Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 16

Adding Hamas' view to the "War crimes" section
Would it be ok to add the following "War crimes" section:

Hamas claimed it did not deliberately target civilians, and things "went out of control". Israeli sources said that survivor testimonies belie this claim.

VR talk 17:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Vice regent See MOS:CLAIM Parham wiki (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with the MOS:CLAIM comment, otherwise fine. Note also
 * https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-deputy-chief-lies-we-dont-target-civilians-we-only-attacked-idf/ – might be a better reference than the live blog. Andreas JN 466 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * VR, what is your reason for wanting to add that? Is this widely reported? SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason is WP:NPOV that we should report all significant views. This is just hot off the press, so news sources are only beginning to pick up on this.VR talk 19:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hot off the press is not the right time to publish such content. When there are multiple high quality sources covering such a statement, we should then consider whether it has due significance for the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a new talking point, and most reliable sources have been covering it as "Hamas refuses to admit it planned to kill civilians, or to show remorse"Economist, 10/10 – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The views of the involved parties obviously merit mention, and this is indeed widely covered.  nableezy  - 22:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (5)
Humanitarian efforts

In October 2023, the ICRC responded to the violent 2023 Israel-Hamas war that has killed thousands of civilians on both sides. The ICRC working closely with its alinged organisation has called the recent escalation of violence “abhorrent” and implored both sides to reduce the suffering of civilians. The ICRC is in constant contact with Hamas and Isreali officials to avoid further carnage. Fabrizio Carboni, regional director of the ICRC and ICRF for the Near and Middle East points at the impact of the war on residents of Gaza, who are now cut off from all food shipments, electricity and medical supplies, which particularly affects the functioning of local hospitals there. But he stresses that the taking of hostages is also prohibited under international humanitarian law. The ICRC as a neutral intermediary stands ready to conduct humanitarian visits and to facilitate communications between family members and hostages with the goal for their eventual release. At the same time, inhabitants of Gaza have to endure a lack of drinking water that was already problematic before the onset of the hostilities. The ICRC working closely with Red Crescent partners has a neutral, independent and exclusively humanitarian mandate during such escalations of violence in the Middle East and urges all parties to protect the lives of civilians, to reduce their suffering and protect their dignity. 2A02:AA14:C482:A980:3DA6:26E0:283D:B18F (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your request? Yue 🌙 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Analysis" section should be integrated in "Background"
The analysis section should be integrated to background. The Israeli intelligence failure, the context of the occupation, the Saudi-Israeli negotiations, Netanyahu's preoccupation with the judicial reform protests, are all suitable for the background.VR talk 20:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The sources cited and the content of that section discuss those topics after the beginning of this war. The only topic that really gives background information to the start of the war is the context of the Israeli occupation. Yue 🌙 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s a big difference between political commentary and what is happening so I disagree with this as it tends to push political narratives Bobisland (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Massacre removed from lead
I'm already at 1RR. But why was the massacre at the music festival removed from the lead? It's clearly notable enough for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * even the reference/source has been changed by someone. the citation used for the statement "At least 1,400 Israelis were killed" is  "Israel targets northern Gaza with barrage of air strikes" by middleeastmonitor.com like what? It should be reverted back.this source does not even talk about dead israelis seperately. what is going on here?Last RS clearly mentioned "massacre". This current source is not even RS. Codenamephoenix (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Um its in the lead? including 260 people who were massacred at a music festival.  nableezy  - 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023
The word "recently" should be removed from the sentence "... with Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed bin Salman recently stating ..." as per MOS:RECENTLY. Seffardim (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced statement in an image caption in War Crimes section
An image caption in the War Crimes section says:

It implies that Israel "intentionally" attacked the mosque in the photo. This is unsourced. Please add sources. See WP:UNSOURCED. Daffd2222 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed the second sentence due to WP:SYNTH concerns. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please review the whole article for more WP:SYNTH concerns. Bless you. Daffd2222 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the neutrality dispute regarding?
