Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 18

NPOV problems with article
There's recently been sweeping, massive changes to the wording to the article that are either: 1.) Inaccurate 2.) Presents significant NPOV problems related to statements on Israel.

Overwhelmingly, the claims are based on:


 * The Al-Jazeera network, which is funded by the government of Qatar, a known de facto ally to Hamas.
 * The United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a few others, many of which have longstanding claims of bias against them surrounding this topic, but are being reported as establishing a supposed consensus.
 * And Francesca Albanese. (Social media here.)

All of which have been disputed by many notable international scholars of law. Yet these claims by them are now being written into the article as indisputable fact.

To start off with, the lead now reads:

""

Instead of:

""

Without good reason. The first sentence implies a significant amount of excessive weight to the UN Human Rights Council + several organizations beyond due weight. (For the reasons explained above.)

Furthermore, this sentence:

""

Is both a violation of WP: OR and completely inaccurate. The Economist isn't American. It's British. There's also non-Western sources that claim the same.

The "War Crimes" section has similarly grown out of control.

Presently, there are:


 * 504 words on the Palestinian militants committing alleged war crimes
 * 1030 words on Israel committing alleged war crimes (1462 words if you include the other section.)

Meaning that the section on Israel is anywhere between 2.2x and 3x as long as that of the Palestinian militants. That seems like an egregious WP: Weight issue in the article. (Whatever one's view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole)

Two bar charts showing "Palestinian" and "Israeli" deaths have also been placed in the "context of the Israeli occupation" section. There's also multiple problems with the images section. (Both bias for and against Israel.)


 * Firstly, the heights are inconsistent. It looks like there's more deaths for Israelis than Palestinians despite this not being the case.
 * Secondly, the reasons for the deaths are never explained. (e.g. One could argue that the situation is asymmetric; Hamas could see it as a radicalizing factor for Palestinians, Israel doesn't want its civilians killed.)

