Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

kidnapped

German-Israeli citizen kidnapped. She kidnapped with a group of tourists. She was at the party in Reim forest. According to the documentation they published, the terrorists stripped, beat her and spat on her. They transferred her to Gaza.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/al-aqsa-storm-militants-infiltrate-israel-after-gaza-rockets-10-07-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkt4cnj11p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E813:77F3:5AD8:B10C (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It said she was stripped, when all that exists is a video of her in the same kind of clothes she wore regularly. So it seems to be just sensationalist spin. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what the fuck does that even mean? No need for rudeness in a horrible situation like this.

Hamas murdered a German citizen Its that cut and dry Why with the opposition of mentioning it?

She's all over the news and is a major image for the casualties.

Ignoring this is nonsensical. 2601:40:C481:A940:3C92:C11F:3285:D004 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

i see two other users have pointed this out and they've been removed. 2601:40:C481:A940:3C92:C11F:3285:D004 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There was mention but as since she was a regular civilian, we couldn't simply put out her name due to possibility of WP:MEMORIAL violation Borgenland (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no indication she was killed nor stripped, she was most likely taken alive for prisoner swapping. Only one being rude here is the one adding expletives. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

She was stripped. The earlier cited "Proof that the body was dressed"

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU center image which is a still from the video of her body in the pickup truck which clearly shows her bra/top pulled up over her breasts. Notice how high up in the shoulder blades the bra/top straps have been pulled --straps that usually meet in the middle back. In that image (and more visibly in the video clip), her bare breast is visible from the side. The image also shows her miniskirt seemingly split up the rear --likely not the original state of even such an immodest dresser as the victim. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

New Palestinian death tool of 370 killed and 2,200 injured OR 400+ killed hamas members (claim by IDF)

According to the military corresponded from "Times of Israel", Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian, the palestinian health ministry claims that there are 370 killed and 2'200 injured on the Plestinian side.

[SOURCE: https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1711011674277163456]

The "Times of Israel" also say's the IDF claims to have killed 400+ Hamas terrorists.

[SOURCE: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-october-8-2023/]

Both claims are similare numbers BUT the Plestinian health ministry didn't distinguish between civilians or hamas terrorists/fighters.

The IDF only said "Hamas Terrorists". Poles Ragge (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF is calling every Palestinian killed “terrorist”, I wouldn’t take their word for it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, that's why i put "Hamas Terrorists" in brackets. The only real sources we have of dead and wounded are either from the Israeli IDF or from the Hamas and palestinian health ministry. Both have interest to make their side look good and the other look bad. Poles Ragge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF does take significant steps to reduce killing or injuring civilians, but when the terrorists use them as shields hurting them is sometimes inevitable. They also recognize the fact that civilians are not terrorists, but some times it takes time for them to be sure how many are each. Animal lover |666| 14:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you're also right. But we currently have some fog of war everywhere. Only after this crisis we will have full visibility who was a terrorist and who not.

And yes, Hamas is using civilians as human shields, no doubts to that. Poles Ragge (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

citation please? i have not heard this. Mark28482 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

They're different numbers. Israel is saying they have killed 400+ fighters inside Israel, while the Palestinian Ministry of Health (Gaza) has said that 370+ have been killed in airstrikes on Gaza. We need to clarify this to prevent further confusion; see the discussion at #"in Israeli Airstrikes". BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Add US to infobox

It is appropriate to add this information. Biden ordered military aid and more is coming. Blinken too. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Aid as in soldiers on the ground or Ukraine-style aid? That's an important distinction. Bremps... 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If US becomes a participant, then yes. Atm, no. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of "Supported by:" in the infobox military conflict is deprecated. Parham wiki (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, is it? I just added it but anyone's free to revert. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I self-reverted, as the Template:Infobox military conflict page confirmed that it is deprecated. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• The US just sent a carrier strike group to Israel:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• I think it would be better to add US not as a combatant but under "Supported by:" underneath Israel.VR _talk 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent The use of "Supported by:" in the infobox military conflict is deprecated. Parham wiki (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you keep saying it’s deprecated I’ve seen it across Wikipedia? Example: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Bobisland (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  An arms supplier note is also across Wikipedia war info boxes Bobisland (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  See Template:Infobox military conflict: The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated, and it then links to a discussion. That discussion does say that an article-specific consensus can override the deprecation, to be fair. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind someone else fixed it Bobisland (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please consider reverting to the previous infobox map image

Just wanted to express that I dislike the current map (Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png) for a number of reasons. Firstly, it puts the Gaza Strip and West Bank in a dotted line as opposed to a solid line, implying that it's a disputed territory and not an internationally recognized border, which is a problem. But I also dislike that there's low contrast between the colors in the towns where fighting is ongoing and there is no highlighted outline of the region where fighting is ongoing unlike the previous map, which makes it visually more difficult to understand the scale of the conflict.

• 
  Previously used image, File:October 2023 Gaza−Israel War.png
• 
  Currently used image, File:Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png

I don't think either of these are perfect, but I do think that the previous one is easier to interpret and more informative. It is possible that the older one contains outdated information and therefore would not be appropriate to use right now, but I would appreciate if the map displayed visually had more in common with the older one, or if the newer one at least was modified to account for some of the issues I mentioned.

I did not attempt to boldly do this myself because I don't even want to think of getting into an edit war on a topic this contentious, even though all I'm proposing is a stylistic change and not really a content change. I hope others will agree.