I can't find what it is related to since it has not been linked to a talk page discussion. Ecrusized (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yea, whoever added the tag has to specify reasons for adding the tag in a discussion here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor should answer this.  - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Replacement the Template:Systemic bias because it's up for deletion. A quick search through WhatLinksHere suggests that instances of this templates use which have a reason parameter would be better served by globalize or lack the basis in systemic bias to not just use NPOV. Thrakkx (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Old template stated In particular, there may be a strong bias in favor of anti-Israeli voices in the conflict. Thrakkx (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You were doing a functional replacement, whereas was the originator of the request. KlayCax, I'm afraid "Per an editor requesting this on talk," is not enough context. I searched this talk page for "neutrality" and could find nothing relevant. Unless you can elaborate, that note should be taken down. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this was referring to, by an SPA IP that gained no traction. I'd delete it but am up against 1RR. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed the NPOV dispute template, which was asserted without evidence or explanation. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed another one within the analysis section, for a fairly neutral subsection. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians Attack the Shalom Checkpoint.
I've heard of it in Iran International, About Dozens of Security Gaurds were killed by Hamas. Miniuristic (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added Kerem Shalom by name under the first day of the timeline. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Response in Palestine
The response in Palestine section cites an article dated October 7th, which is closed, for an event that, apparently, occurred on October 8th. Fatah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, etc., are also bound to have released some kind of statements on the attacks and subsequent war, which I do think it would be relevant to add to the article, as well as to just get some ground truth to the responses of what is happening in Palestine. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Fatah calls for an escalation of the conflict, but the Palestine Liberation Organization calls to end the conflict immediately. I'm guessing there's some sort of internal dispute there, since Fatah is a part of the PLO.  Just what I pulled up from a quick search:
 * https://www.jns.org/fatah-calls-on-the-palestinian-public-to-attack-israel/
 * https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/138095 Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also haven't been able to find where Mahmoud Abbas states that Palestinians have the right to defend themselves on the WAFA website, though I'm not claiming that it wasn't said. More recently, Abbas has stated, in conversation with the King of Jordan, "We reject the practices of killing civilians or abusing them on both sides because they contravene morals, religion and international law", and "We renounce violence and adhere to international legitimacy, peaceful popular resistance, and political action as a path to achieving our national goals", at least, according to the WAFA website, which you can find here: https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/138185. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Background on prisoners
I added a section on Palestinian prisoners, that includes the number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, Hamas statement that they abducted Israelis so they could exchange them, and Hamas' previous abduction of Gilad Shalit and the subsequent prisoner exchange. Most of the sources I used mention these facts in their own reporting of this conflict. Is there any issues with covering this in the background? VR talk 21:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Noticing this claim by Hamas on the page is fine, but it does not mean we should include such large sub-section in "Background" . As written, this sounds like a justification of the hostage-taking by Hamas. When the actual process of prisoner exchange will begin, we can include such info in the section about prisoners exchange . In brief, this is hardly relevant in that section and therefore reads as anti-Israel propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * THEY Justified. Its the point (or one off) for crossing the strip to do so. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think that by making such large irrelevant subsection in this place, we make the point that the vengeance/hostage taking by Hamas was just. To be clear, this info is well-sourced. It just should not be in that section right now. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not for us to OR. That is what the actors in the situation literally said and sourced by him above. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I just said above, this is not OR. This is merely an irrelevant information, clearly placed to paint Israel in a negative light. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * we can't exclude information from a page simply because it "paint Israel in a negative light" as wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We similarly wouldn't exclude any information that painted the Palestinians in a bad light. We state the facts.VR talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is information on Palestinian prisoners in Israel relevant? Yes, as various RS have covered Palestinian prisoners in the context of this conflict:
 * Al Jazeera: "Four in 10 Palestinian men spend time in Israel jails. Hamas says it wants to exchange captured Israelis for them."
 * CBC News: "[Islamic Jihad] said hostages would not be released until all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are freed, referring to Israel's detention of over 1,200 prisoners, mostly Palestinians, without charges."
 * The Economist: "Before October 7th Hamas held just two Israeli captives, plus the bodies of two soldiers killed during the 2014 war. Now it has scores of them, both alive and dead. Addameer, a Palestinian ngo, estimates 5,200 Palestinian prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, including more than 1,200 in so-called “administrative detention”—held without charge."
 * Washington Post: "Hamas already has said it seeks the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails — some 4,500 detainees, according to Israeli rights group B’Tselem — in exchange for the Israeli captives. The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has. Israel sees them as terrorists, but Palestinians view detainees as heroes."