The heavy reliance on the UN Human Rights Council and the Qatari Al-Jazeera presents significant problems for the article's neutrality, which has rapidly declined in the past two days. KlayCax (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, al-Jazeera cant be used because Qatar is a supporter of Hamas? So then can any Israeli paper be used? Can any US paper be used? Please see WP:RSP for what the community thinks of al-Jazeera as a reliable source, ditto for Amnesty International and if you want to raise HRW there Im sure that will garner the same response. As far as war crimes, the sources have discussed the crimes by Hamas on October 7 and the rocket firing since, but they have also focused on the Israeli war crimes since, including the usage of starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure and so on. That you feel that Hamas is morally more repugnant than Israel is fine, but that does not change the balance of weight in coverage on each set of war crimes. But this al-Jazeera is Qatari so cant be used is absurd, and if it were to be carried out with any consistency at all we would be left with using sources from basically Rwanda and thats it. NPOV does not mean adopting the POV you think is right, it means including all significant views.  nableezy  - 15:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Al-Jazeera is backed by the Qatari government. While they have much to be lauded for their work in reporting on issues, conflicts, and politics in the Middle East over the decades, they do have an obvious bias against Israel, and of course their backing by the Qatari government (which is pro-Palestine i believe but not sure about the Hamas ally claim) raises some concerns about the reliability and neutrality in some of their reporting. I agree that perhaps the article needs a decrease in reliance on Al-Jazeera sources, or at the least a disclaimer noting possible biases Al-Jazeera could have in its reporting.
 * Not saying we can’t use Al-Jazeera as a source at all, but that we should be less reliant on it and aware of it as a neutral source of information on the conflict AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the Times of Israel or Jerusalem Post? You think they arent pro-Israel?  nableezy  - 00:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel aren’t government-owned or backed from my understanding, and i don’t know what you consider to be and not be pro-israel. From the articles i’ve read from these two papers over the years, they seem to provide surprisingly fair and accurate coverage on issues relating to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. I’m sure they have biases, likely pro-Israel, but from what i’ve read and remember, they aren’t militant or dogmatic about it.
 * You seem to not understand the issue i and the OP had regarding Al-Jazeera. I am presuming the OP mentioned Al-Jazeera due to the quite well-known fact it is affiliated with the Qatar government, which is going to affect their reporting in some form or fashion, whether majorly or minimally. It has nothing to do with the nationality of the news org in question, but everything to do with their links to governments that may or may not be opposed to Israel.
 * If you have any evidence or sources to hint at the Jerusalem Post or Times of Israel actually being government-affiliated or more unreliable than i believed, feel free to respond to me with the links! AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What you personally find isnt really relevant, and the idea that the Jerusalem Post is not militant or dogmatic is one that does not register for me. But likewise that isnt relevant. Al-Jazeera has been repeatedly found to be reliable at RSN, it has a stellar reputation internationally and is cited over and over by other sources. But because it gets funding from Qatar it is disqualified, but papers from a country that is actually engaged in armed conflict are just totally fine and unbiased? Do you seriously think that Israeli papers are unbiased in their reporting on Hamas or Israel? All sources have biases, NPOV does not mean deciding what POV is "neutral", it means including all significant views. People may not like certain views, but that does not make them less significant. You are proposing to effectively remove one of the few Arab-based sources used in this article. God knows nobody is going through any actual Arabic sources to use.  nableezy  - 03:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes being funded by the Qatari government does call into the question of the reliability of one’s reporting yes, especially when you’re receiving funding from a Government that has some stake in the conflict. Now yes there is more to Al-Jazeera’s bias then just “government funding”, for one its basically the consensus from the part of the world it is from that Israel is a bad actor, and then of course that mixed in with them simply just reporting on some of the bad actions Israel takes.
 * To get back on track, i am not suggesting Al-Jazeera be removed or “disqualified” as a source for this article for its affiliations, simply that it not be so relied upon or at least its funding made origins made clear when sourcing it, for reader transparency. Again, think you are misunderstanding and not fully reading what i am saying, and in fact you repeat things about Al-Jazeera i have already affirmed, such as its reputation. I think if you reread my posts in a more neutral and good faith way, you’ll see i am not saying the things you think i am saying. AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Al-Jazeera has a "stellar reputation" internationally. It's more of a case of having a crazy amount of funding from the Qatari government, which buys a lot of influence.  Not too long ago Al-Jazeera sent one of its reporters straight into an military operation with Israel.  In the most recent Gaza war, Al-Jazeera had Hamas weapons underneath its Gazan headquarters.  In any case, there is a huge difference between a government-funded news agency (i.e. propaganda outfit) and an independent news agency that happens to be located in a specific country.
 * On this point, I see a circular issue that finds its way into Wikipedia. You take a government like Qatar, for example, who is closely allied with Iran.  They fund a huge international news outlet, for example, Al-Jazeera.  You take NGOs who are similarly funded and just happen to overlook human rights abuses from those countries (for example -- Iran).  Then you get activists on Wikipedia to utilize those outlets as sources and essentially launder propaganda. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you all are making arguments fundamentally at odds with both our consensus on the usability of al-Jazeera and our understanding of NPOV. You are deciding that if something is allied with a state you dislike then they may not be used. This is not a Zionist project, allies of Israel are not the only citable sources. They are of course citable, as are Israeli sources. But the idea that we are going to disregard an entire section of the world because you dislike them is a non-starter.  nableezy  - 16:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is sad to see that you continue to purposely misrepresent and misconstrue my and others arguments. No one is saying nor cares about the nationality of media outlets, the problem is that they are affiliated with governments that support one side or the other. As such, it is important to put more skepticism and criticism into some of their reporting. I would say the same thing if this article primarily relied on the Stars and Stripes (the US military’s media arm) or CBC, or any other government-funded western media outlet, and of course any Israeli state-media outlets. However this article does not rely on state-funded western sources, it relies in part on Al-Jazeera. No one is saying that we should only use western media outlets, or at the least, i am not advocating that. What i am advocating is the use of a wide-array of sources from not only the middle east (Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya), but also the WSJ, NYT, BBC, Daily Telegraph, and of course the ToI and JP. All of these sources will have biases of some kind, but they will help paint a much more neutral and accurate portrayal and understanding of events. AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol the BBC is state funded. Israel also provides funding, and other political favors, to Israeli-based news media. As far as what you are advocating, we already are using all of those sources, so shrug I guess.  nableezy  - 20:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue to focus on that might be the most productive here is what specific points are being established by the use of Al-Jazeera, are they being stated inappropriately in Wikivoice, and are the specific claims an NPOV concern given a possible bias. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  19:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * al-jazeera is fully owned(not even partially) by qatar- a direct open supporter of palestinian cause a country that provide shelter to hamas leaders and has direct stakes in this war.al jazeera is as pro muslim as opindia is anti muslim(which is not even owned or funded by any government(atleast officialy).It should not even be considered as a RS for this topic. Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate for your position, it is indeed considered reliable for this topic.  nableezy  - 20:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the whole debate is about why it shouldnt be.fortunate or unfortunate, my position is irrelevant. i gave my inputs that why it shouldnt be. ill wait for others give their input and discuss it. if majority here concludes it is totaly reliable then so be it, ill accept. i wont comment on anyones talk page out of frustration. Codenamephoenix (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, thats already been settled. See WP:RSP.  nableezy  - 21:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the consensus is that any source is totally reliable or totally without bias. There's probably no such thing, even in articles about math and physics. The consensus is to focus on verifiable facts. If you believe there are specific points in the article in which Al-Jazeera is not a reliable source, it would be more productive to focus on those specific points. Do you have specific lines in the article that you believe are problematic, currently sourced to Al-Jazeera?