Thanks,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems the current revision is now the previously used map again, but I'll leave this thread up since things can change rapidly on an article like this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I like the version "Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png" because its more accurate with showing Palestinians' presence only where it was reported. The old map made it seem like Palestinians occupied the entire blue area, when that's probably not the case.VR _talk 20:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza and the West Bank are disputed territories. A large part of the world does not recognize Palestine as a state and much of it is under Israeli occupation. The same thing could be said about Israel itself, I suppose, but one SVG map of the region has to be used and that's the one they went for. Second, there is no highlighted regions on the map because there is no definite "front line" between two armies. Militant infiltrators have attacked separate towns and points but haven't linked into a unified offensive line. Fighting is sporadic. -- Veggies (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, Palestine is in a unique situation among polities with limited international recognition in that its borders were agreed upon by the United Nations itself, so these are still "internationally recognized borders" unlike most unrecognized or partially recognized polities. On a highly touchy and sensitive topic like this, I'd like to avoid conveying or implying - intentionally or unintentionally - that Palestine is "not a real country" or merely an insurgent breakaway movement within Israel. Dotted lines don't always have to convey this, of course. File:Israel and occupied territories map.png is a good example of how this problem can be avoided by having all international borders be dotted and explaining in the key what Palestine's slightly different looking borders mean.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh? File:Israel and occupied territories map.png has different border styles for the Palestinian territories, just as you admit. Is it a key that says "Armistice Demarcation Line" that you want to see? What is it you're arguing, exactly, because I'm lost, now? -- Veggies (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the miscommunication, Veggies. I can see how bringing up that map would create confusion as I brought it up as more of an "if we're gonna do it this way, there's a wrong way and a right way to do it" side point, not as an example of what I'm asking us to do here. To be clear, my preference is either to have no solid borders at all (like in the old map) or to use the same border style for all polities involved. But just to make sense of what I was trying to say there:

• Normally, a map that has a mix of solid borders and dotted borders with no key or legend explaining what the borders mean will visually imply that the dotted borders are less legitimate than the solid borders. This is usually fine when we're talking about breakaway/insurgent polities with de facto borders but no association with the United Nations, but Palestine's borders are de jure internationally recognized ones, so a map that could visually imply that Palestine is a breakaway state within Israel as opposed to a separate country is problematic.
• If we are to use dotted lines and display Palestine differently, there's a way to do it that avoids those problems, which is the only reason why I drew attention to that other map. It's fine in spite of its dotted lines and differentiated Palestinian borders for the simple reason that it doesn't imply that the Palestinian borders are less legitimate than other international boundaries. It displays all boundaries as different types of dotted lines (which removes any visual implication that the boundaries of Palestine are in a lesser category than the rest of the boundaries) and explains the purpose of making Palestine's borders different, which is simply to show the reader the former borders of the Palestinian Mandate and the current agreed upon lines. Not to make it look like it's just a disputed region. I am not saying that my preference is to model the map off of this, but rather that if we are to make Palestine's borders look different from the rest, there's a better way to do it. Hope that clears that up, but if it doesn't, don't worry because it's not relevant.

But enough about that side convo, I regret bringing up that other map in the first place as it clearly just derailed the discussion. Just to be clear again, my preferred position is to either have no solid borders at all or to use the same border type for both sides of the conflict.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I prefer module maps because they can be sourced better and updated by consensus on EnWiki (Commons doesn't allow overwriting of ordinary files for "Substantial changes"; see c:COM:OVERWRITE). The land control map could well be useful—if the module map were to be updated to have something like an interpolated border between the various places I would support it—but it's going to be a bit harder to keep an ordinary svg/updated based upon local consensus on the fly if we don't use the map module.

For these reasons, I think the module map should remain, but it should be improved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is fair, there are certainly advantages to the module map that make it worth using. I do not mind that we still link to it in the infobox. Some sort of interpolated border would be very useful for visually conveying the scale of the conflict, though I do not know how challenging this would be. If I could change any one thing about the map, it would be the low contrast between the shade of green used for Gaza and the shade of blue used for Israel. When they're put right next to each other in those small boxes, they become very hard to see, and I can imagine this would be even more of an issue for colorblind readers. This is less of an issue when looking at the full-sized map which is animated, but it's not ideal at the small resolution used for the infobox image.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard, Vice regent, Veggies, and Red-tailed hawk: Notice to all participants. I have uploaded the map in .svg format after a significant compression of the original file. It should be available for anyone to edit now. Additionally seam errors have been fixed. Ecrusized (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Map update - Palestinian presence in Ofakim

The stand-off in Be'eri and Ofakim is still ongoing in Ofakim, meaning the map needs to be updated to reflect that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What's your source for that? I'm reading that the city was cleared earlier on the 8th. [2] -- Veggies (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: The article stand-off in Be'eri and Ofakim says it is still ongoing as no source says the standoff itself ended. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The source for your claim...is Wikipedia itself? Yeah, no. I'm going to go with verifiable sources, thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Any new advances in the map?

It's been awhile since the advance was changed on this map. Is there anything new from both sides? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Click here for a more comprehensive map. MrBLOCKiron (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The map

I want to know is Hamas retriting or advancing because the map is a little confusing 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:F8F3:4505:F6A8:414A (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Click here for a more comprehensive map.