 * BBC News: "Such incursions would give ample opportunity to capture Israeli officers and soldiers...According to the latest report by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, there were 4,499 Palestinians in prison on what Israel defined as “security” grounds in June. That number included 183 from the Gaza Strip. Several hundred more are being held for illegally being inside Israel."
 * Reuters: "The Palestinian Prisoners Association puts the number held in Israeli jails at about 5,250. If Israel agreed to releasing all of them, it would be a huge win for Hamas and other militant groups..."
 * Al-Ahram: (published on 9 october) "Since 1967, Israel has detained approximately one million Palestinians in the occupied territories, including tens of thousands of children. Currently, there are 5,000 Palestinians incarcerated in Israeli prisons. Among them, 160 children and around 1,100 detainees are held without charge or trial, according to a UN report."
 * NY Times "Thousands of Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons, many of them convicted of security offenses or involvement in terrorism. Muhammad Deif, the leader of Hamas’s military wing, cited the detention of thousands of Palestinian militants in Israeli jails as one of the reasons for Saturday’s assault."
 * Middle East Eye: "In Palestine, the fate of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel is also an important issue, increasingly so under the most far-right government in Israel's history. Over the past year, Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has sought to clamp down on the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. From limiting family visits to moving dozens of Palestinians to Nafha prison, widely considered to be one of the most notorious in the country, Ben Gvir has adopted a policy of making the lives of Palestinian prisoners incrementally more difficult. There are around 5,200 political prisoners in Israeli jails, including more than 1,264 administrative detainees, according to Palestinian rights group Addameer. Under Israel's discriminatory system, Palestinians tried in military courts have a conviction rate of 99.7 percent, while Israelis are very rarely convicted over attacks on Palestinians. About a quarter of Palestinian prisoners are held without charge or trial in a controversial practice known as "administrative detention"."
 * ABC News: "[ Mustafa Barghouti said 'Hamas is ready to release all the civilians, all the women in exchange for releasing 40 Palestinian women who are in Israeli prisons. I think it will be time to release the 5,300 Palestinians who are in Israeli prisons, including some who have been there for 44 years' "

So I think its fair to say that the issue of Palestinian prisoners is relevant to this topic.VR talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've also added the Israeli POV to that section. I had previously not done that, that was my mistake. I've added that many of the prisoners were convicted of terrorism in Israeli courts and that while Palestinians view some of the prisoners as heroes, Israelis view them as terrorists.VR talk 15:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, this info is sourced, exactly as I said above. This is not an issue. And yes, painting Israel in a highly negative light (it seems we both agree about it) is not a reason for removal. The reason for removal is different: such info (whole big subsection) is hardly relevant for the Background. This page is about Israel-Hamas conflict and Gaza. The included text is about some generic Palestinian prisoners, not Hamas members (that would be more relevant). In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion. Such info can be provided in a relevant section about prisoners exchange (if there will be one), not as a part of the general Background about this conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion." Shouldn't all major aspects of the invasion be discussed?
 * "The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly?" The connection is that Hamas took prisoners as bargaining chips in a possible prisoner exchange. Whether that prisoner exchange happens or not is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that 100+ Israelis have already been abducted for a particular goal.
 * Except for that last sentence (which we can drop if you like), all the other sentences are about events that happened before the invasion, hence appropriate for "background".
 * But the most important thing is that dozens of RS treat this information as relevant background to the war. So I don't understand why you're going against them?VR talk 00:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, I saw you moved the content to "Palestinian reaction" section. This really isn't the right place at all, as of the above 10 RS I quoted, only 1 is based on Palestinian sources. And none of this is a "reaction" given that its covering events preceding the war.VR talk 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Going through the sources listed here, adding some lines about the prisoners, as the bargaining chips would be a development. I prefer the text to be the source voice, not solely what Hamas states. -- M h hossein   talk 05:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just tried to follow the edits. @MVBW: the added portion is certainly not a reaction, as your edit implies. They are portrayed as a background by the utilized sources. Is there any substantiated objection against inclusion of this introductory text? -- M h hossein   talk 06:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The text includes the following: Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners. This is an important part of it because it connects the entire text to the subject of the page. But this is not Background. This is a claim/reaction by Hamas made after the attack . Therefore, I object including this to Background section. Some other sections - I am not sure. Yes, if it fits context. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But I already accepted that Hamas' reaction should be in the Reactions section, but the rest of the text should be in the Background section. Consider that Washington Post [points out that "The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has." This is referring to a long-term trend in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not just a reaction to the current events.