 * And by the way, stating that Al-Jazeera is "pro muslim" as a means of discrediting them as a source is not going to hold water. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article currently does feature the BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, The Economist, CBS, Foreign Policy, The New York Post, The Washington Institute (Pro-Israel American think tank by the way), The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Intercept, Jewish Currents (based in New York), The Atlantic, NPR, CNN, Newsweek, The Associated Press, Business Insider, Reuters, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Independent, among others.
 * All of those sources are based in the United States or UK. The article is by no means deficient of the types of sources you are advocating for, in addition to sources from the Middle East and other parts of the world. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  21:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Everybody that criticizes Israel is routinely accused of bias (along with antisemitism, typically) by Israel and its supporters. Sorry, I am not impressed with that sort of argument. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as without good reason for the war crime sentence, the good reason is that your position on how the sentence should read has been rejected by basically everybody on this talk page. Not liking consensus does not mean that consensus is invalid, sorry.  nableezy  - 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't treat it equally. It devotes ~500 words to alleged war crimes of Hamas and ~1500 words to alleged war crimes of Israel.
 * This is well-known. And, no. I think government-funded news agencies should generally be excluded in which there's cases of a conflict of interest.
 * With due weight, yes.
 * Which is excluded if only one interpretation of the situation in the lead is accepted. Others have called it a false equivalence. Note that "there have been widespread allegations of war crimes committed by all participants in the war" is no means whitewashing any of the actors within the conflict. KlayCax (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think word count is necessarily a good metric in this way. It might be, supposing that both sides had been accused of one similar war crime, but then the article used triple the length to describe it in the case of one side. That isn't the case in this article. Hamas has two main war crime accusations: the indiscriminate killing of civilians, and the taking of civilians as hostages. Israel has four: the indiscriminate killing of civilians in bombings, attacks on civilian infrastructure, collective punishment vis a vis preventing electricity, food, water, aid from entering Gaza, and the use of white phosphorus in a populated area.
 * If length of description needed to be exactly equal in total, the article would need to describe the allegations against Israel using half the words per crime, as there are double the number of allegations. Wouldn't that be pretty sketchy in NPOV terms? entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To compare the weight given to the alleged use of a munition that has a legitimate military use, is not automatically a war crime, and that israel denies and the mass murder of dozens of civilians in a clear and blatant war crime.
 * "Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International's Crisis Evidence Lab have reported that Israeli military units striking in Gaza and Lebanon have employed white phosphorus artillery rounds; Israel denied the report. Capable of creating intense heat at around 815 °C (1,500 °F), white phosphorus munitions can burn people down to the bone, and international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."
 * We have this great emphasis on the brutality of white phosphorous, how it "burns people down to the bone". We have as much text being dedicated to describing how "international law" (which based on the weight that brings you'd ASSUME that almost every country has signed/ratified it, which is not the case) PROHIBITS it's use. We go into great detail on, essentially, why it would be SUPER SUPER BAD if Israel did this. You'd even think it was an automatic warcrime to even use it at all after hearing about how it "burns people down to the bone".
 * "During their initial incursion Palestinian groups targeted civilians, shooting at civilian cars as they moved through Israel, and then upon reaching their targets carried out massacres; at the Re'im music festival they killed over 260 civilians, while at Be'eri and Kfar Aza they killed at least 112 and 73 respectively. The victims included babies and children, and the many were immolated, dismembered, and beheaded. Videos released on social media, primary by Hamas, documented torture, sexual violence, violence towards children, and molestation of bodies."
 * Then we get to this. Why don't we have the SPECIFIC references to why "targeting civilians is PROHIBITED under international law by such and such". We just have a very matter of fact, dry statement of the many many crimes against humanity that have been committed without specifically calling them illegal under international law. Surely targeting civilians is a violation of the geneva convention; why not point that out like we did with white phosphorous? You can't say that these two sections are being given the same weight, and given the obvious difference in severity and scale here and quality of the evidence one should be given far more weight than the other. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I know we do say "Under international humanitarian law these are war crimes and crimes against humanity; the Geneva Convention describes taking hostages as a "grave breach"....". The point is the sheer difference in scales between the alleged use of a weapon prohibited in certain circumstances by a treaty only some countries ratified and the mass murder of civilians, hostage taking, etc and the almost equal weight being given to both of them. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've modified that specific line a bit. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  06:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the line about white phosphorus burning. I hit the wrong reply link. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  06:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against citing "the" international law the mass killing of civilians is a violation of, but that's what many international laws are about. If you think it should be more explicitly stated in the part pertaining to the massacres of civilians, I'm open to suggestions. The white phosphorus section is two sentences. Is the objection the part "Capable of creating intense heat at around 815 °C (1,500 °F), white phosphorus munitions can burn people down to the bone" being too vividly descriptive? I'm not necessarily against trimming that sentence, provided it's still meeting the basic encyclopedic criteria. The article establishes very thoroughly that killing civilians is a war crime, and pretty much everyone in the world knows that. Fewer people know off hand what white phosphorus is and why its use in populated areas can be a war crime.
 * Earlier I was speaking in more general terms regarding length. My point was that arbitrarily expanding or limiting a section to conform to a relatively equal word count is problematic in principle, as it would almost certainly mean devoting too little or too much weight where it's due. Also, please note the article is constantly changing, and some of these sections can look a lot different than when a talk page exchange began. I think the white phosphorous section was shorter before. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  06:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an issue, that it's too vivid.
 * It's also an issue that the cited sources do not support this being a violation of protocol III. Article II of protocol III states "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.". It specifically leaves out ground delivered weaponry, which is what the human rights watch source concludes and admits was used here. See this document, which specifically calls for the closing of this "loophole" and "Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and verified that it was taken in Gaza City’s port and identified that the munitions used in the strike were airburst 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles." (source), meaning they're not air delivered and therefore not a violation of protocol III or international law (at least not under protocol III).
 * So we really shouldn't be saying that "using these weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of protocol III" because it factually is not unless those weapons are air delivered, which these aren't Chuckstablers (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit; this is just one example of the stretching of the truth that's going on here. By saying this about protocol III, we're lying. It's that simple. It's not a violation of international law under that treaty to fire artillery rounds with white phosphorous into a densely populated urban area so long as the object of attack isn't a civilian target/dwelling.
 * "Human Rights Watch also reviewed two videos from October 10 from two locations near the Israel-Lebanon border. Each shows 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles being used, apparently as smokescreens, marking, or signaling." - also not a violation of protocol III (source) which states that
 * "b.) Incendiary weapons do not include:
 * (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
 * (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities."
 * So the two instances they are citing in that quote clearly don't violate protocol II; the projectiles are being used as smokescreens, marking or signaling, meaning under b.i they are not incendiary weapons and not subject to protocl III. And from the video of the port strike which I saw, it seems like they were being used as described in b.ii: they combine blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a point, though there's additional nuance here. We're getting into OR and SYNTH territory, but I think it's worth discussing in the interest of reaching a consensus.
 * Geneva Protocol III, Article I, definition 3: "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