Captain Almighty Nutz ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 07:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fatah

Did Fatah and the Palestinian authority officially join the war? If so, then Abbas should be added in the infobox.

https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/138006 RAMSES$44932 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of the Fatah, has called for suicide attacks. Does this make Fatah appear in the infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this resource enough to keep Fatah?https://www.isna.ir/news/1402071509427/%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%86-%DA%AF%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%B5%DB%8C Parham wiki (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Fatah is de facto split in two. Fatah the political party has distant itself for a while now from their military wing especially the one in Gaza. Alhusseinst (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Fatah should be removed. Also "https://www.isna.ir/" is an unreliable source. Ecrusized (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (4)

Belligerents Nx.colonel (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Al-Quds Brigades are participating on the side of Palestine. Also USA has sent military support to Israel

 Not done Al-Quds Brigades are a wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is noted as a belligerent. And we do not include "supporters" in military conflict infoboxes any longer, with exceptions only when there is a page-specific consensus. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Add "non-combatants" to the Military conflict infobox

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
Part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Gaza-Israel conflict
Date 7 October 2023 – present Location Israel Gaza Strip Status Ongoing
Belligerents and Non-belligerents
Hamas Islamic Jihad	Civilian non-combatants	Israel
Commanders and leaders
Mohammed Al-Daif Ziyad al-Nakhalah		Benjamin Netanyahu Yoav Galant
Units involved
Al-Qassam Brigades Al-Quds Brigades PFLP Lions' Den	Magen David Adom Red Crescent	Israel Defense Forces
Casualties and losses
Unknown	At least 2 (in Gaza). and 7 (in Israel) civilians killed. At least 5 (in Gaza) and 3 (in Israel) civilians injured. Multiple civilians captured (in Israel)	At least 10 killed Unknown number of prisoners Armored vehicles destroyed and captured: 1 Merkava destroyed 1 Merkava captured 1 Namer APC captured Over 35 soldiers, police officers and civilians captured

Hi all, Like many, I am deeply frustrated with never ending conflicts. I believe that a major error in the reporting of such conflicts including by Wikipedians, is that it is always being presented as a two-sided conflict, when actually it is always a three-sided conflict where the third side is always forgotten about or only given as a foot note because they lack adequate representation in the conflict.

I am of course talking about the civilians.

These are unwilling participants who are being killed by being caught up in the middle of the conflict, despite not necessarily taking a side. This is particularly true of young children, who do not have a mental capability to understand, to even be able to take a side. The only ones supporting them are the medics are working tirelessly to save them. By not including them on equal footing, it is also suggesting that civilian victims are not as important as military casualties. In fact, I think that they are more important.

Even if you do not agree that non-belligerents deserve a front-seat in the conversation (and shame on you), to attribute them to a particular side is impossible given the level of reporting. All we know is what side of the border that they happened to be on when it happened.

For all we know, they could be a person of Israeli citizenship who does not politically align with the state of Israel (They could be a Palestinian living in Israel, for example). It could be a Palestinian living in Gaza who does not align with the values of Hamas. It could be someone of another state or religious affiliation or none at all.

It is disingenuous to equate a Palestinian or Gazan as someone who supports Hamas (and it might not be safe to elicit a true answer) and it is disingenuous to equate an Israeli or Jewish person as someone who supports the Israeli Government. So to include them in the info box under a particular state's figures could be offensive if it is wrong. It would be especially offensive to claim a Palestinian as an "Israeli" victim.

To the right is an example of how I believe the infobox should look like.

As it becomes known (if at all) that a civilian was supportive of a particular side, then by all means, they should be moved under the banner of which their align to. Note that it would be hard to be a "Citizen of Hamas" because Hamas is not a country and is itself a militant organisation so how is it even technically possible to be a non-combatant of Hamas. That is without a whole other can of worms of lumping Palestine with Hamas.

If it is absolutely decided that Civilians do not deserve a place of equal footing in the info box, my backup argument is that they should be included above the militants in the info box or of its own infobox above the military one, as they are the most important by virtue of being innocent and not actively making themselves part of the hostilities. Kleinerziegler (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we can confirm the reports of kidnapping by now, I agree non-combatants should be added Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It isn't the convention for such things. I think it is best to raise this up to editors who are part of the Military History task force. Borgenland (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't you think that Israel-Palestine conflict is in a bit of a unique situation compared to other conflicts where it isn't 100% clear cut that subjects of Israeli-controlled territory don't necessarily align with the national identity of Israel? Perhaps on that basis, this is the correct venue to have a discussion and make an exception.

If not, could you please point a link to the correct venue to have such a discussion? Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the addition of non-combatants unless this becomes wiki-wide policy. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a good idea, imagine doing Ukraine. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is primary a military conflict, with its own conventions and it would make every conflict more convoluted than it is already. Imagine having Henri Dunant listed as a field commander in the Battle of Solferino.

Anyways, move your forum here to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history

Borgenland (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Solferino was as far as I can tell, a purely military conflict without civilian non-combatant targets. Henri Dunant was not involved in any combat.