 * Secondly, roots of a conflict are always put in the background. Consider Six-Day War or 2014 Gaza War (which mentions the prisoner issue, albeit to a much lesser extent since no Israelis were captured by Hamas during that war).VR talk 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between the article in WaPo and this page. The article in WaPo is written on a different subject: the hostages. If this WP page was about hostages, then yes, such background info would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is completely pro-palestine
This article clearly states the Hamas on the good side, while limits the horrific actions it did to babies and women, entire families were wiped away, burned in their house. Instead this article focuses on the safety of the Palestine people from April. Wake up! Hamas kidnapped kids and threatened to kill hostages. Hamas burned down houses to get civilians out of it and kill them. Look at the tragedy at kibbutz be'eri, the whole place smells like death! 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:C088:4426:FBA6:11B2 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What? Do you want me to go post here a picture of a beheaded baby? I pretty sure you are not allowed to do that. 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:8437:EE5:FB03:6FC9 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. You criticize the article for being partial, but you won't point out what sentences or claims are supposed to be partial? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Please add a picture of a dead baby by Hamas. Source: the daily telegraph (British newspaper) 2A0D:6FC2:4110:6700:244C:BF4:C802:D26E (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If the photo is under a compatible license, feel free to request an edit here to add it. However, most photos on news sites (like the telegraph) are copyrighted, which is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * that was a fake news and has now been debunked, you can now please shut the eff up and sit the eff down. It’s good it was never part of this article to begin with. 2001:14BB:AB:3B33:F980:F6C2:8B34:99DD (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean debunked by a 4chan post and a very inaccurate AI detection website? Many journalist, the US president, and Israeli authorities all talked about it so I think mention of it does belong in this article 1992HondaCivic (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This article, and all other Wikipedia articles, should not be written to identify good and bad sides. Familiarize yourself with Neutral point of view. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  02:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet this all article completely lack's of WP:NPOV and tries to justify a massacre with infinite examples of euphemism like civilians being "captured" and not "kidnapped", and being "captives" and not "hostages". Hamas terrorists being called "militants" (even after 82 countries recognized them as terrorists). dov (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like what you're saying is that the article isn't 'neutral' because it doesn't embody your PoV. These are not euphemisms; they are the most neutral term to describe a situation with great moral complexity and must be understood within a profoundly complicated historical context. Jamesiepoo88 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Captured was used because civilians and soldiers were both taken. Hostages is generally used for civilians, while prisoner of war is generally used for soldiers. Captured and captive are the most neutral terms to describe both. Regarding the use of terrorist, read Manual of Style/Words to watch. Note that terms like "freedom fighters" are also to be avoided. In what ways do you feel the article is justifying a massacre? Do you have specific examples you can point to? entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These people arent milatants or soldiers. Hamas is a recognized terror organization in many countries.  Call them what they are ffs.  TeRRoRiSTS.  Damn libs and arabs ruining the world 2600:1017:A00A:722:1558:DD7C:A4FE:D4E7 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Damn libs and arabs ruining the world" Okay buddy, you clearly have extreme bias and should not be giving your opinion on a website focused on neutrality. Nohjmich17 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good sir, you clearly have extreme bias. Wikipedia is focused on providing factical information, without bias, and if you consider this to be a sign of "Damn libs and arabs ruling the world", no one forces you to use the website. RealNuclearFish (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean he's right this isn't neutral. It is very biased in favor of Palestine. Just saying. 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide concrete examples? Blanket statements about the article as a whole won't lead to increased neutrality in the article. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, can you back up your statement that this article "clearly states that Hamas is on the good side"? And what evidence have you concerning the "actions it did to babies"? For are you not aware that - as reported by CNN and other news outlets - even the US President is now back-tracking on claims to have seen the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get too caught up in the way the IP OP expressed their concern. The substance needs to be addresssed. Look at the "war crimes" section: A few lines about the Hamas attack and everything it encompassed - with crimes evident on their face, beyond any doubt. Then the article has many times more text of speculation about Israeli actions, most of which have not yet occurred or may not fit the definition of "war crime" or are inaccurately described. Then lots of speculation, general condemnations of crimes, and uncontextualized claims about the actions of the Israelis. And the section is replete with quotations and opinions of self-styled watchdogs of no particular distinction, one of which boasts that it's a "youth run" Norwegian outfit in Switzerland. OK. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats nonsense. You have Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'tselem all cited in that section. Those are not "self-styled watchdogs of no particular distinction", those are reliable sources on the topic of human rights and international law, and they are cited for making explicit accusations of war crimes against Israel. You can try to pretend that your framing of that section is accurate here as you couldnt get your way in the section above, but I wont play along with that fantasy.  nableezy  - 20:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "That's nonsense"? Nothing more focused to say? Note the difference between Amnesty International, whose words are measured and widely respected, and the random POV's of a dozen lesser outfits, including various UN monickers. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Various UN monickers? You mean the High Commissioner for Human Rights? I said considerably more than that's nonsense, I then explained why it is nonsense.  nableezy  - 20:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean the same organization that put Saudi Arabia in its human rights whatever arbitration committee? 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats the Human Rights Council. The High Commissioner on Human Rights is head of the Human Rights Office and is appointed by the Secretary General and approved by the General Assembly.  nableezy  - 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you’re using certain sources or bodies like human rights commission and amnesty international to add value and moral judgment to your argument then you cannot cherry pick like that.
