Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 10

Use of "hostages" in the lede - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (4)
Change "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants to the Gaza Strip" to "Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants and transported to the Gaza Strip" or to "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip".

The sentence is grammatically awkward in its current form, and the use of the term "hostages" to describe soldiers captured in combat is questionable in my view. Moreover, Wikipedia does not use this term to refer to Palestinians held in Israeli jails and prisons. More importantly, reliable sources are drawing the distinction:

Al Jazeera: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

Haaretz: According to Benn, "... Now this is first and foremost an attack against civilians, and for the first time we have dozens of military prisoners of war and civilians taken hostage in Gaza."

"... The dozens of hostages and prisoners of war are perceived as a powerful bargaining chip that could prevent a much longer campaign."

Forbes: Hamas Takes Israeli Soldiers, Civilians As Prisoners Of War

-- WillowCity (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I propose the following to avoid labels altogether, as, no matter how you phrase it, including both "prisoners of war" and "hostage" in the sentence makes it clunky:
 * "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, were captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip".
 * An example of a more clunky proposal which is more in the spirit of yours is:
 * Israeli soldiers and civilians had been captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip as prisoners of war and hostages, respectively.
 * Yue 🌙 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Both are better than my original suggestion. I like the former: tidy, factual, and neutral. WillowCity (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the proposal is. The captured soldiers are called "prisoners of war" and captured civilians are hostages. This is how sources describe them and there is nothing unclear or controversial here. Alaexis¿question? 07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree and think the change should be made posthaste. Someone has already changed the sentence without changing the reference to "hostages" (so clearly there is little interest in building a consensus based on reasoned argument), nor has anyone mounted a cogent defence of the term's use here.
 * I would also refer to the Guardian article cited at the end of the sentence described above, which reads:
 * An unknown number of Israelis have been taken captive by fighters, with unverified social media footage showing elderly people and a young woman with her hands tied inside Gaza. The IDF later confirmed both civilian and military hostages had been taken to Gaza, but did not give details.
 * So, from the article that is referenced, we have the IDF using the term "hostages" while the RS uses the term "captive". Something needs to change here. WillowCity (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with @WillowCity. Riposte97 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Riposte97!
 * The sentence just keeps getting worse and worse, not better. It now refers to "women and children", adding further ambiguity: female IDF soldiers are prisoners of war; female civilians are not.
 * Can someone please just make this change? I'm trying to restore WP:NPOV but clearly people would rather make discreet, polarizing changes without consensus rather than presenting a reasoned argument about why soldiers captured in combat should not be called prisoners of war. WillowCity (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reasoned arguments would fall under WP:NOR, or WP:SYNTH or something. You'll need to find a "reliable source" explicitly making the same argument as you.
 * Of course, that's neither necessary nor sufficient. What you really need is to convince someone with enough power who can then make whatever changes he or she wishes. The WP:NPOV thing is just a fig leaf. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, thanks for saying it out loud lol. I don't see how what I'm doing is original research or synthesis; the Haaretz article I cited above draws the distinction for us ("The dozens of hostages and prisoners of war..."). But again, this is clearly a matter of optics, not the correct or fair or obvious application of WP policies. WillowCity (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's incongruous to refer to captured soldiers as 'hostages', as the article currently does. I think we have consensus for the change, and the sources seem to support the distinction. Would you care to insert one of your suggested sentences, @Yue? Riposte97 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Yue 🌙 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not be removing the fact of women and children being taken hostage from the lede, as it's one of the most salient aspects of this event as mentioned in RS. Andre🚐 03:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of detail for the lede, and the sentence already links to an article about the captive civilians. Also raises questions about NPOV to elaborate on the identities of Israeli civilians in the intro without doing the same for Palestinian civilians (such as the women and children of Gaza), who are also specifically referred to in RS (Reuters, ABC, Sky News). As it stands, the lede doesn't even specifically mention Palestinian civilian casualties, just civilian casualties generally. Imprisoning civilians without trial (whether by blockading them in an open air prison or kidnapping them) is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention in any case. So the change is unnecessary. Should be reverted to Yue's version. WillowCity (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur that @Yue's version is preferable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing hostages from the lead misses several aspects. 1) the animating reason for the siege. 2) by all means add the retaliation by Israeli troops. 3) This is the major aspect all RS mention on both sides. Andre🚐 05:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yue perhaps you might also considering changing "abducted" and "hostage" in the infobox, for the reasons set out above?