For Ukraine, I am very much in favour, as well as Northern Ireland, or any other conflict of civilian non-combatant targeting, especially where their national allegiance can be easily determined (for example, indiscriminate attacks in disputed territory). Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

But he did involve himself. Which would make him a unit Borgenland (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the wiki page about it, the battle was already over, he was inspired by the aftermath to make Geneva conventions which relate just as much to how combatants can attack each other (or not) as it does to civilians. If he was out there on the battlefield telling sides not to kill each other in the heat of battle, or he was out supporting civilians not of any side (and the civilians without a side were actually present in that battle), yeah, I would support his inclusion. But really beside the point isn't it. Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with others, if this was added here this rationale could really be used in most conflicts. I'm also not sure the point? We have a casualties section which typically delineates between civilians and fighters. If they were fighting together as some sort of militia group with its own wikipedia article then this might change, but as it stands I see no point as having civilians as a "third side" in really any conflict. Yeoutie (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

As it stands right now, civilian non-combatant casualties are not separated out at all anymore. This is really a reflection of how seriously Wikipedia (and people involved in this topic at large) really care about civilian casualties. It is just a foot note or and now not even mentioned at all because everyone wants to claim a civilian as "one of their own" to use for propaganda purposes against the other side rather than a genuine concern about civilian casualties. Kleinerziegler (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a point of concern that I would have to ask. There have also been Palestinian civilians killed in direct clashes in the West Bank in support of what happened in Gaza. While I'm not sure if they've been included in the infobox, how will your proposal address that? Borgenland (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. It is very hard to determine the precise definition based on media reports, but essentially, I have done some more research when posting this and there is a logical difference between a "combatant terrorist", "non-combatant terrorist" and "non-combatant civilian":

There are two kinds of terrorists. The first are terrorists that kill innocent civilians in public places, with no military purpose or warfare-based strategic goal. 221 The second are terrorists that engage in warfare, within theaters of combat, against military targets (soldiers, service members, members of a tactical force, etc.), and with military objectives. 222 Brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, responsible for the Boston marathon bombing, are in the first group. Irek Hamidullin is in the second group

Source: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&amp=&context=law-student-publications&amp=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fas_ylo%253D2015%2526q%253Dnon-combatant%2526hl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%252C48#search=%22non-combatant%22

"combatant terrorist" - someone who acts as a soldier would on the battlefield as if they were in the military, even though that military technically doesn't exist because that organisation does not have statehood

"non-combatant terrorist" - the same except instead of attacking military targets, they attack civilians. i.e. September 11, Boston bomber.

"non-combatant civilian" - Neither of the above. Have not attacked anyone with deadly force.

There is a gray area often bought up, particularly from the Israel side, when Palestinians use rocks or malee to injure/kill civilians or IDF. I am not totally sure how to handle that circumstance, but in an ideal world where there is enough evidence to go through these cases, I would lean towards counting them as a non-combatant civilian unless it's proven that they used serious force with intent to kill or severely injury.

(PS: Politically, I don't like using the term 'Terrorist' to describe combatants - against a military force. I'd associate the term 'terrorist' with the second group who attacks civilians and it seems that Governments have adopted the term for non-State militias to associate them with the abhorrent practice of attacking civilians. As far as I am concerned, Armies who fight each other should be regarded as being on equal footing as both being military forces, regardless of who is better equipped) Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-combatants are not belligerents- casualties for civilians are covered at the bottom of the infobox. Civilian agencies operating during the war aren't relevant for the infobox - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If you look closely, the infobox example was modified to say "Belligerents and Non-belligerents" Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Do also note that your proposal would add an unnecessary gap in the leaders and units, especially if no obvious relief agency is available. It would also lead to more mistakes with users having difficulties with columns particularly in conflicts were there are more than two defined sets of combatants involved. Borgenland (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

In my example, I have deliberately omitted "Commanders and leaders" because so far no one has stepped up to stand up for purely the civilian casualties.

I might argue that MDA is supporting both Civilians and IDF, while RC is supporting both Civilians and Hamas, and could be listed twice in that regards, as they don't discriminate based on combatant status.

It would seem that there is precedent for a 4-way war: Syrian civil war. Kleinerziegler (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

but your example did not list the Syrian Red Crescent or the White Helmets in whatever you consider to be non-belligerents. Borgenland (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You are completely correct, the Syrian civil war should also be listed out as a 5-way war. Thank you for saying this. Kleinerziegler (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Abo_Yemen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) DO NOT edit others' discussion! You vandalised my example. You will be reported if you do this again! Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  i removed the ref tags as they were messing with the talk page Abo Yemen✉ 11:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already a third casualties parameter in the conflict infobox template for covering civilian casualties. There is nothing unique about this conflict or any other. The same style guide applies . Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023

Support: Israel/Palestine is a special case. Even if you want to divide everyone into Jewish people and Arab people, there are many Arabs in Israel, and many pockets of formerly (or currently, depending on your perspective) Palestinian territory that can be collateral damage of Hamas' own rockets. You cannot cleanly divide many innocent bystanders into supporters of one country or another. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

But as far as legality is concerned, those Arabs in Israel are citizens of the State of Israel and some of them are serving in the IDF and/or are reservistst. Borgenland (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There are some who embrace the State of Israel, but others who reject the State of Israel, despite holding citizenship, or being eligible to hold citizenship (or technically are) but refusing to get an ID/passport on ideological grounds, and prefer the term "Palestinian" over "Israeli-Arab"