 * if a given human rights body is served as a citation to term something as “war crime”, in another article while criticising Saudi Arabia you cannot find alternative sources to make a point.
 * this is extremely biased and wrong approach for a platform such as Wikipedia. You cannot sell some specific narrative or view by changing the goal posts whenever and however you want, depending upon your own biases. 2001:14BB:AB:3B33:F980:F6C2:8B34:99DD (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on war crime perpetrators
Is this sentence in the lede an accurate reflection of the body that mentions how rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes (MOS:LEDE: Lede is a summary of the body)?

"Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as amounting to warcrimes." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment "The United nations and human rights groups have...." might be better? (Amnesty, HRW and B'tselem afaik) Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. "The United nations and human rights groups have...." reads better. Regards,  ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this or a similar revision. The current statement is "There were widespread deaths of civilians, and many allegations of war crimes." This is vague, and an inadequate summary of the issue. Readers ought to know who is accusing whom. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  15:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise agree with Selfstudier, would be a better summary of the section we have as well. Though I would change the wording of "amounting to", thats more for other crimes in international law, war crimes are generally about specific actions (targeting civilians, indiscriminate attacks, collective punishment), the sentence I would use would be something like The United Nations and human rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict.  nableezy  - 14:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide the sources supporting this? For example, HRW's statement appears to support the proposed wording in regards to Hamas but not Israel - about Hamas it says amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law, but about Israel it says would amount to unlawful collective punishment, which is a war crime. In other words, for Hamas it talks about plural war crimes in the past tense, but about Israel it talks about a singular war crime in the future tense; a singular war crime that it says if Israel continues down its path of besieging Gaza will occur, but hasn't yet. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * HRW has said Israel has already committed war crimes, eg here, as has the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, saying “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said. ... “This amounts to collective punishment,” the UN experts said. “There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.” <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I think your link for the second source is wrong though, but based on the quote I believe this is the right link.
 * I'd be hesitant to go with plural for Israel - the white phosphorous allegation doesn't appear to have been made by the UN, and reliable sources reporting on it don't give it the same credence as they do other allegations - but singular is appropriate on the basis of the siege. I'm not sure what the best wording for this would be? BilledMammal (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Several reliable sources have reported on the usage of white phosphorous munitions, eg Washington Post. Oops, sorry about the link, too many open tabs. There are also statements by UN officials, eg the High Commissioner on Human Rights (see here), and the Special Procedures link covers both the indiscriminate attacks and the collective punishment of the over a decade long blockade, both being war crimes. So plural works for all parts of that sentence in my view. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article was actually one of the ones I was looking at when I said the reliable sources reporting on it don't give it the same credence as they do other allegations; for example, rather than saying Israel has used white phosphorous, it tones it down and says they are alleged to have used it.
 * Looking at the Reuters article, I'm not seeing allegations of plural war crimes; just the singular allegation in regards to the siege. The same with the special procedures link; in regards to Hamas it says:
 * While in regards to Israel it says:
 * Hamas it talks in the plural; heinous violations of international law and international crimes. Israel, however, it talks in the singular; a war crime. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence is about accusations by the UN and by human rights groups, and you are misreading the UN statement. This amounts to a war crime is about the blockade. The other war crime is the indiscriminate attacks. And then later, intentional starvation is a crime against humanity. There are also later statements by special rapporteurs that the order evacuate northern Gaza is also a war crime (source). And you seem to be ignoring the statements by the Human Rights Office as well. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you clarify what you are referring to with the statements by the Human Rights Office?