 * So, under "Status", instead of "Approximately 200 Israeli and foreign hostages taken by Palestinian militants", something like "[#] Israeli and foreign nationals captured by ..." or some other, more neutral synonym for "capture" ("seized", "taken captive").
 * And under "casualties and losses", instead of "200+ abducted" (a figure which I note is based not on any English language source, but on a Ynet article in Hebrew), something like "[#] taken captive".
 * Better still, I think both of the above should also be disambiguated to the extent possible based on reliable sources. If we absolutely must describe soldiers and civilians the same way, we should at least do so in neutral language.
 * As the above revision was accepted, I think the infobox should be changed quickly while discussion (if any) unfolds here.
 * More sources for the "hostage/POW" distinction (although NPOV supersedes RS):
 * CNN (quoting an IDF spokesperson); Al Jazeera ("a yet unknown number of prisoners and hostages, believed to be over 100, including foreign nationals"); WaPo ("The actual number of people taken hostage and soldiers taken prisoner ..."). WillowCity (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:SPADE Andre🚐 17:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not according to CNN, Forbes, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, the Washington Post, and IDF Brig. Gen. Daniel Hagari. WillowCity (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mischaracterization and original WP:SYNTH of the sources. Andre🚐 17:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * uh, I don't see what I'm synthesizing or mischaracterizing... I'm saying that we should refer to captive soldiers and civilians separately, and citing articles that refer to captive soldiers and civilians separately. "Synthesis" would be questioning the source's characterization based on an uncited personal opinion (see your comment above for a good example). WillowCity (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't question any source. Most sources use the term "hostage," so it wouldn't be removed. You came up with some logic based on sentence construction. Andre🚐 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You questioned the sources when you said that they were not "calling a spade a spade". The sources say what they say, no miracle of interpretation can turn a bare recitation of a source into synthesis. And regardless, WP:NPOV is clear: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines [i.e., RS], nor by editor consensus." Emphasis in original. All due respect, of course. WillowCity (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the sources are fine; I am saying the article needs to call them hostages. Of course NPOV is non-negotiable. It's perfectly NPOV to say Hamas took a bunch of innocent Israeli teenagers and grandmothers hostage. Andre🚐 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, specifying that they have grandchildren is very neutral and encyclopedic. Again, my objection is not to describing civilian captives as hostages, it's the failure to describe POWs as POWs. So, unless the IDF has child soldiers I haven't heard about, you're setting fire to a strawman. WillowCity (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we agree on "prisoners and hostages" as the wording (versus simple "captives")... anything else we need to discuss? I wasn't implying "grandmothers," was the term to use. Andre🚐 17:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. We have different views of what neutrality means in this context, but I assume it is what we both want. WillowCity (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources which make the distinction can't be used to support proposals that makes no distinction, like describing everyone as "captured". Al Jazeera's wording ("prisoners and hostages") works. DFlhb (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, fair enough. WillowCity (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that works for me. Andre🚐 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, to recap, we landed on something like this:
 * Under "Status", instead of "Approximately 200 Israeli and foreign hostages taken by Palestinian militants", something like "[#] Israeli and foreign nationals taken hostage or captured by ...."
 * And under "casualties and losses", instead of "200+ hostages", something like "[#] hostages and POWs [or, prisoners of war]".
 * The 200 figure also seems inflated, based on RS. More recent reporting by RS indicates somewhere in the range of 100-150; unfortunately, there is little disambiguation between soldiers and civilians.
 * Refs: Politico, citing NYT ("some 150 Israelis were seized by Hamas militants"); WP ("evidence suggests ... at least 64"); CBC ("more than 100 ... as many as 150").
 * (and by the way, the WaPo article cited here and above does use the term "captive" as a catch-all; so, per DFlhb, there is in fact "support [for] proposals that make no distinction". I'm not opposed to sticking with our compromise in the interim, but I wouldn't want to close the door on this in case others want to weigh in.) WillowCity (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

