now 7519 edits it has had, Id imagine it be hard to argue that including casualty counts in the infobox is not stable. nableezy - 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't quite answer my question; how long are you assessing as a sufficient length of time without it being disputed for the version to become stable? BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the article, and it does answer your question, just not in the way youd like. But seeing as how this isnt an interrogation and youre not my boss I dont really need to answer your question the way you want me to. Including casualty counts in the infobox is stable and the current consensus, and you know it. If you want to try to play statutory gotcha with the policies here, well, again WP:POINT (and I kinda think it does mean what I think it means). If you try to impose your edits without consensus then we can raise that issue elsewhere. The productive thing would be to try to get consensus for your change instead. nableezy - 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Then let me respond to your response. It hasn't been stable between the two diffs you provided, and it certainly hasn't gone undisputed on the talk page. There is no stable version, and in the absence of a stable version - in the absence of a consensus - the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to test that argument as you wish, but I will be reporting WP:DE when I see it. nableezy - 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, ignores WP:QUO and the prior consensus. among other things, you don't get to just throw ONUS at this in that way, there is even an ongoing discussion about that sort of thing at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, ignores WP:QUO and the prior consensus. If this is the status quo. Which is why I was asking Nableezy to demonstrate that this it is; to say how long that they believe is sufficient to establish stability. At the moment it's quite indisputable that it was not stable between the two diffs they provided. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a better idea, since we have WAPO OC 24 saying "The partial exception is the database of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which checks both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source, according to its website. This takes time, however, and OCHA has not updated its database with tolls from the current war." and since this is what started all this fruitless debate, OCHA is the best source, we should just use it, since that is where all the RS are in effect getting their info already. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have understood this proposal correctly; given that OCHA does not have figures for the current war yet wouldn't that entail removing the figures from the infobox? BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See the OCHA flash reports in the extlinks, they are reporting the casualty figures daily. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In the flash reports the OCHA attributes the number of casualties; according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza, according to the MoH in Gaza, according to Israeli official sources. If I have understood correctly, the OCHA has not yet been able to check both Gazan and Israeli numbers with at least one other source. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They dont have their own numbers yet. When they do we should use them. nableezy - 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

All the RS just use those numbers, checked or not. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually attributed. I'm actually struggling to understand your position; you seem to hold OCHA in high regard - and, from what I've seen, it's reasonable to do so - but in this case you want to jump the gun and put a level of confidence in these figures beyond what OCHA is ready to put? BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Present the figures the same way OCHA does, attributed like they do. They usually do a double check but can't with all the goings on but its still the best info out there. "International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available." and the Gaza HM "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I started an RFC below. nableezy - 13:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included

Should foreigners killed in Gaza be included in this table or should they be listed separately? For example a Dutch and a Ukrainian were killed in Gaza.VR _talk 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Small stylistic suggestion

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

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

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

Design change of deaths chart in Historical context section

Not a fan of the vertical bar chart look, though it's good that both chart were merged into one. Could we try a horizontal mirror bar chart, like L'Orient Today? We can't use theirs, per copyright, but we can use the same general design, and it would show the difference much more clearly. (Keep in mind that L'Orient Today's chart is outdated and missing many recent Palestinian deaths.)

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

I'm not familiar with creating that style of graph, and I think it's fine as it is, but I'll take a shot at it when I get home. If anyone else who knows how to make it could help out, that would be great. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a simple chart. It can be used under c:Template:PD-chart. I don't know how to make charts. There are some SVG templates for charts. See: c:Commons:Chart and graph resources#Convert data to SVG charts and graphs --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The graph from the website doesn't have any numbers, and includes deaths from the war so that'll need to be fixed, if we decide to use it under as a PD chart. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And since it is a different format, it should be uploaded as a separate file. That way people have choices as to what to use in articles and off-Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of PD-chart, thanks!

Unfortunately I don't have a spreadsheets app that supports mirror bar charts (Excel does), or I'd recreate it without the recent deaths DFlhb (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Please correct the table:

Foreign casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Country	Deaths	Kidnapped	Missing	Ref.
Ukraine	24	Unknown	1

91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the table shows people with multiple citizenships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.248.223 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question of dual citizens, as previously discussed, any Israeli citizen is counted only as Israeli. Animal lover |666| 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC on infobox casualties

How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?

1. Attributed with an endnote as in the current version as of this writing
2. Attributed for all numbers inline as in this version
3. Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in this version
4. Not in the infobox at all

Nableezy 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• 1 - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.; WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.; Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed. A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the Washington Post reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. nableezy - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example the UN reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." nableezy - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2 or 3, weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.

In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of WP:V, for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.

Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.

In general, the option of attributed with an endnote is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them. and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them. 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• 3 or 2 this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support 4 with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. WCM_email 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes are sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 For reasons said by AquilaFasciata. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. Ecrusized (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes. Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV, which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? The Guardian 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Other sources, like this one, say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [25], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. DFlhb (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" (WP:WTA); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.VR _talk 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." Alaexis_¿question? 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion3

Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. nableezy - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight, Vice regent, Graeme Bartlett, Mistamystery, WillowCity, JM2023, and Hovsepig: Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You missed one off the top of my head, Jayen466. nableezy - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I did; I overlooked them at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).

Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.

I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.

I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.

Mistamystery (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. nableezy - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict

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

While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. Animal lover |666| 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under WP:COMMONNAME; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this specific situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. Feliiformia (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to El Observador.

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

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

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

Adding a new subsection

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

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

Additional Relevant Information

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

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

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

3.)Hamas Kids Training Camps:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qOZCxvmNg

The practice of "initial military training" is also used in Russia in secondary comprehensive schools in 2023 https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63568067 --91.210.248.223 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I cannot find a reliable secondary source for this and we are not in the business of evaluating evidence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Countries ready to take Gaza refugees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas infiltrators

The article states :

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

Source talks about :

• "2500 militants and civilians"

RadXman (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)