Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 8

RfC: Infobox image
What image(s) should be used for the infobox? Other options are welcomed. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly see a reason to change things compared to where they are now? In the future, I suppose, it may be wise to create a composite image featuring both the damages caused by Israeli military strikes as well as the violence from unrest within Israeli itself (and, likely, something illustrating Palestinian rocket attacks could be a part of that as well). However, the article appears fine right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In 2014 we settled on using two images side-by-side, one for each side. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As things stand now is fine (clarify, A), but 1:1 would be very much a violation of WP:DUE in that it would pretend that the devastation were equal here. Neither reality or the sources bear that out.  nableezy  - 19:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to represent a side in a conflict is a violaton of NPOV. This article is not Destruction in Gaza during 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, there are two sides to the story and both have to be represented. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not what NPOV says, NPOV is providing DUE weight. Pretending that the damage in Israel compares, on any level, with that in Gaza is just silly, and the sources dont bear that out. They show image after image after image of the destruction in Gaza, and occasionally a rocket damaged building in Israel. As should we.  nableezy  - 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the subject of the article is not damaged buildings. Images from Israeli side could include Iron done interceptions, people rushing to reach shelter, civil riots, etc. There is a lot going on on both sides and we can't focus the article on just one side of a conflict because we like it better. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is what RS say the subject is, and they have largely focused on the damage in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes. DUE demands we give that same weight to that aspect of the story. Not pretend things are equivalent. Whatever, I voted A, would like to stop engaging with you for no apparent reason now plz.  nableezy  - 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I prefer the old image, B. A is quite grainy and low res, B is much more high def. C doesn't really show anything (just looks like smoke), D is just a bit strange. Probably a better image will come around at some point more in the fashion of A but less low res, and we'll end up using that, though. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A, seems the most involved. B just shows soldiers in the street, C shows just smoke. D is also a good image that shows the aftermath. From those, A seems the most logical to me Gorebath (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I vaguely recall some procedure or request mechanism for pix, we could do with a few more.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A - Don't really "like" any of these pictures. "A" seems least bad. Would be nice to have a usable image of people actually in conflict (e.g. this)NickCT (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B They're all kinda eh. A is deleted it seems, but was poor quality anyway. C and E are not descriptive. D isn't particularly, not sure of the right word, aesthetic? Not particularly informative either. B is by far the best of the lot; it's high quality, shows police and riots in the background, and is reasonably well composed. It's also rather neutral IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B A is just a random destroyed building. B shows IDF soldiers dealing with street violence, so its more relevant. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A composite image. Means we don't have to choose what to bring attention to, we can cover all aspects of the conflict. Perhaps these as a starting point?:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israeli_bombing_of_a_civilian_building_2021.jpg - Damage to Palestinian Civilian Infrastructure
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bus_and_car_burnt_out_after_rocket_hit_in_Holon_Photo_by_Yoav_Keren.jpg - Damage to Israeli Civilian infrastructure
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Israeli_Air_Force_bombed_the_press_offices_in_Gaza_2021.jpg - Destruction of the Al-Jalaa media building
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_2021_attack.jpg - Rocket launch by Hamas or IJ
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Guardian_of_the_Walls,_May_2021._XXXVIII.jpg - Iron Dome Launch by IDF
 * BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Arbpia, not permitted to participate in formal discussions