 * Geneva Protocol III, Article I, definition 4: "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
 * Article II, item 1: It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
 * Article II, item 2: It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
 * I would say it is arguably true that white phosphorous was used in a densely populated area. One of the most controversial aspects of the airstrikes in general is how densely populated Gaza is. The video of the white phosphorus in Gaza is in an urban area with high rise buildings. We don't know what exactly the objective was with the use of white phosphorus in the Gaza case (Israel denied they even used it), but there may have been a military objective that falls under Article II item 2. There also may have been civilian objects that were the object of attack.
 * The difference between air-burst and air delivered might be less important. If a weapon is fired from the ground artillery but burst in the air, it can be argued it is still air-delivered (as opposed to a soldier on the ground using a flamethrower). You're right that there are loopholes to the use of white phosphorus, and major concerns about those loopholes. Rather than a lengthy discussion in the article about the nuance of the loopholes, I think it is best to use attributed statements from the RS, but not state in Wiki voice that all use of white phosphorus is a war crime on its face.
 * Still, we have the issue of accurately representing what is presented in the RS. The HRW source says, "White phosphorous is unlawfully indiscriminate when airburst in populated urban areas, where it can burn down houses and cause egregious harm to civilians."
 * So the issue isn't just the use of white phosphorous, but that the use of it was also (by the allegation) an indiscriminate attack, in the legal sense.
 * The article currently states in the part relevant to all this: "international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."
 * This could be reworded or clarified, given that it's a sloppy summary and comes off as more absolute. It would probably be best simply presenting what the claim is as an attributed statement. Do you have any suggestions for exact wording? entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  09:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For posterity, it should be noted that the descriptive nature of the section concern was raised about was almost an exact quote (if not a copy paste and not put in quote marks) from the HRW statement. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is going to be no end to the number of accusations that Israel's opponents can make in regards to war crimes. The bottom line is all of them will be vague and in dispute, especially since Israel has received the full backing of the major Western powers who are involved here.  Also Middle Eastern powers are involved without explicitly backing Israel.  So if you get 10x as many war crimes accusations against Israel, that in no way translates to a section that is 10x as long.
 * On the other hand, the war crimes of Hamas are not vague and the actions themselves are not remotely in dispute. In fact, Hamas has bragged to the world about their heinous crimes.  Furthermore, what Hamas actually did were acts of cold blooded murder in front of the cameras and no reasonable person could possibly say that these were within the context of war.  The war crimes section on Israel should be shortened.  Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is based on literally nothing but personal opinion.  nableezy  - 20:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a valid argument. The allegations against Israel and Hamas are both very specific. The length given to each section is not based on an aggregation of the total amount of material published about them, but on the most relevant sources. Length is a product of necessity to summarize, source and attribute. There may be a thousand sources describing one particular crime, but many of them may cover the same information, in which case it is only necessary to provide two or three solid sources. Additional sources that provide novel, relevant, due information, should be added and summarized as well. This will naturally mean variance in length. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  23:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just going to write a section asking how on earth we have come to say "Certain U.S. media outlets, such as The Economist, claim there is a "lack of consensus."" As you correctly say, The Economist is a UK publication. The Economist article, for those interested, actually includes a war crime accusation from an Israeli human rights org –
 * The article can be read here. As for the UN independent experts' and human rights orgs' views, they have been so widely covered and debated that I don't think there can be any argument that we are giving them more weight than our sources have given them. Regards, Andreas JN 466 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While I'm not necessarily against including the opinions of media outlets, they should always be attributed as such. I'm going to edit that particular sentence about The Economist, as it is making a claim in wiki voice that multiple media outlets assert the lack of consensus, but only provides one source. This doesn't satisfy the concern about whether or not this is due. Media outlets have all kinds of opinions, and questions of weight and relevance come to mind. Also, the opinion of the outlet seems less relevant than the opinions of the individuals The Economist was citing in the article. Some of those individuals might not be suitable for citation. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Qatar is the biggest supporter of hamas.i mean all their main leaders are sheltered by qatar.its a well known fact which dont require any additional sources. i am not familiar with the process but al-jajeera should definitely be depriciated as a source.
 * also what is the meaning of including "context of israeli occupation" under regional and global effects? how is it relevant?how is it a regional or global effect? only middle east countries have attributed the root cause to Israel's decades-long occupation of the Palestinian terroteries as the cause of war.its their personal opinion.and in any case should not be included in the article as a seperate section which is mostly justifying it.and what is the meaning of these graphs? how are deaths previous to this war relevant? and what is the reason to include statistics from only 2008? why not add to the context and go back in history and show how jews were persecuted, their most important religious site destroyed, as well as their multiple exodus from their historic homeland? these sections dont belong here.This section is complete bias.its not only trying to justify hamas attacks but also trying to gain sympathy for Hamas. THis section should strictly be removed.redundant. Codenamephoenix (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You not getting your way in a discussion is not a NPOV issue. Your phrasing has not been accepted by literally anybody. The idea that we can use Israeli papers or papers from Israeli allies but we cannot use ones from Arab states that are allied with Hamas, even if that were true (Qatar provides financial backing to the political bureau of Hamas, not weapons or military assistance) is the very opposite of NPOV. And if the coverage of Israeli war crimes exceeds the coverage of war crimes committed by Hamas then our article reflects that coverage. There isnt much more to say about the Hamas attack, we document that it has been called war crimes. You want more words. Israeli actions have however resulted in more coverage as time has continued forward since October 7. If this were only an article on the Hamas attacks then yes you would have a point on the weight of war crime accusations. But it is not. It covers everything since then too, including the Israeli government instituting a total siege on a captive population, a siege that generated substantial accusations of violating the laws of war. You are basically saying allies of Israel can be cited without issue, allies of Hamas may not be. And you do that in the name of neutrality?  nableezy  - 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Al-Jazeera currently accounts for 6% of all citations (38 citations last I counted). Reliable sources/Perennial sources notes a perceived partisanship when it comes to arab israeli conflict from this source. More importantly, they are owned in whole by Qatar, a state that has funnelled 1.8 billion USD to hamas, a belligerent in this conflict. Is that not a reasonable concern when they are cited so much? Chuckstablers (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post is cited 12 times, the Times of Israel some 64 times, why exactly is there no issue with their partisanship on the Arab-Israeli conflict? Is Israel not a belligerent in this conflict?  nableezy  - 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that said transfer of wealth was actively approved by the Netanyahu government. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  07:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Meaning that the [war crimes] section on Israel is anywhere between 2.2x and 3x as long as that of the Palestinian militants."
 * Maybe it's because Israel has committed more war crimes? Shocking, I know, but try wrapping your head around it. 41.45.247.164 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy here is WP:BALASP; we need to provide coverage in proportion to the coverage in reliable sources, and reliable sources have been giving more coverage to the crimes against Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly disagree there. You can find more reliable sources talking about Israel's war crimes, but at this point I really don't think you can make that claim.
 * Furthermore, it's worth noting that some of the sources used have an anti-israeli bias. Take Al-Jazeera,for example, wholly owned by the Qatari government. Despite their reputable reporting, the fact that the Qatari government has transferred more than 1.8 billion USD to Hamas, a belligerent in this conflict, raises legitimate concerns regarding neutrality when using Al-Jazeera as a "reliable source" for this article. This partisanship with respect to the arab-israeli conflict is even noted as a concern by "some editors" on Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