I would not automatically count on Arabs living within Israel proper as being on the Israel side, unless there is evidence to support their allegiance to one side or the other. Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: almost every conflict involves civilian casualties and the "parties" in an infobox typically represent the belligerents (and allies of said belligerents). Civilians are not fighting this war per se nor are they a belligerent. Per above and per this reasoning, adding in a "civilian party" would be superfluous and inaccurate. Dan the Animator 00:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: It's important to separate civilians and combatants in order to get a clear picture of the events. Yes, I know in modern conflicts like this the line between the two can be quite murky, but still. -75.142.18.247 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: as per other opposes, there are already parts of the infobox to put the desired info in, and it doesn't make logical sense to have a category of belligerents and non-belligerents. AllenY99 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Whilst I appreciate the humanitarian sentiment, this is generally not how armed conflicts are conceptualised, and Wikipedia is not the place to change attitudes. Riposte97 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Problem is, civilians are not under an umbrella either. Nothing unites say, an Israeli civilian killed by shelling versus a Palestinian civilian killed by shelling except for shared bad luck. Adding in groups like the Red Crescent further confuses things. What would a doctor who comes from some faraway country with aid have in commons with the previous two examples?

We group the Israeli military divisions and the Palestinian military divisions together because they fight for a side.

There really isn't a third side. Bremps... 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

And that would run into improper synthesis territory. If reliable media in the future (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source) starts reporting civilians as a "third side", then we can change our infobox. That has not happened yet. Bremps... 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That is the whole point, to converge onto Civilian casualties without attribute them to a particular 'side', because they are not an either binary side, they are on the side of being innocent, getting caught up in the middle (also a deliberate choice to place them in the middle in the info box).

If a Doctor comes from a faraway land and treats injured from "both sides" equally, they do not need to be placed under a particular side. In fact, MDA have a mandate to do exactly this and will treat anyone they can, including Palestinian fighters who have caused carnage (not that I think that they would get priority & probably for propaganda purposes), because their only job is to save lives.

So ideally, humanitarian efforts supporting civilians are listed without being sided either except on the side of civilians, unless they also support a particular side at the same time, then they are essentially on two sides at the same time.

I accept that this is currently a data problem, but think that it is still worth trying to sift through the data to find the information or make estimates as much as possible, with the hope that the "feel sorry for the innocent people" side will grow and this data becomes more available over the long term. Kleinerziegler (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose That's not the concept of Wikipedia's conflict infoboxes. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose there are better ways of describing civilian casualties in the infobox. And listing the Red Crescent as a "combatant" is too strange to even consider. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kleinerziegler someone edited your response to include a bad word. HuntersHistory (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This adds too much clutter to an infobox.
2. There is already a section dedicated to civilian casualties.
3. If this is applied to this conflict, it would have to be applied to all conflicts. The Syrian civil war infobox is already cluttered enough with four columns in the belligerents section. It does not need any more.

CreepersNeedHugs (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Separate section for names

Daveout[3] it is convention on wikipedia to have a separate section for names (its often called "etymology"). I would respectfully keep the names section separate from the background section.VR _talk 04:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

For example, see the "Etymology" section at Second Intifada.VR _talk 04:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

these government nicknames are more like trivias. no one cares about them, although it´s a good idea to keep them in for register sake. no need for a highlighted special section. cheers. keep well my friend. (others may disagree and undo my edits, it's all good just the same) –Daveout(talk) 04:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Applodion. Regarding [this]. Sorry but it´s a completely BS rationale, it´s far more common for wars\operations to have their allegedly vital nicknames on the lede than on a special section. Also, the text was moved just one paragraph down; comprehension is not affected in any shape or form. If you like etymology sections (actually nickname sections) so much please create one on the Columbine page explaining that the perpetrators' nicks were Rebel and Vodka. That definitely will be useful. Best wishes keep safe. –Daveout(talk) 02:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Daveout No offense, but you are wrong. Firstly, as both VR and I pointed out, terminology sections are extremely common for conflicts with many and/or disputed names, such as Vietnam War. Secondly, they are not just trivia no one cares about, they are important for orientation - especially for new readers who may know only one of the possible names; more importantly, their inclusion in the middle of the background disrupts the reading flow and is distracting. And you are currently in the minority for wanting to remove the section, as it was there before you edits, and your change was opposed by at least two editors. Perhaps a compromise would be possible? For example, having the "Terminology" section as a sub-section of the "Background" section instead of in the middle of the background? (BTW, though I restored the section this time, I won't start an edit war over this; I would prefer if we could just talk about this). Applodion (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your compromise effort. But man I honestly don't thint it's necessary to highlight those nicknames. They're propaganda terms made to boost morale and make govs look good. Like Israel's "protective edge" (cringe) and Russia's "Special operation" (super cringe). Furthermore they're still there, before the terms actually appear on the text. And even without this "glossary" it's perfectly possible to understand what is being talked about without them all together. User7681 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And please, if you're editing more than typos on your comments please make it clear with a note and a new signature (or other method) like as follows. User7681 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [Edited]User7681 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Im Daveout, just commented with my alt account. But there's no problem disclosing that. Cheers. User7681 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Daveout As I said, I won't try to restore the section again, but I find it kinda telling that your main argument for opposing the section seems to boil down to "I don't like it". Just saying. Applodion (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you really want me to compile a list of MAJOR wars that don't have "etymology" sections and compare them with those who have it?. Boy, you're in for a treat.... User7681 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And I could list all the major wars that have a section for names; btw, you got reverted by yet another editor. So perhaps your view is indeed not common sense. Applodion (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, I really find that awful. I'm happy to be in the dissenting minority. Anyway, kudos for your win. Keep it cool and nice, my friend. See ya✌️ –Daveout(talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Map

@Veggies: I have removed Hamas presence in the map from Ashkelon. Ecrusized (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

PNG based off of the modular map of the Israeli conflict.