War crimes
This revert restores material that does not mention war crimes and the edit summary given is OR (editors opinion that these are war crimes). Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This material is well-sourced and describes actions that are internationally recognized as being war crimes. The material was removed by an editor whose explanation for the removal is OR (their opinion that it is not a war crime). parqs (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not my opinion, it's just not in the source, the source has to say it's a war crime or attribute someone as saying it is a war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated the section with a new sentence that contains sources for the events described in the paragraph as being described as war crimes, negating any OR concerns. parqs (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what parqs added might be WP:SYNTH that goes like this:
 * Palestinians are accused of raping Israeli women.
 * Rape is a war crime.
 * Therefore Palestinians committed war crimes.
 * Such an analysis needs to come from an RS (preferably an RS which is a recognized legal expert).VR talk 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated the section with RS. parqs (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced war crimes text
This edit restores content I removed because it fails verification in the cited source. The sources do not allege war crimes by Israel in the current war. This needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Quote from the first source: “We are deeply alarmed by the mounting civilian death tolls in Gaza, Israel and the occupied West Bank and urgently call on all parties to the conflict to abide by international law and make every effort to avoid further civilian bloodshed. Under international humanitarian law all sides in a conflict have a clear obligation to protect the lives of civilians caught up in the hostilities,” said Agnès Callamard Amnesty International’s Secretary General. “Deliberately targeting civilians, carrying out disproportionate attacks, and indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians are war crimes. Israel has a horrific track record of committing war crimes with impunity in previous wars on Gaza. Palestinian armed groups from Gaza, must refrain from targeting civilians and using indiscriminate weapons, as they have done in the past, and most intensively in this event, acts amounting to war crimes.”
 * The second source, the article from The Guardian was, referring to this statement from the UN. It also refers to actions on both sides as war crimes, pointing out the indiscriminate killing of civilians (both sides), as well as Israel's announcement of a complete siege of Gaza (collective punishment).  entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  07:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes. One must have several strong RS saying that a specific event X was a war crime, not just some generic statements about "sides" and respecting civilians. At least some events in this section do not fit such criterion I think. They should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be the case if the article used wiki voice to say event X was in fact a war crime. In the edit @SPECIFICO linked, the article said Amnesty International characterized the actions of both groups as war crimes, which was exactly what was in the supplied links. Looking at it again, the article didn't mention the UN statement at that point (though it provided a link). Perhaps it would have been safer for the original writer to say Amnesty International urged both sides to avoid indiscriminately killing civilians. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  16:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * is correct. The cited source gives a general statement about past events concerning Israel. Juxtaposing that unsourced insinuation that current war crimes are documented with the as yet unconfirmed or unrealized threat of "total siege" is absolutely unacceptable article text -- per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH and per WP:BLP telling our readers that a specific individual is responsible for war crimes. This text - in fact the entrire Israel subsection as currently written - needs to be removed from the article page. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The original edit you referenced was in the lede. Are you now discussing the War Crimes section? entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement (that presumably this edit evolved into) currently in the lede is "Human Rights Watch condemned both Hamas's and Israel's conduct as war crimes." It is followed by two sources. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per human rights watch:
 * "Palestinian armed group’s apparent deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and taking of civilians as hostages amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law. Israeli authorities’ cutting off electricity to Gaza and other punitive measures against Gaza’s civilian population would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime."
 * That's from a reference used after the statement in the lede. It makes sense to have it as there is an entire section on war crimes. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I must ask: Are you fluent in English? Do you underestand that "would amount to" is conditional and does not make any statement as to fact or events that have been verified? You keep citing this conditional statement as if it were a statement of a fact concerning an event. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep your comments WP:CIVIL. The War Crimes section of the article attributes the statement, and does not assert the fact of the war crime in wiki voice. The lede, last I checked, states: "There were widespread deaths of civilians and allegations of war crimes." entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  20:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The irony. Do you understand "respectfully"? The lead does not say war crimes by Israel. Time to drop the stick, I think. See WP:LISTEN.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO whilst the sourced statement is conditional in nature, I still consider it important context, considering that the apprehended action was in fact carried out. Israel has imposed a total blockade. This is already in the article at multiple points. I think there are good grounds for keeping the quote suggested by @Entropyandvodka, with attribution. Riposte97 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying "respectfully" before a disrespectful remark doesn't make it respectful. Keep it civil.
 * Regarding your recent edit, it's extremely POV. You've omitted the statement from the Palestinian UN envoy, while leaving the statement from the Israeli UN envoy up in the preceding section. Both are sourced by Reuters, and relevant statements.
 * You also removed that NPR explicitly stated Gaza was under siege. You may disagree that a siege is taking place, but it isn't up to you to make that evaluation, it's up to RS, multiple of which explicitly stated so.
 * Further, you removed the attributed statements of B'Tselem, sourced directly and sourced via Al-Jazeera, which discussed both the bombing and siege. Moreover, these were written as attributed statements, not statements of fact in Wiki voice adjudicating whether a war crime occurred.
 * You seem to be actively trying to minimize anything added to the section under Israel. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  01:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of "hostage" in the lede
Further up, I posted an edit request.