 * Consider if we frequently employed Israeli state-owned media. Out of approximately 650 citations, we have 38 from this source, representing around 6% of all citations, emanating from a news organization owned by a state that has provided $1.8 billion in funding to Hamas. Is it not reasonable to raise this concern? Chuckstablers (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I imagine that the body of coverage of Israeli war crimes is large because they have been going on for more than one week, versus a single day involving Hamas war crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. The sources we use to depict the narrative adopted by this encyclopedia must themselves be objective, or else qualified as having a bias, instead of using these sources to portray a supposed NPOV. The point about the Israel subsection of the war crimes section being 2-3 times longer than Hamas' war crimes is absolutely ridiculous and should be addressed immediately. Editors have been grossly adding to that section in the past few days, a clear WP: Weight problem. IshChasidecha (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * agreed.i would even point out that hamas attack on israel was not even a war crime but straight up terrorism, which resulted in the war.hamas action cannot be called war crimes as israel and hamas were not in a state of war when hamas attacked. Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By your logic because Russia never declared war on Ukraine, you shouldn't call them bombing hospitals, or abducting children war crimes? You don't need to be at war for it to be a warcrime. You just need an armed conflict, which this was. I also think it was terrorism, but there seems to be a consensus generally here to not refer to hamas as terrorists, so I'm respecting that. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Codenamephoenix This argument doesn't hold. The Geneva Conventions don't only apply to declared wars.
 * "The Geneva Conventions apply in all cases of declared war, or in any other armed conflict between nations. They also apply in cases where a nation is partially or totally occupied by soldiers of another nation, even when there is no armed resistance to that occupation."
 * Israel ratified the Geneva Conventions on July 6, 1951. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  06:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i see now.than you for the information : yes it can be termed as war crime as an armed conflict between a non-state actor (such as a millitant group or a terrorist organization) and a nation, even if it's not a formally declared war, can still give rise to war crimes if civilians are intentionally harmed. but remember GAZA is not a nation nor its classified as an occupied "nation". The United Nations, as well as many countries and international organizations, have referred to the West Bank as "occupied territory." This designation is based on the fact that Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967 and has maintained control over parts of it ever since.legal status of "state of palestine" in itself is a subject of controversy.There was never a modern nation state called palestine.it could have been if two state solution was accepted by arab leaders.so ya just wanted to point that out for some reason.
 * But yes i agree, hamas actions can be covered in war crimes. Codenamephoenix (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.
 * this is the full report on RS list. Borgenland (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would actually go beyond this and state that Al Jazeera has some of the very best reporting of any news platform on this conflict, in extreme contrast to the shocking bias in most Western sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would actually go beyond this and state that Al Jazeera has some of the very best reporting of any news platform on this conflict, in extreme contrast to the shocking bias in most Western sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Has anyone considered exactly *why* Israel's crimes have 2-3x the word count? Here, let me tell you why...
 * Israel has been indiscriminately bombarding mosques, schools, and medical facilities. Israel has, also ,cut off all aid to the nearly *Two million* civilians of Gaza including food, medical supplies, water, and electricity. Israel ministers have, also, been accused of dangerous, genocidal, rhetoric like "human animals.".You literally only need to look at the ITN section of WIkipedia to know this. The fact that everyone wants to gloss over things is just bizzare and seriously trying to push a POV/false balance where there isn't, and shouldn't be, one. 68.111.7.219 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * why play victim ? gaza chose hamas as their representative.hamas carried out a terrorist attack on israel indiscriminately. israel is now responding. israel atleast has decency to warn people and idf also asked civilians to leave.on the other hand hamas is forcing civilians to stay.hiding behind them. if palestine was in place of israel with such technology and millitary prowess, there would not have been any israel or a single jew left. i am just surprised israel is showing this much concern.ofcource pro palestinians would call israels attack indiscriminate even after idf mentioned clearly its attacking hamas sites.if hamas choses to hide in hospitals and schools, its on them.israel is not even obliged to warn after that terror attck. i am just shoocked that they are even warning people who want to genocide them .i just hope israel wipes out hamas as well as any millitant/terrorist organisation associated with it from the face of this earth . first capture jew land,expel them,destroy their religious places, change the demography, call for their genocide and then play victim when those people reclaim their land and retaliate. classic. Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * RS and expert opinion, "Israel, Gaza and the Spectre of Genocide Israel appears to be seeking collective punishment for Hamas atrocities, and this is not self-defense under international law Criticizes Hamas harshly and quite correctly but criticizes Israel more and finishes up "In this process, the idea of genocide must be returned from the political slogan it has too often become into the method of understanding, criticising and ending the violence of states and armed movements which was originally intended. Leaders who perpetrate genocidal violence must be held to account: many have argued this in the case of Vladimir Putin, but it also applies to the leaders of Hamas – and to Netanyahu.". Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is an NPOV problem with this article, it is its pro-Israel bias. An example: the (dis)infobox refers to "200+ 'abducted'", based on a YNET source posted 5 days ago, when in fact, as of today and per RS, Israel's own estimate is 126 captives. I don't see the word "abduct" on the page for Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. It's one thing to use this sort of language to reference civilians, but how exactly does one "abduct" an enemy combatant? Either there needs to be disambiguation between soldiers and civilians, or the language should be made neutral. WillowCity (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * lol if it was pro israel, hamas would have been labeled as terrorists long ago.no justification for them would have been entertained.if anything, pro palestinians are calling this article pro-israel because they cant digest ethat everything is not happening as per their pov. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "An example: the (dis)infobox refers to "200+ 'abducted'", based on a YNET source posted 5 days ago, when in fact, as of today and per RS, Israel's own estimate is 126 captives. "
 * Israel states they believe there are currently 126 captives. I don't see the two as being fundamentally inconsistent. Hamas doesn't have the best track record with hostages, being you know, hamas.
 * "I don't see the word "abduct" on the page for Casualties of the Russo-Ukranian war".
 * Because that is a war between two states. We are GENERALLY talking about civilians here.
 * "but how exactly does one "abduct" an enemy combatant?"
 * Civilians are not enemy combatants. They are civilians. Do you have a source stating that any of these 126 are members of the IDF? What would your solution here be, water down the language further and say "captured"? If so, I'd ask; how exactly does one "capture" a civilian and hold them hostage? Isn't that an... abduction? The language is already neutral; abduction IS the most accurate description for what took place here given that every reliable source that is talking about this seems to be implying that the clear majority (if not the overwhelming majority) of the people abducted to be kept as hostages were civilians. They went into villages/towns on the border, killed and abducted civilians, and are keeping them as hostages. Let's not even mention Hamas threatening to commit even more war crimes by executing the hostages. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ^WP:STRAWMAN with a healthy dose of WP:SOAP. Speculation is layered upon personal belief, without reference to any source. No attempt to grapple with the crux of my objection: that there should either be disambiguation or neutral language.
 * "Do you have a source stating that any of these 126 are members of the IDF?" I made a post about this previously with plenty of sources. You're going to say that doesn't refer specifically to the 126 (or 155, or 199, or whatever the number of the day is). But the fact of the matter is that most of the information on the captives is coming from the IDF, which has been profoundly humiliated (having its soldiers pulled from tanks by a ragtag band of guerrillas). They're not rushing to admit that their soldiers have been taken prisoner, when they can grandstand for international sympathy.
 * Moreover, you state: "every reliable source that is talking about this seems to be implying that the clear majority..." Here, we have a clear admission that the status quo is based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia does not deal in implication and innuendo, we state facts. WillowCity (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Regarding the core claims of lack of neutrality across the whole article, I don't think they are justified enough to leave the tag up.