 * My understanding is that "This amounts to collective punishment" and "amounts to a war crime" applies to the entire paragraph “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said.
 * Intentional starvation would be a second crime, but fortunately it hasn't gone to that extent yet and I hope and believe Israel will relent before it does; the sources discuss this in terms of a future possibility: Such actions will precipitate a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where its population is now at inescapable risk of starvation. Intentional starvation is a crime against humanity,” the experts said.
 * However, there is a bigger issue with that proposed sentence, for both Hamas and Israel, that I've only seen now with additional information from the most recent source you provided: UN special rapporteurs are unpaid, independent figures mandated by the Human Rights Council. They do not speak for the UN but report their findings to it. At the moment, we only have sources saying that UN special rapporteurs that either party has committed war crimes; we don't have the UN saying it in its own voice. We need a source that does that.
 * Assuming that a U.N. -appointed Commission of Inquiry speaks in the UN's voice then the Reuters source comes close, but doesn't quite do what we need for the proposed sentence as it only says "clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed" by all sides to the conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Re Human Rights Office, its covered here and here (among other places). Türk heads the UN Human Rights Office as High Commissioner for Human Rights. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did put this article in at one point but someone removed it, it is a biased source but green at RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "What the Israeli government is now doing, however, is replying to war crimes with war crimes."
 * "It’s collective punishment, and these tactics are war crimes"
 * https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2023/10/12 FunLater (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , though I have edited the article before Support any wording along the lines of "The United Nations and human rights groups have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as amounting to war crimes." As for UN comments on Israel, note UN press release: --Andreas  JN 466 17:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No where does it say that the UN accused Israel of war crimes. Read the article, they are "UN indepedent experts". The UN then goes on to define what an independent expert is by emphasizing that they are not UN staff. The UN created a distinction in their article because they felt that it was important. Wiki should respect that distinction in its article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with modified wording per above. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose in lead, okay with in body - Implies that the "both" view is overwhelmingly predominant. Each organization's views should instead be given in the body of the article. KlayCax (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's not a present consensus on the matter that Israel actually is committing war crimes, unlike Hamas. Although simply listing "Hamas" in the lead also gives a particular tinge of bias, imo. I recommend leaving both out for WP: NPOV views. KlayCax (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The suggested wording also strongly implies that groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad haven't been accused of war crimes. KlayCax (talk) KlayCax (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposed wording only seeks to describe the views published by the United Nations and human rights organisations. It does not make a blanket statement in Wikipedia's own voice. So the question before us is merely whether the views are correctly described (I think they are), and whether the views of the UN and of human rights organisations on Israel's and Hamas's conduct (PIJ aren't mentioned at all in the lead section) are due a mention in the lead (I think they are). Andreas JN 466 18:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the denotation. It's the connotation. It implies that there is a consensus among human rights organization that both sides have committed war crimes. The Economist says that this isn't the predominant viewpoint: It's a question of WP: Weight in the article.
 * Of course — there's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict background — so the obvious WP: NPOV choice would to be to simply leave the term as "war crimes" while explaining what that means in the section for it. The sentence implies to me that human rights organizations have a generally singular view of each actor's conduct during the war. There's multiple reliable sources that contradict this notion. KlayCax (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Economist gives that as one persons view, Aurel Sari. Not as a fact nor even as something they themselves are saying. It also does not change that the UN and a number of human rights organizations have indeed said both sides have committed war crimes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but promoting one view over another is a WP: Weight question, as there's no current obvious consensus.