I do not want to belabour the point or be impatient, but I think the language should be changed to be more encyclopedic, to match RS, and for internal consistency with other Wikipedia articles about armed conflicts (e.g. the article about the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine describes military captives as prisoners of war, not as hostages).

Is this the appropriate forum to raise the issue and establish consensus regarding a change? I am still learning the ropes here on WP so apologies if I am out of line -- WillowCity (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the appropriate forum. I gave my own proposal on the matter, and while I have the ability to make the change, I will not without further input from others as this is a contentious subject. I want to hear any concerns that may be raised by your opposition. <span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">Yue 🌙 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the non-military hostages? They are not prisoners of war. SigTif (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They're unarmed civilian hostages, so, no. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 06:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence lumps together unarmed civilians and armed IDF combatants "so, no." That's literally my entire objection lol. WillowCity (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This sentence?
 * "Israeli civilians and soldiers were also captured and taken to the Gaza Strip, including unarmed civilian hostages such as women and children."
 * It seems to make the distinction. Perhaps the term captive could be used when they need to be referred to collectively. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  04:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference between a captive and a hostage is that holding a soldier captive as a prisoner of war is one thing, whereas kidnapping innocent young non-combatants and holding them hostage in exchange for other prisoner releases is another thing which shouldn't be elided or eliminated from the lead. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First, don't apologize for anything We all have to start somewhere. While I see the point about the Ukraine conflict, that's a conflict between two formal nations with a regular army. the POWs are soldiers that are engaged in the conflict. Hamas is considered a terrorist group by RS; that, combined with the majority detained being civilians, causes me to lean more towards the hostage language.
 * That being said, I think it would be reasonable to separate hostages (civilians) and POWs (IDF Soldiers). Better yet, just state "captured X civilians and Y soldiers" - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 17:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add a statement about the ranking as a terrorist attack
The last discussion on this matter was closed prematurely. The death toll from the initial attack is up to 2,700 now when combining the 1,200 killed in Israel plus the 1,500 militants killed in Israel. There are plenty of sources that describe it as a terrorist attack and I feel like this article does not do justice in portraying the historical significance of this event. List of battles and other violent events by death toll already lists this as the 2nd deadliest after 9/11. Why is a statement relevant to this not being included in the article? Undescribed (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Undescribed This page is protected accordingly, yet sadly it seems like or those who can edit do not pay enough attention to the discussions, or somebody is politically editing this Wikiepdia article.
 * Truly a sad sight.
 * Wikipedia, as an informational website, MUST include statements about the terrorist atrocities Hamas has done, while staying netural to the war as much as it can. There is no perfect, but this is outrageous.
 * It's as if 9/11 wasn't a terror attack, but a declared war.
 * Only unreliable, extreme, insane, terrorist-supporting sources that claim 9/11 is justified. That any murder is justified. Then why isn't the truth being shown in this mass-murder, kidnapping, torture, videos of terrorists happy of killing children in front of their families, and promising to rape their daughters.
 * Wikipedia MUST show the truth.
 * We have opened enough discussions, and talked about this small fact.
 * Please. Add a sentence to the initial invasion being a terrorist attack. And not "militias" or anything. This is a terror attack. Nothing else. רם אבני (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @רם אבני Unfortunately we live in a world where propaganda runs rampant and sadly Wikipedia is becoming filled more and more with propaganda and "fake news" due to the political sources that it relies on. Pretty soon people won't know what historical events did or didn't happen, because we are all being lied to constantly by the mainstream media. What a disgrace it is really. There is a source RIGHT HERE: https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/india/hamas-vs-israel-former-international-media-advisor-to-president-of-israel-speaks-to-times-network-video-104344079 that states that "The October 7th massacre is now the 2nd deadliest terror attack in world history, after 9/11". But I guarentee you that if I put in the article it will still be removed. What can we do here? Undescribed (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source you provided is from the times of ISRAEL. That source is and will always be biased; Also the same way you view palestinians as terrorists, they view the Israelis the same way  Abo Yemen ✉  17:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an Indian source I never heard of. Anyway the clue is in the url "former-international-media-advisor-to-president-of-israel-speaks-to-times-network-video-104344079" :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So what would be considered a "non-biased source" then? It is still baffling to me how 9/11 is considered a terrorist attack but not this. It seems to me that no matter what source we give, the few editors on here who like to "run the show" will just claim that anything that they don't agree with is "biased" and warrants removal. As stated before, multiple sources call this terrorism, including eastern sources. I mean, they're cutting civilians heads off, if thats not considered terrorism then I don't know what is. Undescribed (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 911 was reported as terrorist across the board and AQ is classed terrorist at the UN. Do the math. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Hamas is also considered a terrorist organization by the US, EU, UK, and many others. Not sure why that is less relevant than the UN. Do the math. Undescribed (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-biased sources on Wikipedia typically include left-leaning Western news publications, hindu bashing Indian sources, and qatar mouthpiece Al Jazeera etc. Given your experience editing Wikipedia, I assume you're already aware of this. Occasionally, significant events may prompt these sources to publish information that aligns with the content we aim to include on Wikipedia, although they may still reflect their own biases. In such cases, we must patiently await relevant content from these publications that can be used as reliable sources Observer1989 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense lol The left leaning sources are generally the least reliable of all. Why specifically left is more accurate? And is the patronizing really necessary here? "Given your experience editing Wikipedia, I assume you're already aware of this". The majority of countries still consider Hamas a terrorist organization Undescribed (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * hey man i am with you on this.i dont approve how things are done in wikipedia .its just we have to adhere to the policies and wikipedia reliable sources otherewise some opportunist pro palestine admin will block you for some madeup reason. Observer1989 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is why I really hate Wikipedia sometimes. Often I wish I didn't invest so many years of my life working on improving it. You work so hard on it and provide reliable sources and people revert all your hard work just like that. Wikipedia has become propaganda central. Undescribed (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * remember the words of Larry sanger Observer1989 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * what about the 150+ countries that do not consider them as such?  Abo Yemen ✉  18:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which 150 countries are you talking about exactly? There are over 82 countries (by now probably more) who called the attack done by Hamas a 'terrorist attack'. I'm not talking about journalists, I am talking official statements of countries. Most of the countries by now who support it are also countries who are fed by terrorist organizations. Also do you consider the EU as 1 country? דוב (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * also see WP:RSPSOURCES for the official list of reliable sources according to wikipedia  Abo Yemen ✉  18:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many of those sources have decided this as a terrorist attack. Why is there no consistency on Wikipedia? List of battles and other violent events by death toll lists this as the 2nd deadliest with multiple sources so why can't it be stated in the article? Undescribed (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * many editors here are busy even removing grave act of sexual violence against women performed by hamas terrorists reported by numerous sources from different countries.what makes you think they will agree to list hamas as terrorist organisation. only exception might be if un also designates them.it will only happen if USA requets UN and i highly doubt biden government will ever do that.their vote bank will vanish. Observer1989 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * why does it HAVE to be the UN that calls them terrorist? Why are they the final say? Undescribed (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * because i guess terrorist for someone is freedom fighter for another..lol. The United Nations officially represents all nations, although its credibility is often questioned. Nevertheless, we have no other choice. It doesn't matter what brutal acts a particular group has performed, as many people, a significant portion of the global population, justify these actions based on their political or religious beliefs Observer1989 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i mean just look at the profile of most editors and their religious affiliations who are against calling them terrorists and removing brutual acts of hamas.they proudly flaunt their religion. you dont even need any source for that.just eyes and brain. you wont find a single editor with that religious affiliation calling them terrorist. so let it be. Observer1989 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * and yet it's still listed as #2 in List of battles and other violent events by death toll. Zero consistency Undescribed (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There it is also listed as islamic terrorism not just terrorism, which is accurate.try doing that here.i would say its a matter of time some fanatic admin/editor notices it and starts a talk page there to change it.this is cuurently a hot and highly viewed page so everyone is busy whitewashing here for now. Observer1989 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * that's even worse  Abo Yemen ✉  18:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is always some sense of urgency, isn't there? Wikipedia "must" do nothing. It is beholden to no-one. Edward-Woodrow  •  talk  19:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These are fringe and controversial allegations. You cant just throw around the "terror" label casually just because some government and political organization claims so. MOS:TERROR
 * IDF bombing of UN-run schools which killed children, 11 UN aid workers, staff members & school teachers, would qualify as actual terrorist attacks. These attacks has to be mentioned in the page as part of the strategy of state terror and indiscriminate bombing advocated by Netanyahu regime. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM (and I hope others heed that advice too). DFlhb (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As Hamas indiscriminately massacred civilians, even if Wikipedia doesn't want to classify them as a "terrorist organization", surely the attacks were an attack of terrorism. Anyone to call the bombing of a music festival "irregular warfare" would obviously be using a euphemism. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The thing is that Wikipedia only says what reliable sources have said; we aren't the arbiter of what constitutes terrorism, which is a heavy label to sling around. See MOS:TERRORISM. Edward-Woodrow  •  talk  19:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but, if such actions don't constitute terrorism, then I'm not entirely sure as to what does. I mean, the whole turnaround for half of the Left, here, has been that they were clearly acts of excessive terror.  People might still say that Hamas is not, in nature, a terrorist organization, but the acts are just obviously constitutive of terrorism.  I mean, half of the news is calling this Israel's "9/11 moment".  It's definitely terrorism.
 * Being said, I feel like some kind of view from somewhere could be invoked, here, as, even if Wikipedia ostensibly just pieces together information from reliable sources, the editors still choose how that information is put together. There's an element of subjectivity that, though you can aspire to write an article from an Archimedean Point, and it may noble to do so, is just simply inescapable.
 * Even encyclopedic entries include, at least, some form of this kind of argumentation. So, there's good reason to debate what terrorism is and whether or not Hamas's actions are constitutive of it because the entry has no real way to avoid there being some interpretation of the events which have occurred.
 * Effectively, there's, at the very least, a tacit form of historical analysis to even entries such as these, and, so, calling or not calling Hamas a "terrorist organization" is still an informal argument either way. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems like the standard protocol is use the term, "militant", which I'm fine with, since every article would otherwise be bound up in the debate over what is or is not terrorism, but the acts, in themselves, were acts of terrorism, which, if the term is to have any meaning at all, should just be obvious. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems all are agreed that MOS:TERRORISM should be adhered to. This page is not a forum for discussion of the events, nor to debate Wikipedia's policies. Riposte97 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but, in so far that a policy is invoked in re not editing the article, and the policies are decided upon by the Wikipedia community, it can be relevant to discuss the policies without merely blindly referring to them.