1. Source bias While it is true that all sources may have some level of bias, the manner in which those sources are used is key. Take the example of Al-Jazeera reporting that several human rights groups have made allegations of war crimes. Despite Al-Jazeera being listed as a RS, assume at least some level of bias is true (in reality this is the case with most sources; humans have biases). If Al-Jazeera states as fact that Israel or Hamas has in fact committed war crimes, the bias is relevant and shouldn't be reiterated as fact in Wiki voice. If Al-Jazeera states that human rights groups and UN experts have accused Hamas or Israel of war crimes, the statement is at least attributable. If indeed the groups mentioned have made those allegations, Al-Jazeera is a valid source to make an attributed statement in Wiki voice, "Human rights groups and UN experts have accused..." etc. I'm not aware of any part of the article stating as fact that one side or another committed war crimes, as a de jure, settled matter of fact in Wiki voice. Unless specific parts of the article can be identified as doing this, this isn't a sufficient argument. The purported bias of the source is not relevant unless a fact stated in Wiki voice is affected by that bias. In those cases, the article should keep to the factual claims and not the editorializing of the source.

2. Length per allegation Length should be a product of what is required to adequately summarize the subject matter. Supposing there was one identical war crime on both sides of a conflict, but the length was double or triple in one explanation on one side versus the other, this would be an obvious issue. That does not appear to be the case here, with respect to war crimes (which seems to be the focus of the NPOV claim). The article should not seek to arbitrarily make a section longer or shorter to appear neutral, it should, in line with NPOV guidelines, supply the relevant information with RS and due weight. In fact, arbitrarily expanding or limiting a section to match the length of another would be a weight problem, as it would mean giving undue weight to one and too much weight to another.