Maps based on the much more comprehensive and detailed Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict detailed map are far superior to the map we have now. Module maps allow the citation of sources to reflect an accurate and verifiable state of things on the ground. See your false claim and inaccurate map for proof of why we need that. They are intricately clickable, allowing users to go to the module and see what all points of interest are and go to their respective articles. So, why did you remove it from the article? -- Veggies (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If you see it fit I think you should go for it. I only reverted it because you specieded hamas and the invasion included multiple factions (I was under an assumption that militants in general were in the city, not specifically hamas), so slay The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: I don’t like the module map because it is very bleak. It does not cover roads, heights or urban density. The current map should be as easy to edit as the module. I couldn’t upload it as svg since it’s size is too large but you can download it at the page and export it as png. This should be very east to edit for anyone who has edited vector files in the past. Ecrusized (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: Your map is a stitch job—and not a good one. I can see the seams of where the different screenshots of the map you wanted were poorly stitched together. And you call my efforts "low quality". The point of Wikipedia is so users can edit the Wikipedia themselves—not to rely on requesting changes from a small group of users. This is why the module map was developed. Your map is out of date and uncited. -- Veggies (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: I'm not an expert mapper by any means. I have already requested a map from user Rr016, and I have made the current map in the meantime. A better map should be ready in a few days. As you can see in my ping below, you can edit the file by downloading it. SVG's are the most common file format in Wikipedia's maps and should be available for the largest number of users to edit. Right now, it's your map vs mine but I think if it were put for discussion more users would support the current map. Ecrusized (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Also see, Talk:October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict#Please consider reverting to the previous infobox map image. Ecrusized (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: It's not "my" map. Unlike you (evidently) I don't claim to own my contributions to this site. The module was created by many other people. I suppose you haven't noticed that the modular map is an SVG one, and it is only the thumbnail that I've tried to put on the article that is rasterized. That's why I link back to the module in the caption. If I could place a cropped SVG live-snapshot of the module in the infobox, I would. Only in your mind is this a "you vs me" conflict. And stop making new talk page sections every time you need to bring something up. There's already plenty of "Map" threads on here. -- Veggies (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed to own anything. This was uncalled for "Unlike you (evidently) I don't claim to own my contributions to this site.". I am simply stating that no one else besides you and I had participated in this dispute. I'll repeat once again that you can edit the current file in many ways as I have explained. Ecrusized (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: I have updated the map in accordance with the modules map. Ecrusized (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: What's your deal? I update the SVG map and you...don't like it and overwrite it? -- Veggies (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: No it looks great. I was already in the process of uploading a file based on the module changes as well. Ecrusized (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (5)

Please change "Some Arab League countries such as Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and non-Arab countries like Iran and Pakistan" to "Some Arab League countries such as Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and non-Arab League countries like Iran and Pakistan" This would make clear that they're referring to countries that are not part of the Arab League, rather than bringing up a non-settled debate about whether or not Iran and Pakistan are Arab countries, which is not the point of the sentence. Blueeyedmaiden (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 20:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

War Crimes

How can there be a section named War Crimes, when it is a conflict and not a war? Thanks for explaining this to me. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Better to think of it as "armed conflict" https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/armed-conflict/ Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel hasn't declared a state of war since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It's a war. kencf0618 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Slow down

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have created an article based on hours old info from limited original sources often known for highly biased information on multiple sides. Why are some editors in such a rush? We are not here to scoop the networks. Wait until we have multiple analyses. There is WP:NODEADLINE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive suggestions, rather than SOAPBOXing? The article is sourced to credible news outlets like CNN, Al Jazeera, and The Times of Israel. Of course information will change and update. Wikipedia, luckily, is perfectly capable of updating as the information does. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no sense in fighting this. It is inevitable. It's a major event. It will undoubtedly evolve. Andre🚐 01:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No need to be agressive. I don't agree either, but I don't need to belittle others to get my point through. Stay kind. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Doesn't a major event that has repercussions and echoes around the world deserve an article? Dl.thinker (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In an article about a subject that is leading to a large number of deaths and is likely to incite further deaths, I would think an encyclopedia ought to wait for the dust to settle. We currently live in a world filled with misinformation which has caused so many problems. We are WP:NOTNEWS. An encyclopedia should at least attempt to wait long enough to gain a more full view of facts and analysis. That is, yes there are repercussions and echoes around the world. So, let us be responsible and not contribute to those repercussions. Let us report when we have a fuller story to document. We should never be part of any echo chamber on any side. But as others have said, it's a waste of time to remind editors that this is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR Borgenland (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time that policy was correctly cited. Your explanation certainly doesn't indicate this is a correct cite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