 * I'd be okay with wording such as: . Does that work? KlayCax (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there anybody saying the UN and these human rights groups have not accused the parties of war crimes? If not there is no weight issue in that sentence. If we were to say as a statement of fact war crimes occurred then there is a weight question, and then you may have a point. But there is no view that conflicts with the sentence the United Nations and several human rights organizations have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but it privileges their viewpoint over others, which is why it would be a WP: Weight issue. would be totally in line with WP: Weight and WP: NPOV. Since it doesn't: 1.) Imply a common consensus on which committed war crimes 2.) Reflects the body 3.) Doesn't exclude other Palestinian militant groups. 05:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there anybody saying the UN and these human rights groups have not accused the parties of war crimes? If not there is no weight issue in that sentence. If we were to say as a statement of fact war crimes occurred then there is a weight question, and then you may have a point. But there is no view that conflicts with the sentence the United Nations and several human rights organizations have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but it privileges their viewpoint over others, which is why it would be a WP: Weight issue. would be totally in line with WP: Weight and WP: NPOV. Since it doesn't: 1.) Imply a common consensus on which committed war crimes 2.) Reflects the body 3.) Doesn't exclude other Palestinian militant groups. 05:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as per Andreas. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the start of this discussion, the sentence has been changed multiple times, most recently by me (from a different, vague version apparently reached without consensus). This was partly out of confusing this discussion with another discussion about the same line, started by the same editor, and the other discussion appearing relatively inactive at the time, without the concern having been addressed and agreement there at that point in time. This wasn't an attempt to bypass consensus here, just a product of highly similar discussions happening concurrently on the same subject and not noticing the expansion of another one. Another user in third separate discussion about this pointed out that the allegations aren't just against Hamas and Israel, but other militant groups. If we have RS making that distinction as well and it's discussed in the body, perhaps the "final" version of the line could reflect that too. entropyandvodka &#124;  talk  00:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Entropyandvodka Your change was reverted by User:KlayCax. It seems to me that revert was against current talk page consensus. I have therefore reinserted the reference to Hamas and Israel both having been accused of war crimes by the UN and human rights orgs in the lead, using the wording proposed by User:Nableezy above. (Klay, note that if you revert me as well in the next 20 hours or so, you will be in breach of the 1RR restriction that applies to this article.) For reference, the current wording in the lead after further edits by others is Regards, Andreas  JN 466 08:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I think people should familiarize themselves with what the UN source says. It's located here. Notably the UN does not accuse Israel of war crimes in this, but rather UN Independent Experts do. What's the difference? Well according to the article: "The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organisation and serve in their individual capacity." The UN goes to great lenghts to highlight that these are independent workers, calling them as such multiple times. They are affiliated with the UN but they also do not work for the UN. If the UN wanted to accuse Israel they would have. The UN in their own paper has taken the effort to distringuish themselves from their independent experts, Wiki should follow the UN's lead and respect their decision. To say that "The UN Says Israel Committed War Crimes" is strongly misrepresenting what the source says.Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alcibiades979 Thanks. I don't think that it was a strong misrepresentation, given that these independent experts are part of the UN's process, and the UN publishes the views of these experts in its press releases, but I agree that saying "United Nations independent experts" has improved precision. Andreas JN 466 08:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This phrasing seems to reflect the general current consensus. As long as the line says who is accusing, what they are being accused of, and who is being accused, there shouldn't be any issue. The vague "and many allegations of war crimes" wasn't an accurate summary, and raised NPOV concerns. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  09:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Compromise suggestion

I think there's an overwhelming consensus among editors that war crimes allegations should be included in the lead.

How does everyone feel about changing it from:

""

to:

""

That's my proposal. The sentence is neutral, correctly states that all sides have been accused of war crimes, and does not present WP: Weight issues by disproportionately highlighting a implying (non-existent) present consensus among scholars of international law on the matter. Does this wording satisfy everyone? KlayCax (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is near the point of meaninglessness. I also dont quite get the PIJ bit, nor the idea that there is a present consensus among scholars of international law. The proposed sentence does not say PIJ did not commit any war crimes, but they arent the major player in this conflict. The sentence also does not make a statement of fact which could mean a consensus among scholars, it merely relays what the UN and various human rights groups have said. None of the things you say are implied are implied in my reading of the proposed sentence. So no, I disagree with this and find it mealy mouthed and begs the question allegations from who? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Then "all" could be added to it: . I would be happy with that.
 * Why should their views be prioritized over others? No one's suggesting removal in the body.
 * I'm bringing up PIJ because the current wording implies that they haven't been accused of war crimes. Couldn't "all" work? That seems like the most reasonable wording to me. The other has connotation problems. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont see how, it makes no comment on it and beyond that where are the accusations against them anyway? Why would we prioritize the UN statements and the human rights groups? Because sources have prioritized them, compare how many sources have discussed HRW or the UN Human Rights Office or the Special Rapporteurs (lots), compared to Aurel Sari's view (one). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, et al. have all faced criticism of their own, and there's notable dissents from their opinion.