 * D. The location, date, and provenance of A is not clear; It is likely to be collateral damage or a Hamas facility embedded in the city. In contrast, D is the result of indiscriminate fire at civilians areas, and is also easily verifiable in terms of location and incident details (See description of 11 May attack at this site, which has a different photo of the same bus. --Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of damage has come from the Israeli side. Using a photo of a Palestinian attack as the lead image would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the damaged targets in Gaza were military targets or adjacent to military targets. The Hamas, in contrast, fired indiscriminately at cities. The Hamas probably fired more projectiles (thousands) at Israel than the Israeli air force dropped on Gaza, just because they were intercepted or not effective is not an issue for image selection. Besides, D is verifiable, whereas the A image is not.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Israel says they were mostly firing at military targets, but this is widely disputed, even by the United States. Regardless, a building being blown up is far more important than a car being blown up, and that shouldn't have to be a political statement. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * B Unfortunately, A, C, and E are of a pretty low technical quality. B has better composition, and delivers essential information while keeping in mind WP:SHOCK. If a composite can be made, hopefully with more images, that may be a preferable alternative for the future, but for the time being B is the best option IMO. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A, I would suggest we either retain A which is a picture of destruction or if we have to change, to D which shows the aftermath of the destruction. B is a photo of soldiers in the streets, C just shows smoke and E is not quite clear.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of free useful images here, if you're interested.-- M h hossein   talk 04:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * D is the most visually compelling . -- Almaty  ✉✎ 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A The current image appears to be fine which shows destruction aftermath. Sea Ane (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Arbpia, not permitted to particpate in formal discussions
 * B, as it is well composed and relatively neutral. If an image of a large scale Iron Dome interception is publicly available, then that would be better if we are only considering a single-image infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Arbpia, not permitted to particpate in formal discussions
 * B of the choices presented. But if possible, agree with BilledMammal that an image of Gaza and iron dome rockets would be terrific as that is how the conflict started. An interception is one option; simply an image of both against the night sky is another. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A picture of rockets in the sky would be a good representation of this conflict, for the infobox, IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A if I must pick one of these.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * C This is what goes in my mind from TV clips I have seen. Jaxarnolds (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Composite image as suggested by User:BilledMammal. Of the choices presented, probably B. Alaexis¿question? 06:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Composite image, and if not B or D because they are higher quality than the rest.PrisonerB (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * D seems to show the aftermath more clearly. Idealigic (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:NOTAVOTE, and amend your closes in consequence... Otherwise I'm likely to take a look on the RfCs myself and bring it up to AN for overturning if it looks like you got it wrong because you just counted !votes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Background
Should the Background section include the following?

During the 1980s, Hamas sprang from the Muslim Brotherhood, through the 1990s, Hamas evolved as an armed force. After Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Hamas carried out suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas is opposed to two-state solution, the map of Hamas for the state of Palestine includes the territories of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Since the coup against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza, every time Israel and Palestine fight, it is a military battle between Israeli forces and Hamas’s Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. Today, Hamas has emerged as the most powerful political entity in Palestine. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose per While perhaps a brief background on Hamas might help with a reader’s understanding of the article, by this reasoning we would also need to include a ‘brief’ background on the State of Israel, and the conflict in general. It can’t be done, and it wouldn’t be reasonable anyway. Readers will just have to click on the respective wikilinks to learn more. Source not great either (one non-HQRS for a whole section?) which speaks to this probably being UNDUE too. ProcSock (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose In case people are wondering where this appeared from, the discussion (RFCBefore) back up the page entitled "Hamas background section" refers. I don't have anything further to add to what I said there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is inexact or misleading it all of its details, i.e., question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The background section for this article should focus on the background of the event (as it currently does), not on the background of any specific group involved in the event. If a reader were interested in learning more about Hamas, this isn't the page to do so. Rovenrat (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (conditionally; nb brought here by RFC request). Short background on one of the belligerents is worthwhile. An article on the event without the background necessary to understand why Israel is and has been fighting disconnects the conflict from rational action. That said, for these claims, a better source ought to be put in hand. Ifly6 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Ifly6, a short background to Hamas, as one of the two parties involved in the crisis, puts it in context and is helpful for the user. Makes sense to me, and as long as its NPOV. I think we can assume people know what the state of Isreal is.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support adding political context : In Political science "ideolgy" is certainly a key factor of any analysis. Hamas policies of warfare should certainly be mentioned, particularly "Destruction of Israel for an Islamic state", is a good summary of its purposes and goals.--Rectangular dome (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Arbpia, not permitted to participate in formal discussions)
 * Support There is value in having background information in the article about Hamas. At the same time, it would be helpful to have a brief background about Israel in the article as well, both to inform the reader and to provide a balance of information about both groups. In-depth information could be obtained by including wikilinks to Hamas and Israel in the article, allowing the reader to obtain more information without detracting from the main subject of the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a reasonable summary.  Mel ma nn   10:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it is one sided, the background to the crisis is as complicated as the whole history since the mandate. -- Almaty  ✉✎ 10:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a, the coup was from the other side (see for example here), b, the language is, sorry, silly ("every time Israel and Palestine fight" may work in a low quality source but it isnt encyclopedic), and c. no matter what you include you will be leaving out something that somebody finds pertinent. We have an article Hamas. Thats where you go to learn about Hamas on Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 22:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The summary is good for the reader's understanding but its only one sided. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. As it provides relevant background info about one of the parties involved. There's a lot of background info about Israel already included; this addition won't make the text one-sided. -   (talk)  12:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. To have that plashed into the text is to invite an edit war as editors tweak it for balance, and editors who like it as it stands, a pastiche of disinformation by caricature, respond by adding more of the same.
 * 'Hamas evolved as an armed force.' No. it evolved as an Islamic charity.
 * 'After Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Hamas carried out suicide bombings in Israel.' I.e., Hamas reacted to peace accords by resorting to terrorism. No context. No mention that, in their view Israel terrorized Palestinians (look at the casualty numbers for the First Intifada)
 * 'Hamas is opposed to two-state solution.' It accepts a two state solution as the first step in the cessation of hostilities, an interim move. The dominant political consensus of Israel's major parties rejects a two state solution, and de facto has achieved a one-state non-solution.
 * 'The map of Hamas for the state of Palestine includes the territories of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.' Israeli maps of the country blur the borders of the 3 in the same way that Hamas maps of the ideal result do.
 * 'Since the coup against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza'. It was a counter-coup, since it is well documented that Abbas, with the US and Israel, were caught preparing their coup.
 * 'every time Israel and Palestine fight, it is a military battle between Israeli forces and Hamas’s Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades.' No. Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have been at war. 'Palestine' is an empty word here. Violent military means have been used every week in the West Bank for over two decades.
 * 'Today, Hamas has emerged as the most powerful political entity in Palestine.' I.e., all of the Palestinian territories are in the hands of terrorists. There is no Palestine to speak off, and political elections to gauge support haven't been conducted for 15 years, and won't be for the forseeable future.
 * In short, this is incompetently selective skewing of a very complex picture, and is more or less the standard Israeli view or POV unacceptable in an encyclopedia  dedicated to equidistance between the conflicted parties. A click will get anyone onto the Hamas page where everything is explained by sections in relatively succinct detail.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, excessive reliance on a single source whose limited reputation and focus makes it WP:UNDUE. We can't frame the entire  topic using just one source like this, especially in such a controversial topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I echo the response by Aquillion, relying upon a single source is not a solid approach given the controversial nature of the subject. Perhaps if there was more citations to support what is being suggested I would be more amenable to support the Rfc. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename to "Third Intifada"
As the recent conflict started to heat up again news source like Jacobin and counterpunch started to coin the event before the second flareup in June.