We would be derelict in our duty if we failed to have this article and keep developing it as the war proceeds. Waiting until "the dust has settled" is an empty, unhelpful cliché. Who gets to decide when the dust has finally settled? Some random person on the internet? I have heard countless criticisms of Wikipedia over the years, but if we did not have an article about this war, that would bring on the most devastating criticism by far in the past 22 years, and I would agree with that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This article does not violate WP:NOTNEWS, which has four restrictions. There is no original reporting by Wikipedia editors. This is not routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. This is not Who's Who type of content. This is not celebrity gossip. Those are the only things that NOTNEWS precludes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case, factual reporting in RS is mostly repeating what they have been told by an involved source. I can read a newspaper for this. And then read it tomorrow and get a different set of 'facts' and then.... It's not what I use an encyclopedia for. No, we do not wait for one random person. (Did I suggest something so silly?) We form a consensus that RS are using primary sources from all involved with expert analysis tying it together. Wikipedia has no deadline. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree but it is always the same with these breaking news things, nothing to be done, the article will develop and eventually settle down. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the first major, rapidly moving event that is covered on Wikipedia as it happens. We have done this from the first day, and will doubtlessly continue to do so. The earliest edits at World Trade Center/Plane crash were quite erratic, too, even though they came from some of the founders of the platform. Renerpho (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a current event. Cwater1 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (2)

I suggest changing from "The blockade has caused significant economic hardship upon the Palestinians" to "The blockade has caused significant economic hardship within Gaza" as that is both more accurate and more consistent with English idiom. The phrase "caused... hardship upon" is not idiomatic and I suggest updating to avoid the awkward phrasing. Vegastrong (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for your help. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

I really need to edit this article; I want to attempt to move this article from October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict to 2023 Palestine−Israel War because most of the media says it's a war and on the talk page there is many that comprehend that the article shall be labeled as a "war" so I need to have edit access to improve not just Wikipedia but the knowledge of the world. CostalCal (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. There is an active move discussion on this talk page, you may voice your opinions/support there if you wish. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a request.  CostalCal (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to coment in the #Requested move 7 October 2023 section. This is still not something to request in a protected-edit request. Animal lover |666| 15:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666: CoastalCal is not extended confirmed. WP:PIA has this as being under WP:ARBECR, meaning that non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions (emphasis mine). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Great Mule of Eupatoria

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 Great Mule of Eupatoria You made an edit with an explanation "the claim is verifiable, and the video has been surfacing around a lot. The link is broken because Wikipedia is so itchy about citations. This is a video uploaded by a news organisation and is translated accurately" to restore content with a broken youtube link in the lead. This does not make much sense, editors everywhere have been able to add in linked and verifiable sources. From what I can tell, you added this in originally with the edit description of "Another Instagram video surfaced of a militant (presumably Hamas) who gestures at an Israeli geriatric and her disabled child instructing that “we should not kill a woman, or a child, or an old man or a worshipper”. I don’t know if Instagram is able to be cited here. If we include individual actions then it goes both ways queen!"

Per WP:BURDEN, you are required to provide a verifiable RS for your addition. "The link is broken because Wikipedia is so itchy about citations" is not a blank check to add in whatever you desire. This is especially important when you are trying to use youtube, per WP:RSPYT. If this is an Instagram video, as you state in your original edit, it would also not be allowed for inclusion, per WP:USERGENERATED. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I will wait for both videos to surface on mainstream news websites, for now I get it being reverted. Flow of new information makes citing more difficult because it’s localised to these specific websites for now The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

On a somewhat different topic, you added this edit stating "Important to mention in the civilian casualties" and adding in claims of such as "200 civilian casualties" in wikivoice. I was unable to find this verified in the ABC news source you linked, which you added with the title "198 killed in Gaza." I also fail to see why this would be included separately from the already mentioned and attributed statement "The Palestinian Ministry of Health led by Hamas in Gaza reported Israel had killed at least 400 Palestinians in gunfights and by airstrikes, including civilians, 78 children and 41 women." KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the error and cited the relevant sources. I included this in the section because it seems to revolve around the civilian casualties of the war as opposed to military The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

There is already mention of civilian casualties with attribution and using newer figures: "The Palestinian Ministry of Health led by Hamas in Gaza reported Israel had killed at least 400 Palestinians in gunfights and by airstrikes, including civilians, 78 children and 41 women." The new links you added regarding "198 casualties" appear to be old versions of the Ministry of Health statistics, without differentiation of civilian or military casualties nor citing "Israeli bombardement of civilian targets" as the cause of the casualties.

The new sources you cited also reference the Ministry of Health, rather than state the casualties in their own voice, and you are editing with wikivoice.

Per your cited ABC source: "Palestinian Health Ministry says at least 198 killed, 1,610 wounded in Gaza in Israeli retaliation after Hamas attack."

Per your cited Business standard source: "The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza says at least 198 people have been killed and at least 1,610 wounded in the territory in Israel's retaliation after a wide-ranging Hamas assault into Israel."

Per your cited EconomicTimes source: "The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza says at least 198 people have been killed and at least 1,610 wounded in the territory in Israel's retaliation after a wide-ranging Hamas assault into Israel. The toll came as Israel has carried out a number of airstrikes in Gaza and has clashed with gunmen at the border fence around the coastal territory." KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

Instead of breaking 1RR, and removing FV tags linked to this talk page without discussion, can you go on talk and achieve consensus for your obviously contested claims in the lead that have been raised by both me and @BilledMammal? Again, see WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I’ve already undone my girlboss reverts for the limit I am allowed for this page (though I messed up by accidentally undoing the entire page to a previous version which I am trying to get around). I have removed the loosely or ambiguously sourced claims in my edits, while getting better citations others The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

The contested claims include considerably more. The entire section is contested and has been removed by both me and @BilledMammal, which you have elected to reinsert. Please self-revert the section to comply with 1RR and wait until you have achieved consensus, especially for a contentious claim in the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do that if it hasn’t been reverted already. Apologies for the late response, I was drawing white cheeked terns The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And common terns too. Edit 12:56 is already reverted and the claims of edit 12:59 seem to have been changed so it looks to be sorted The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:29, 9 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.