3. Statement in lead There is already an open RfC about this, with broad consensus for the statement as it currently is. The statement very succinctly summarizes a significant section of the article, and does not appear in itself to have any neutrality issues, as it makes no assertions other than that allegations of war crimes have been made, identifies who made them, and whom they were made against.

4. Bar charts These have been added, removed over neutrality concerns, and added again. The old charts would have been a valid reason to dispute the neutrality of the article, but as it currently stands they have been removed, and replaced with one that appears accurately scaled. The old ones when placed together could be a kind of visual lie, but I don't see a problem with the new ones. This concern seems to have been sufficiently addressed.

For these reasons, I propose that the neutrality template be removed. entropyandvodka &#124;  talk  01:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is reliable. Hamas are terrorists, possible war crimes on both sides but certainly on Hamas' side taking all those civilian hostages. Andre🚐 03:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal for above reasons. Cjhard (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal per proposal by entropyandvodka. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Every article now and then suffers NPOV problems: it’s all in the ‘game’ (= project) Wikipedia; it is inevitable. It simply is our hard task and fatigue, to trace NPOV problems (either created deliberately or inadvertently) and repair them. There’s no use for stating the obvious in a tag above the article (‘neutrality is disputed…’); general discussions like in this talk section are mostly a waste of energy. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed neutrality is disputed template. Special:Diff/1180491511 - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Completely removed "Effect on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process"
There's little justification for a section to the article dedicated to what Americans with political science degrees have written on their blogs. I'm not sure why what they have to say is relevant enough to take up space on this article, and whatever they wrote on a Medium article has no bearing on what the peace process or what a single state solution would actually look like. Not to mention the factual inaccuracies present on many of them- Noah Smith's blog states that "from the river to the sea" is a call to an ethnically cleansed Palestine which runs directly contrary to what many advocates of the phrase state (e.x. Ilan Pappe), so they aren't unbiased sources.

If there's going to be a section on peace proposals for Palestine, it should be reliably-sourced proposals, that will likely come from politicians with actual footing on the ground, e.g. Israeli Knesset members or Palestinian political leaders, or U.N. representatives. We don't include peace plans made by political commentators on the Russian invasion of Ukraine article, only proposals from serious political bodies and are reported by mainstream news organizations, so I'm not exactly sure why this should be different.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Move and change title of subsection Context of the Israeli occupation
This subsection currently inserted in section "Regional and global effects" has nothing to do here. It does not describe the effects and consequences of the conflict. This subsection only presents some hypotheses to explain why the Palestinians militants launched the attack. The text should be moved to the "Background" section and its title should be changed to "Motivations for the Hamas attacks" which is far more accurate regarding its content. Manualofstile (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

. There's a current NPOV discussion about this I created. See above. KlayCax (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You moved this to the War Crimes section. This is not appropriate for that section. It makes more sense to have it in the background section. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  23:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: in the sentence that mentions "NBC News reported on "top secret" Hamas documents," it should be added that, according to NBC News's reporting, these documents were found on the bodies of Hamas attackers killed by Israeli forces. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump sharing Israel intel with Russia
https://www.newsweek.com//donald-trump-israel-intel-russia-hamas-attack-1833094

Could people smarter than me discuss this topic and include it into the article where appropriate? Tiberiuus (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem, on its face, to have concrete relevance to this article. It contains speculation that Trump sharing details about an ISIS plot six years ago may have revealed information to Russia that may have been shared with Iran that may have been been shared with Hamas that may have been used in planning this attack. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  20:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant to these events. Does not belong in the article. 2601:40:C481:A940:D4FB:3B05:7C51:3B7F (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede Mention Casualties Only on One Side
The two opening paragraphs mention 2,339 Palestinian casualties. However, there is no mention of any Israeli casualties in the two opening paragraphs. This leaves the impression that no Israelis were hurt, even though more than 1,300 Israelis were killed on October 7, most of them civilians, and 150 Israelis taken hostage.