So should we rename it? CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * At this point, it is not even close to an intifada even if the ingredients for one are present. That would be a sustained uprising not a short term flareup as this turned out to be.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021
From:

After the ceasefire, UN and Gaza Health Ministry sources stated that 256 Palestinians had been killed, including 66 children and 40 women, and almost 2,000 wounded, of whom over 600 were children, and 400 women. Four of the killed women were pregnant. Israel claimed that of those killed at least 225 were militants, while according to Hamas 80 Palestinian fighters were killed. One of the children killed was claimed by a militant group to be a member of its Al-Mujahideen Brigades.

According to Israel, approximately 640 Palestinian rockets fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip, resulting in casualties. It is disputed whether some of the first victims on 10 May died as a result of an Israeli airstrike or an errant Palestinian rocket.

To:

After the ceasefire, UN sources stated that 256 Palestinians had been killed, including 66 children and 40 women. Around 243 of these, including 63 children, were seemingly killed by Israeli Defense Forces. Collectively, almost 2,000 were wounded, of whom over 600 were children, and 400 women. Four of the killed women were pregnant. Israel separately claimed that it had killed at least 225 militants, while according to Hamas 80 Palestinian fighters were killed. One of the children killed was claimed by a militant group to be a member of its Al-Mujahideen Brigades.