 * I mean, the editors of Wikipedia can also edit its manual of style.
 * I'm not sure that substituting "militant" for "terrorist" isn't also rhetorical, but I'm moreso conceding the point that every article that involves such an organization will just be edited ad addendum in so far that it is not in place. So, it's not the spirit of the law that I agree with, but just the effect of its letter.
 * Strictly speaking, Wikipedia should come up with an adequate definition of terrorism, but, seeing that not even the best of scholars have really done so, I'm just agreeing to sidestep that issue. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Edward-Woodrow The following sentence in the article is not supported by its 3 references, as it conflates the policies of news agencies like BBC with individual opinions: "Many critics refused and have refused to refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, naming it instead as a militant freedom fighter group or simply a militant group." Editorial policies against the use of certain terms do not constitute "criticism" of any political designations of terrorism, and "freedom fighter" is an opinionated term that must be attributed to specific individuals. If we go down the road of citing critics calling Hamas "freedom fighters", then I will insist that we must also mention everyone calling Hamas "terrorists" in order to avoid false balance, aka bothsideism. Readers should know the true balance of opinions on whether Hamas are considered terrorists or freedom fighters. Again, that is an IF we go down that road. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't so much as talking about that particular edit as I was raising the question as to whether Wikipedia shouldn't "call a spade a spade", as they say, and call the acts acts of terrorism.
 * Regardless as what the policy states, its obvious effect is to call organizations often categorized as terrorist cells "militant" organizations. You can see this from Al-Qaeda to Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari and from the Kurdistan Workers' Party to the Red Army Faction.  It's ubiquitous on Wikipedia, regardless as to religious or political affiliation, from the far-left to the far-right.
 * Militancy is connotative of disciplined devotion to some cause or another. It, notably, does not necessarily entail what would commonly be considered as "terrorism", for instance, in that a worker on strike can be considered as "militant".
 * Militancy doesn't carry with it any political baggage, but the utilization of political violence in cases that can not be categorized as self-defense, which is my working definition of terrorism, though I have yet to come up with an adequate definition for "self-defense", not that my own theories are all that relevant, just simply does. It just simply isn't the same sort of thing as an act of sabotage that does not involve a threat, civil disobedience, or various forms of strike.  In short, it does, in important ways, radically differ from other acts of protest.
 * So, though I'm in favor of just remaining in keeping with the informal protocol since it'd just be a quagmire otherwise, I do think that "militant" is ultimately euphemistic, though not necessarily intentionally. It's kind of what I'd call an "operative euphemism", or one that is implied by a system.
 * I'm not sure that bothsideism is always to the point. For instance, the extant Turkish government denies the Armenian Genocide.  I don't think that the inclusion of the Turkish denial would be relevant to how the article is structured, only that it is relevant to note that they do deny it.  What I mean is that you aren't really obliged to consider that the genocide either never took place or that it could be justified by that the Armenians posed an "existential threat" to the Ottoman Empire, just merely that you should note that those are their claims.
 * In the case of Hamas, it could be relevant to point out that some Palestinian rights activists, for instance, do reject that they are a terrorist organization and do see them as militants, or even freedom fighters. I think that that may be relevant to the article on Hamas, in regards to how they are perceived in other parts of the world, however, and not per se in this article.
 * That's kind of a long schbeal. I don't know.  I'm just kind of intellectually fascinated by the dilemma that, I, at least, perceive for this to pose, I guess. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to defend the relevance of this, though I don't really know, since I haven't been here for very long, debates concerning the status of Hamas may have precisely been how there came to be the informal protocol of referring to organizations that would commonly be categorized as "terrorist" as "militant". There's probably an editor somewhere on here to say, "full circle", y'know? Daydreamdays2 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with WP:SPADE that this surprise attack is going to be described as an act of terrorism and Wikipedia should as well. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See, I knew there'd be other rules to refer to.
 * Given the social, political, and legal quagmire of classifying organizations with "terrorist", something that is just bound to end up in endless edit wars, I've kind of adopted another approach, one that mentions that non-state actors, such as these, at least, in some sense, participate within political violence, of which there is an article on, or, at the very least, somehow linking to political violence within the article, for instance, in the see also section. This, I think, should go for state actors as well.  In general, I guess, somehow it ought to be indicated that these organizations participate within political violence, which is distinct from mere militancy.
 * Anyways, though, I think that acts in themselves can and should be categorized as acts of terrorism where warranted, which, in this case, I think, it is quite obvious that it would.
 * Basically, I'm thinking that a linkage to the article on political violence should be standard form when dealing with these kind of organizations, but that acts can readily be categorized as acts of terrorism when apt. This is a pretty clear cut case in that it would be apt. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, SPADE is just an essay, not a rule. Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch is the reason why it wouldn't be defacto terrorism unless we have a pretty strong source record saying that is the best descriptor (which i think we do) Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I'm relatively new to editing, and, so, I don't quite know what all of the labels and whathaveyou refer to.
 * Being new, it's a bit absurd for me to be coming up with guidelines, but what I'm more or less proposing is something like, "terrorism is a tactic", and that "acts of political violence that can not be justified in self-defense can be categorized as acts of terrorism".
 * That might have to someone be better hashed out, as well as I don't even know where to bring this up, but that's the basic idea, anyways. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Death timelines
The following (in the table below) was removed from the article. See diff. Edit summary: "this article is about the war, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at large. why is that even relevant here?"