There are many reliable sources for this. E.g.:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/15/world/middleeast/israel-music-festival-massacre.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-attack-gaza.html

Shaferjo (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This was the result of this edit which removed a lot of content from the lede. I've restored it. Alaexis¿question? 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, it appears that any mention of Israeli casualties has now been removed from the lede once again. Could someone please restore that information? Shaferjo (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's back. Thanks to whoever restored this! Shaferjo (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel resumes water supply to southern gaza
Israel resumes water supply to southern Gaza, energy minister confirms.The decision is publicised by US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan who told CNN that his Israeli counterparts had informed him of the move within the last hour.

sources:https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3238034/israel-resumes-water-supply-southern-gaza-energy-minister-confirms

https://morungexpress.com/israel-resumes-water-supply-to-gaza-strip

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-768469

https://news.yahoo.com/israel-resumes-water-supply-southern-161945863.html

https://punchng.com/israel-resumes-water-supply-to-southern-gaza/ Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Already in article. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

why was the section "unconfirmed reports" merged into "disinformation"
even after confirmation from forensic department why was the section merged into disinformation when technically it should be under confirmed war crimes now? Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It was removed rather than merged. The justification was completely bogus, so it should be reverted. I don't want to be technically in breach of 1RR so can't do it right now. Alaexis¿question? 18:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * yes it should be reverted to former one. and i advice all editors and admins to monitor who all are doing these things. Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * in addition i also want to make it public that the editor who made this edit just threatened me that he will get mewrestricted in my talk page. so if i get blocked or restricted, other non biased editors should know why Codenamephoenix (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you should discuss that with them/file a report. Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the listed items are obviously enough "misinformation" to belong in that section. This should be reverted, but I have already made my revert for today. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * agreed. please keep an eye on these things.its a matter of time before some radical editor complains about me for raising these issues and a radical admin blocks me for it.they are more in numbers than you can imagine and all are united unlike us. Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone can and should revert, it was done by Nauman335 in this edit, which simply moved the Unconfirmed section into the Disinformation section. We can't call things disinformation without sources calling them that.DFlhb (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't at 1RR, so I've just ✅ it DFlhb (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The objectives of the operation in Gaza set by the Israeli War Cabinet
The war began after the murderous surprise attack by Hamas. According to the announcement: "The limited committee of ministers determined that the main goal of the operation in Gaza will be to undermine the rule of Hamas • Among other things, this is about destroying the "Metro" [ the tunnels of hamas], damaging the political level of the organization - and finally, completely disconnecting Israel from the Strip • The main goals - and the goals in the "day after" https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-c7dedd74b843b81026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802- "The day after" goals: A targeted and purposeful maneuver to avoid "sinking in the mud of Gaza". A complete disconnection of Israel from the Strip. An effort to build an international force that will come in and carry out the reconstruction, with an emphasis on Arab and Gulf countries.

-2A00:A041:1CE0:0:9DEB:4793:AEC6:8A0B (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (3)
Remove "As seen on social media, multiple posters were vandalized and removed by Muslim residents."

from "Posters in North Finchley, London, highlighting people kidnapped by Hamas during the war. As seen on social media, multiple posters were vandalized and removed by Muslim residents."

line as it is unsourced, and because I've not been able to come across a source to verify the central claim. LocalWonk (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Marokwitz edit
Hi,. I was editing at the same time as you and accidentally reverted your edit.

Feel free to reinstate. Thanks. However, there's been a consensus on talk to not label Hamas a terrorist organization, so you might be reverted by someone intentionally. (Although I don't disagree.) KlayCax (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

quotes by individuals in lead
These dont belong, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Albanese should be quoted in the article, but not in the lead.  nableezy  - 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * resolved, thanks,  nableezy  - 23:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Update by United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
2023 Israel-Hamas warEdit On 14 October 2023, Lloyd Austin directed Dwight D. Eisenhower and her carrier strike group, which includes the cruiser Philippine Sea, and destroyers Laboon, Mason and Gravely, to the eastern Mediterranean in response to Israel's war with Hamas. This is the second carrier strike group to be sent to the region in response to the conflict, following Gerald R. Ford and her group, which was dispatched only six days earlier. 96.60.168.239 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Is this an edit request? I believe there is already something about this in the lead. Or are you asking for more expansive text in the article body? -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus-loopholing video names
Hi, we have established consensus that Hamas should not be called terrorists, but two videos' file names, imported from Commons, call them that:

-File:Hamas terrorists kill civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, 2023.webm

-File:President Biden Delivers Remarks On The Terrorist Attacks in Israel.webm

Can we and should we change their names? FunLater (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see where there is such a consensus, but in any case, the titles are decided on Wikimedia Commons, which is not bound by (and may not respect) any consensus reached here. You are free to raise the issue there, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on my memory, Hamas was described in the lead as terrorists, but following a discussion, isn't anymore.
 * Anyway, I submitted move requests on Commons. Thank you.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_terrorists_kill_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_2023.webm
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Biden_Delivers_Remarks_On_The_Terrorist_Attacks_in_Israel.webm FunLater (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a matter for Commons. Biden used the word "terrorists" even if Wikipedia isn't using that word. Removing that word from the file name seems strange since Biden used the word five times in his speech. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I started a rename request, which was denied, so I started a discussion at Commons. FunLater (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FunLater So the matter has been taken to Commons? -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't think this talk-page entry should be achieved, as it discusses matters that are relevant to this page. FunLater (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to join the discussion! :) FunLater (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @FunLater! I was looking more at closing the discussion since any consensus here will ultimately not effect the outcome :) Lenny Marks (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)