Some Palestinian rockets fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip, and according to Israel approximately 640 did so, resulting in casualties. It is disputed whether some of the first victims on 10 May died as a result of an Israeli airstrike or an errant Palestinian rocket. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Putting the attribution in the middle of the sentence is both odd grammatically and a clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:RandomCanadian, can you be a little more specific in regards to your objection? BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've told you exactly what the problem is. You could have also spared the huge copy-paste and just put in the relevant sentence. As I said, putting attribution in the middle of the sentence is both clumsy writing and a clumsy attempt at hiding it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While it may be clear to you User:RandomCanadian, it unfortunately isn't clear to me; my edit request contains two distinct alterations, the first involving the attribution of casualties, and the second involving the attribution of the claim of rockets falling short. Both of these follow the general grammatical rule of most general to most specific, and so I do not believe either is "grammatically odd".
 * The accusation of it being a "clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent" is false, and thus unusable in determining which alteration you are referring to.
 * Additional information on what alteration you are referring to, why you believe it is grammatically odd, and why you believe it is a "clumsy attempt to make this important detail less prominent" is needed, as while you clearly know what you are referring to others, including myself, do not. BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Around 243 of these, including 63 children, were seemingly killed by Israeli Defense Forces." This statement also has no source.Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference here doesn't work, but it will in the article, as it points to this named reference which sources that statement. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reopened; hopefully another editor will either make the edit, or be clearer about the issues with it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want the sourced statement in I can do that, where do you want me to put it?Selfstudier (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They are both sourced; the first is sourced to the reference named OHCHR, found here, and the second directly, to the NPR article found here . If you think only one is sufficiently sourced, then please just replace that one as done in the proposed edit, ignoring the other. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What I am asking is where you want to put this sentence ""Around 243 of these, including 63 children, were seemingly killed by Israeli Defense Forces." (sourced to ).Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can put it in as per the paragraph above, that would be good, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I put that in, I left the request open should anyone want to do anything further. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021
In the infobox

Change: In the infobox, right hand side, Gaza strip section From: 256 people killed, 2,000 wounded (per Gaza MOH/UN)

To: 256 people killed, 2,000 wounded (per UN)

Reason: Sources do not mention the Gaza MOH.

Add: In the infobox, left hand side, in the West Bank section 6 civilians wounded BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the first error, which has been continually re-introduced against sources.
 * The 6 injured, probably slightly (no excuse of course), in your source were not civilians, but border police. One must be very careful of these standard reports. In that kind of incident, in the police handouts, if a car accelerates out of a checkpoint and the wheel grazes a toe (in one such case) or a shard from a smashed headlight hits you, this kind of thing is summarily listed as a 'wounding'. Still the figure must be reported. Proper reports should reflect hospitalized care.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I did not realize it was Border Police rather than regular. However, could you add the reference as well? I notice that you missed including that in your edit, and it means the figure is unsupported by sources in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done (shortly)Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. just to underline the point I made earlier, how ticklish immediate reportage on these incidents are and how invested they are by inflammatory spin on the day, see Nir Hasson, 'Police Tried to Force Palestinian to Confess to Attempted Car Attack, Jerusalem Judge Says,' Haaretz 20 June 2021.  Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: As discussed above. Curbon7 (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Para removed to here for discussion
"Throughout the campaign, the Israeli Air Force used masses of quadcopter drones to locate launchpads for rockets and direct airstrikes against them. Extensive use of artificial intelligence and supercomputing was also made to help IDF intelligence analysts sift through extensive amounts of satellite and aerial reconnaisance imagery. This reportedly marked the first use of drone swarms in a military conflict, and the extensive use of artificial intelligence has led to the conflict being dubbed the "first AI war."

The word "supercomputing" appears once in the given sources (the ever reliable ToI and JP) in a subtitle "The IDF used artificial intelligence and supercomputing..." and the word "extensive" nowhere.

According to DefenseOne:

"Reporting does not suggest the Israeli Defense Forces deployed any particularly sophisticated capability. It seems a small number of drones manufactured by Elbit Systems coordinated searches, but they were used in coordination with mortars and ground-based missiles to strike “dozens” of targets miles away from the border, reportedly. The drones helped expose enemy hiding spots, relayed information back to an app, which processed the data along with other intelligence information. Future swarms will not be so simple."

"App" does not equal "supercomputing" and this description seems more reliable than the hype from the given sources.

For instance, the only people dubbing it the "first AI war." is Israeli intelligence/military. Yea, right.

I am sure we can write something up here that isn't the product of hasbara drone swarms, right? Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit to "Apparent War Crimes" section
Hi User:Nishidani, I thought I would discuss this with you here, and explain what I was attempting to achieve with my edit. First, though, apologies for my error in regards to the May 10 strike - I had not intended to duplicate content.

In regards to the May 16 strike, the Israel military has said that it was targeting tunnels, and a command centre within those tunnels. I thought it appropriate to add that the command centre wasn't the sole target according to the IDF.

In regards to the May 11 strike, I removed it as it wasn't one of the three focused on by HRW, nor is it covered in secondary sources such as the BBC or Al Jazeera.