 * Aurel Sari isn't the only one with similar contentions, even within the article quoted. not a newspaper. We can wait for a consensus to emerge. KlayCax (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again it would be a wording issue; "all participants in the war" can mean literally every combatant on both sides of the war. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  09:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nableezy here. The fact is that the UN independent experts and the human rights orgs have singled out Israel and Hamas and their views are very widely reported. Andreas JN 466 08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. DFlhb (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, with the wording currently in the article (UN independent experts and human rights groups accusing both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict), per the discussions on sourcing above DFlhb (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Such statement equates Hamas and Israel. Sources do not do it, even such as UN, if one reads entire publications, instead of citing out of context. My very best wishes (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is untrue, and anybody who reads any of the reports will see that is just a flat out mistruth. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To begin with something, they are not equal because it was Hamas who attacked Israel, i.e. started the war. No one denies this fact. Using an obvious analogy here, it does matter a lot that Russia invade Ukraine, rather than vice verse, hence the Legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is all personal opinion, personal opinion that ignores that Gaza has been under Israeli occupation since 1967, and under blockade since 2007. Yes, lots of sources deny the idea that Hamas started anything. But it is all personal opinion, and as such completely irrelevant on a Wikipedia talk page. Please use sources instead of providing us with your own novel analysis. Your earlier comment, that the sources do not give the same view on war crimes for both sides here, remains a falsehood. You can see proof of the lie at for example at this headline Experts say Hamas and Israel are committing war crimes in their fight. See how it says both of them are committing war crimes? What part is being cited out of context in for example the Special Procedures statement saying that they deplore the violations of international law by both Hamas and Israel? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * lots of sources deny the idea that Hamas started anything. Which sources are you talking about? Certainly not thee source you just provided . It does say that Hamas was guilty of intentionally targeting and killing Israeli civilians during the massacres. It then describes opinions and denials with regard to Israel actions, and they are clearly different from the actions by Hamas militants. They maybe "better" or "worse", depending on someone's view, but they are definitely not the same - according to RS you cited and others. That is they are not equal. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think anybody is denying that Hamas attacked Israel and killed scores of civilians. But a number of sources put that in the context of the ongoing siege of Gaza over the last nearly two decades. The source I provided was showing that rights groups are saying that both of them are committing war crimes. That was two different points, one replying to your personal opinion, one replying to repeated false statements. What the source says, despite your inaccurate portrayal of it, is Experts say the blockade, which is hitting the territory’s more than 2 million residents, violates international law. “Collective punishment is a war crime. Israel is doing that by cutting electricity, water, food, blocking aid from entering the Gaza Strip,” Shakir said. and The International Committee of the Red Cross said the order to leave along with the siege “are not compatible with international humanitarian law.” Jan Egeland, secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, also called the order illegal. It is “not an evacuation opportunity, it’s an order to relocate. Under humanitarian law, it’s called forcible transfer of populations, and it’s a war crime,” he said. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support "The United Nations and human rights groups have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as amounting to war crimes." or similar, the simplest and most straightforward representation of the sources.Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sources need to be added to the sentence that ends with a number of human rights groups have accused both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict, ideally links to statements from the human rights groups making these accusations. A few appropriate sources to add there would be the UN independent expert link and the HRW link that specifically says What the Israeli government is now doing, however, is replying to war crimes with war crimes, their emphasis. Also, Amnesty International has stated The collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population amounts to a war crime – it is cruel and inhumane. Also, intriguing articles are to be found by doing a web search for "human rights groups critical of israel" including an article from John Hopkins University reminding us The rules, known as international humanitarian law, are designed to limit harm to non-combatants in war; they are distinct from the law regarding the legitimacy of going to war. Ender  and  Peter  19:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added re the UN experts link. There were previously sources after this sentence but they may have been deleted in an contentious edit and not restored with the sentence. Since the statement currently reads "a number of human rights organizations", we should supply a source that says that explicitly. I think we have several already, but am open to discussion about which is most appropriate. Linking the major ones, HRW, Amnesty International, would also be appropriate in addition. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  19:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)