As if the huge difference in the number of deaths preceding the war is not relevant to this war. Most of the Palestinian deaths are civilian deaths. And most are in Gaza. I think this should be in the "Background" section of the article. Or another background section of the article farther down. Maybe "More background. Deaths preceding the war". Or maybe in "Analysis" section.

There are various articles mentioning these numbers in relation to this war. For instance: --Timeshifter (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://thewire.in/world/chart-6407-palestinians-and-308-israelis-killed-in-violence-in-last-15-years - it has a chart too.
 * https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinian-civilians-suffer-israel-hamas-crossfire-death-toll/story?id=103828889 - EXCERPT: According to the United Nations, roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis had been killed in the ongoing conflict since 2008, not counting the recent fatalities. ... According to the United Nations, 81% of the population in Gaza lives in poverty with food insecurity plaguing 63% of Gaza citizens. The poverty rate is 46.6%, and access to clean water and electricity remains inaccessible at "crisis" levels, the agency states. END of EXCERPT.


 * As per above, the term "occupied" as applied to Gaza is very much disputed, and fails WP:NPOV. ElleTheBelle 06:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, this should be in the article. This new Gaza-crisis is the worst we've ever had since 2008. More israelis died since saturday (writing on the 11.10.23) than in the previous years since 2008 COMBINED. This is an absolute necessary aspect to know to just understand the scale of this war, and why there has been such big international and national reactions. This is not just another escelation with just missles and airstrikes inside gaza and inside israel, this is a full-scale war with hamas terrorists and fighters entering israeli territory while israel is pounding Gaza like never before. This is a important war that we are currently witnessing, not just another flare up in a long conflict.
 * Thanks for the Data and for pointing this out. Poles Ragge (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this would be detrimental. Text allows us to follow sources and contextualize things the same way they do, in the same terms they do. These graphs are contextless, and, by giving raw data, fail to give salience to what sources find relevant. A brief glance at these graphs (which is all they'll get from most readers) could on the contrary give the impression that deaths are at historically-average levels, or even at a historic low given the 2014 spike. Pictures are not always worth a thousand words. DFlhb (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We can include both the graphics and the text, right?VR talk 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The text is clear; the graphs are not (as shown by the fact that text had to be added to them, in smaller font, to make up for their lack of clarity). DFlhb (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please use a common y-axis in both images. Or combine the bar graphs.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea.VR talk 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not create the bar charts. I copied them from here:
 * https://ochaopt.org/data/casualties under Commons:Template:PD-chart license.
 * I wouldn't know how to combine them. They are combined here:
 * https://thewire.in/world/chart-6407-palestinians-and-308-israelis-killed-in-violence-in-last-15-years
 * I, or anybody, could upload that under the same license. But it would later need someone to add the numbers above each column. That would be difficult unless some of the numbers were vertical. And that chart added some of the deaths for this war in 2023. I think it is better to keep the chart numbers to deaths before the war. Because then the chart wouldn't have to be frequently updated as the war goes on. And the numbers for this war are in the infobox at the top right of the article.
 * 4 out of 5 people in this thread want some kind of chart(s) added. Text alone is not as easy to understand as the charts. Can also add text. Wikipedia articles are better with more images and charts.
 * Charts don't have to be side by side. They could be one after another on the right side of the article.
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to combine the charts, but are we allowed to use this data? The UN site says:
 * "None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, ... in any form ... except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use ... without permission in writing from the publisher."
 * The Terms state:
 * "The [UN] grants permission to ... download and copy the information ... for the User's personal, non-commercial use, without any right to ... compile or create derivative works therefrom,..."
 * I've mostly avoided uploading images because I find the copyright limitations confusing, so I don't have a lot of experience with this. <span style="color:#0ac;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#00ffc3,#03f);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 03:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Charts are beyond the UN's control. See: Commons:Template:PD-chart. I have a lot of experience with this. The same is true for maps. See Commons:Template:PD-map. Follow the links on those 2 templates for more info.
 * A completely new chart would be better though than trying to hack that other chart. I like the 2 charts on the right side. They are already in the article. See this version of the article in the section called "Context of the Israeli occupation". The vertical scale is completely different between the two charts. Combining them makes for difficulties in seeing the columns for Israeli deaths. Adding the numbers to the columns is essential for a combined map. And there needs to be overall totals for Palestinians and Israelis. I don't think the chart should include the deaths for this war. For the reasons previously mentioned.
 * The references are listed in that version I linked to. And here:
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wanted to make 1 chart due to the scaling discrepancies mentioned, if I do I'll make sure numbers are on there for visibility. Agree should only include pre-war #s, also the date ranges should match for both charts. <span style="color:#0ac;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#00ffc3,#03f);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wanted to make 1 chart due to the scaling discrepancies mentioned, if I do I'll make sure numbers are on there for visibility. Agree should only include pre-war #s, also the date ranges should match for both charts. <span style="color:#0ac;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#00ffc3,#03f);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 12:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that these charts are needed in this article. The previous conflicts and casualties can and should be mentioned in the background section, but I don't see how these charts belong to this article. The starting point is arbitrary - why doesn't it start with 2001, 1988, 1967, 1948? Are there reliable sources go into this kind of detail when talking about the current conflict? Alaexis¿question? 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Survivor interviews provide claims of large-scale wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas."
Since when did we start adding the word "claim" to survivors accounts of witnessing sexual violence? We generally avoid that as it casts doubt on what the reliable source says. We have three sources for that sentence; there is no need to put the word claim there.