Do you have any objection to me reimplementing these changes, with the exception of the May 10 one? BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes I have objections to those changes. Removing material on the grounds that it was not the 'focus' of the report is subjective. The report highlighted 3 incidents, but thought the attack you removed pertinent to war crimes. There is no policy reason for chucking that out as chaff.
 * (2) You write:
 * "In regards to the May 16 strike, the Israel military has said that it was targeting tunnels, and a command centre within those tunnels. I thought it appropriate to add that the command centre wasn't the sole target according to the IDF"
 * The HRW source
 * "On June 2, the Israeli military told the New York Times that during the attack on al-Wahda street they were actually targeting an underground command center. The military did not specify what that meant. They also admitted to not knowing its size or exact location at the time of the attack. If they were in fact targeting “an underground command center,” the extent of the strikes on al-Wahda street and the other four streets, involving about 1,000 meters of road, suggests they believed the center to be somewhere along those sections of the streets. . . The Israeli military has presented no information that would demonstrate the existence of tunnels or an underground command center in this vicinity . . Human Rights Watch did not find any evidence of a military target at or near the site of the airstrikes, including tunnels or an underground command center under al-Wahda street or buildings nearby"
 * We have
 * "The IDF stated,[265] it sought to destroy a suspected Hamas military command centre whose precise location was unknown. HRW states that no evidence has been given that tunnels or an underground centre existed in the area"
 * I know that 'tunnel' despite the fact that it is a normal military strategy to build them in asymmetric wars where ground and air superiority is overwhelming, dating in this area back to Bar Kochba and used by the Vietminh, is expected to have a magical ring, belling the meme that tunnel in the I/P conflict signals 'terrorist infrastructure'. I cited the original IDF comunique that it was aiming to strike a suspected command centre whose suspected location was so imprecise the bombing ran along a kilometer of road. I also added that HRW found no evidence of 'tunnels' or a military command centre in the rubbled craters. So tunnels are mentioned, and hammering the word is quite pointless, unless one desires to make some resonance about tunnels= 'terroristic infrastructure'.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Nishidani: Tunnels are mentioned, but not in the relevant context - namely that the IDF has said that they were targeting tunnels. More relevantly, the Israeli statement is mentioned in regard to the specific allegation in reliable sources such as the BBC, and even in sources that there is some concern (per Reliable sources/Perennial sources) of partisanship, such as Al Jazeera. With that said, I do recognize your point about resonance, as though I don't make the connection others might, so if you have a different word that would convey the same statement but without the possible resonances, I would be happy to use it. As such, I will hold off adding the statement until you've had a chance to get back to me. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't quite responded to what I wrote. The IDF stated according to HRW that they were targeting a 'military command centre', and then mention is made of tunnels, of underground  arms factories, and this and that to explain what they were doing in blasting with 1,000 kg bunker bombs along a kilometer of a central urban street. Since if you look at the time lines of statements, the words keep changing, it's best to stick to the generic term. What they said they were striking was putative 'underground military infrastructure'. (Bel Trew Israeli airstrikes wiped out the family of Gaza’s leading doctor. Only his teenage son survived The Independent  24 May 2021) That is textually correct, neutral. If one specifies tunnels, then one must add 'arms factories', 'military command centre' and all the other confusing additions the IDF added. Secondly HRW is a secondary superior source to immediate newspaper coverage. Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I edited your indentations in order to make the conversation clearer. Ah, I see your point. In any case, I am happy to go with "underground military infrastructure", and I've edited to that effect. I've also added Hamas' date-appropriate statement on the existence of such infrastructure in civilian areas, accompanied by the same context in the source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I split the three attacks focused on by HRW, the other attack may still go in the article somewhere. IDF claims in response to HRW claim there was "no evident military target" can go in as long as it is clearly attributed to the IDF.Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a comment on the proposed changes, but shouldn't the section be named "Allegations of war crimes"? Jr8825  •  Talk  11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. I don't know if doing this obvious edit gets me over the 1R rule, so if someone else could do it (I don't imagine this would be challenged), the page would be improved.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did already :)Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Undue report about decade of casualties
Under the casualties section, there is a paragraph about a "study that monitored 29,000 incidents from 123 countries". Firstly, the line "In 764 incidents of explosions, some 5,700 civilian casualties died" is misrepresented because the source states this is for all "casualties" and not "casualties died". In any case, the paragraph should be removed because it is undue and inappropriate to discuss a decade of casualties in the casualties section of a 2 week conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.7 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)