Change current to 2023 in lead

In line 10 on the lead, this following, "which took place almost exactly fifty years before the current attacks." I want to change the word, "current" to "2023" where it says, "which took place almost exactly fifty years before the 2023 attacks." Even though I met the qualifications, I wanted to check here before I try to edit this article. Cwater1 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion, in my view. 2001:2020:347:8DDA:D148:5DB6:54C5:51A1 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. And similar edits, that involve updating language like "current" or things that will age out, can be edited BOLDLY, in my view. But it's good that you sought input. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - I made the edit. Cwater1 (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Change "Israel Air Force's has been reported to use banned chemical weapons in Gaza. Based on a video that shows munitions descending from the sky, it is apparent that the white phosphorus bomb are being dropped, which is considered a war crime." by removing it all together. See my post on it, it is misinformation, the sources spreading it are falsely using a photo from a 2018 HRW article, and a YouTube thumbnail from 2017.

YouTube thumbnail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C9f8Ff8M6E HRW Article: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/09/incendiary-weapons-heed-calls-strengthen-law

This is blatant misinformation, if you are unwilling to do this, at least fix the atrocious grammar from the non-English speaker who put it there. MarkusDorazio (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done in [4] AncientWalrus (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"Most" countries called for de-escalation

I added in the lead that "Most countries called for de-escalation." I think it is pretty obvious that's the case just looking through International reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict. Is there any objection if I restore that wording?VR _talk 20:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: No objections from me in principle, under the condition that you add a reliable source that says so (the Wikipedia article you mention does not suffice, and neither would any form of WP:SYNTH). This is not obvious. And please remember WP:1RR. Renerpho (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Why do we need a RS for that? We are summarizing RS's here. Do we have an RS that "Most countries condemned Hamas" (as stated in the lead), even though its fairly obvious they did? VR _talk 00:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is one.[5] If you have something similar for what you want to add then go ahead. Renerpho (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That source says "widespread" condemnation, and doesn't use the word "most". I'll replace the word.VR _talk 21:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need a RS for that? -- We need RS's for everything. You can summarize RS's, but you have to cite them somewhere; or there has to be consensus that a statement is obvious, in which case you don't need an explicit citation. But going ahead and doing your own statistics on the list we have compiled here is WP:OR. This list is not an independent summary of RS's. If you find a similar, independently created list in a RS then you could summarize that. Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• The current text says "Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Nigeria called for de-escalation", that is quite problematic as dozens of countries have called for de-escalation, not just these ones.VR _talk 21:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

West Bank

@EkoGraf: I don’t think the clashes in West Bank are related with the ongoing conflict/war in Gaza. Ecrusized (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, RS media outlets are reporting it hand-in-hand with the events in and around Gaza. If sources explicetly state its not linked I have no objection to removing it. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about this, 7 deaths in a short time is not usual but the connection is not obvious and the WB is otherwise quiet. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Actions in the West bank should count into this crisis. Its just primarily in and around Gaza. The WB and norther israel-lebanon border could also be counted at being connected with the Gaza-crisis. Poles Ragge (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

For now both WB and Lebanon should be included, unless RS say otherwise.VR _talk 20:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

All fronts are connected: Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank, all part of the Iranian strategy, headed by the Quds force, to encircle Israel and make a multi front war on her. אסף טל דורון 317 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Deif message

@Vice regent: Deif's statement, as head of Hamas, holds more importance in the lede than Abbas' statement, head of the PA. Your "summarization" removed the relevant former and kept the irrelevant latter. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Would agree with this. The likes of the ft are likewise currently profiling Deif not Abbas, who is not relevant here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Abbas' statement should also be removed. But we should summarize Hamas' position in the lead very briefly (just as we summarize the Israeli position). The more full statement should be in the body and not the lead.VR _talk 20:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think "Hamas cited these events in the justification for the offensive, with Mohammed Deif, the commander of its military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, called on Palestinians and Arab Israelis to "expel the occupiers and demolish the walls" is too much detail for the lead. I would summarize it as "Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join the fight."VR _talk 20:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Makeandtoss: and @Iskandar323:. Do you agree with the summarization?VR _talk 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. There should probably be no individual statements or quotes in the lead at all. It's already far too bloated and a long way divergent from the summary-style form it is meant to take. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    I disagree. The three sources that have cited excerpts from his 10-minute statements have taken different sentences, but all of them have focused on his references to the occupation, which the summary above omits. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    A middle ground would be "Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join the fight against the occupiers." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    • I'm ok with that and I'll post that.VR _talk 21:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

American English?

To my understanding, we do not change the status quo. However, is there anything preventing us from having multiple varieties of English (defence and defense in different sentences, say) in the article? Bremps... 03:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, MOS:ARTCON does, though it lists some exceptions. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC) (edited LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC))

It should all be in the same variety of English, with exceptions for quotes, titles of sources etc. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)