We report what reliable sources say; the sources do NOT say that the person "claimed" they witnessed sexual violence. If you have a reliable source disputing this, then you put that in there and state what the reliable source said. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a badly worded sentence in general; it should be reworded to Survivor interviews reported large-scale wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. I don't have extended edit protection so unfortunately I can't make the edit myself. As it is written currently it might as well just say "These people SAID they witnessed sexual violence, but there's no actual evidence". Chuckstablers (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've switched it over. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not consistent with policy to source a claim in Wikipedia's voice to "Israeli official confirms women were raped during Hamas attack". That an Israeli official made the claim needs to be in the body of the article if such a source is used. The Israeli Foreign Minister also claimed that Jewish toddlers were being put in cages and the video to which he was referring to has been debunked as not related to the subject of this article. The second source, the Times of Israel, not only does not support the claims of "survivor interviews" but contradicts it saying "testimonies are yet to be taken." It also contradicts the claim of systematic sexual violence saying a "pattern of sexual assault" has yet to be established. That leaves thejc.com which apparently did not interview anyone instead referring to interviewing by "the Tablet". Now Tablet DID publish rape allegations in a "saying it's been said" manner but even that was by the same Leil Leibowitz who publishes things on Tablet like how RFK Jr is a vaccine truth teller. How hard can it be to find a straightforward non-Israeli media source saying there was rape? Even just one confirmed case? NYT, WaPo, BBC? Nothing from sources like that? It's not like reliable sources like these have been shy about making clear statements about other atrocities such as massacres.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * We are saying that several sources have reported survivor accounts which reported sexual violence inflicted upon women by hamas. Not sure if this is even in the article, but see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive. It's been reported. We said it's been reported. We don't add "allegations" or "claims" when simply reporting what reliable sources say. We let readers make their own decisions on whether they believe or disbelieve the things being reported. We don't try to sway their views one way or another by adding terms like "claim", "alleged", or "allegations". If you have an issue with it, provide a reliable source that says the opposite.
 * "We go to hide in a bush, a big bush in the creek. And we was in the bush something like six or seven hours. A lot of terrorists go around us and search for people to kill. The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that." - according to PBS a survivor of the attack. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then use the PBS source. I have no objections to using PBS.  Note, however, things like the fact PBS states "Gunmen killed more than 250 people" in its own voice but the rapes allegation is attributed to a witness.  Wikipedia should not be stripping out the attribution to put both claims on the same level if PBS is not doing that.  PBS also reveals that the witness believes Gaza would be wiped off the map.  Readers can come to their own decisions about what to make of that instead of Wikipedia removing that potentially relevant material about the witness which PBS provides.  Finally, see WP:BURDEN where "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is in bold.  The person who challenges material is not obligated to disprove a claim (find sources claiming the opposite).  We don't publish rumours until proven otherwise.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ relevance?
I'm not sure I agree with the addition of text that points out that LGBTQ folks have more rights in Israel than Gaza. It is true, but what is the relevance of that to this article? VR talk 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this addition seems to fail the relevance test. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like scope creep - following the same segue as a side commentary is veering sharply away from the subject here and off on a tangent. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Relevant to the wider conversation outside of Wikipedia, but not the scope of this encyclopedia article. Also worth pointing out that the point being made by the added content is not that queer folk face more legal discrimination and punishment in Gaza than Israel, but that, specifically, some leftists are trying to reconcile their support for LGBTQ+ rights with their support for Palestinian self-determination and governance. Again, this is relevant to the broader discussion outside of Wikipedia, but this is getting into super niche territory. Are we going to add what different currents of the right think about this conflict too in terms of monetary support and funding from Western governments? <span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">Yue 🌙 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That section could focus on major political parties around the world, regarding if the event changed their stance on the topic. It could also have polling information from the general public (I think this would be considered unreliable, but for example there's a Fox poll out yesterday; perhaps we can expect more). Otherwise you may see such a build-up of tangentially related commentary. Though, the part about the "Sister Souljah moment" is at least related enough for me to think it's worth keeping in, as it kind of sets the most important information in a wider context. But even that isn't so important. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering how much discussion is happening right now and how many analyses are being produced, perhaps it would be sensible to split off an article titled "Analysis of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war"; there, all the less relevant but still connected opinion pieces could be covered, while the main article covers only the most important parts. Applodion (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Other people have argued here that the LGBT aspect is irrelevant. I am partial to agree that it's irrelevant. Furthermore, the current wording implies that because Israel has better (slash existing) support for LGBT rights, then somehow that merits being on the "Israeli side" of the war because it doesn't discuss both sides of the issue
 * For LGBTQ+ people in the region, there is no question that Israel is the only safe place for queer and trans people. Homosexuality is illegal in Gaza and forced marriage is common for lesbians and gay men...
 * The sentence comes from an article which references another article which focuses on how there are Palestinian-oriented LGBT centers in Israel, such as Aswat and Black Laundry, but then the Wikipedia page for such groups states that such groups are still anti-Occupation. One can easily then argue that the above quotation is thus Pinkwashing_(LGBT), especially because it doesn't discuss how the Palestinians themselves feel toward the issue of LGBT rights in Israel. It seems that more prominent non-Israeli LGBT voices in the Middle East align themselves on the Palestinian side of the conflict.
 * I think that if the LGBT paragraph stays, then it has to also incorporate the negative aspects of the issue. Specifically
 * a) that people however argue that discussing LGBT rights as part of the conflict is often labelled as pinkwashing away Israel's war crimes and occupation, and thus should not justify Israel's actions
 * b) although Israel has a positive LGBT record, that record has not significantly affected the attitudes of LGBT Arabs in the Middle East towards Israel because most still align themselves with the Palestinian cause or side of the war -- regardless of how Israel has better gay rights. Hovsepig (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP:COATRACKing, and it's usually not allowed. LGBT rights don't need to be mentioned in this article unless they become directly relevant. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree; it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the war. FunLater (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the below discussion, I propose that the entire section should be deleted. It has been renamed to 'Reaction among left-wing political parties in the Western World'. This discussion also ongoing here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the quote on that topic, but left reference in as it supports the previous statement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

'End of Western sympathy for the Palestinian government'
This section presents issues. Firstly, the Palestinian Authority is not a party to the conflict. Secondly, the claim that this war marks the 'end of Western sympathy' for Palestinians is an extreme reach. There is no way of gauging whether that is or will be the case. Finally, as noted above, the LGBTQ+ paragraph seems to be WP:UNDUE - it's essentially commentary on the political legitimacy of Israel. Riposte97 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Definitely appears to be pre-emptive analytical overreach, and inaccurate, as mentioned, given that the PA is not involved here, so what the 'government' being talked about here is extremely unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hamas is head of the government in the Gaza strip. So I guess the claim talks about gaza rather than Judea and Samaria. דוב (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it would be more accurate to say 'end if Western sympathy for Hamas', although I'm not aware of any large Western institution that formerly expressed support for Hamas. On the contrary, it is usually prescribed as a terrorist group. Riposte97 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That section has been renamed multiple times. It should just be about general global public opinion and political shifts in response to the event, not specific to people of any region. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)