Talk:Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war

Requested move 14 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After much deliberation and relisting, I am seeing a clear consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – Much of the substance of the body seems to be about misinformation rather than intentional disinformation. It's a bit of a mixed bag here, but I think if we're to keep the body then we might want to change the title. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  BD2412  T 02:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that this is a better title, as there's no evidence that a lot of the misinformation in the article is deliberate disinformation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose sources support both misinformation and disinformation. The 40 beheaded babies claim is a classic case of disinformation that was knowingly propagated by official Israeli channels. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because on mass balance, the material is all about self-evidently poor, unverified or demonstrably false information that was actively disseminated, amid war, in a propaganda-strewn environment. It is not a collection of mere oopsie moments. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quite the opposite, "misinformation" should be changed to "disinformation" in the section titles. The bulk of the examples are such that they're unlikely to have arisen unintentionally: Beheaded babies, children in cages, footage from 2020, a modified version of a photo from 2010, Hamas militants that turn out to be Egyptian paratroopers, footage from a video game, etc. Joriki (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Some claims are clearly just misunderstandings and are not intentional. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Hemiauchenia. There's no evidence whatsoever that a lot of the misinformation in the article is intentional and deliberate WP:DISINFORMATION. Deerove (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Comment stricken per WP:ARBECR WP:PIA. SilverLocust 01:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Disinformation reveals roots in propaganda, esp. government-sponsored attacks. Wikipedia should adopt the term "misinformation" unless there's plenty of sources saying there's evidence of a coordinated effort. fgnievinski (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Topic is analogous to COVID-19 misinformation and 5G misinformation. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 17:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think a lot of it is genuine malice, but people reposting it may simply be misinformed. Still, bad actors are clearly trying to push propaganda.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Comment stricken per WP:ARBECR WP:PIA. SilverLocust 01:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is worth noting that the disinformation in the conflict has been started to be covered in depth, and with specific bad actors being pointed out, so "disinformation" is supported. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - the definitions are complicated and vary somewhat, but disinformation is usually a subset of misinformation based on intent. The move to misinformation doesn't mean that certain bits of disinformation can't still be covered and labeled as such, where the intent was clear (or where sufficient sources call it as much). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Misinformation covers the broader topic of inaccurate information with intent or not, and it's not always obvious if there is intent or not. Most of what is covered is considered misinformation rather than disinformation. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. —  Material  Works  22:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: There is no evidence that all these things are intentional. Parham wiki (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Relisting for more policy-based discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Media has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strong POV and OR in article
I know this article is new, but the POV on it is just through the roof. To take an obvious example: to the best of my knowledge, we still don't know the truth of the "40 beheaded babies". According to the article, it's misinformation. It might very well be, but how do we know? And how come the article focuses so much on that particular point, but no mention of the misinformation campaign claiming there were no beheadings, and that no children were killed, though both are well documented. If the aim of this page is that anyone just adds whatever they think is misinformation, I can foretell a lot of edit warring and POV pushing. If we are to keep it, a much more balanced approach would be needed, with roughly equal sections on misinformation from both sides (unless there is evidence one side produces more misinformation). Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, but ultimately this will require sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is your source: youtu.be/FhUWJrj1Wvk?si=bLHeXyx63oS9PcBf. Journalists were showed real footage of beheading and etc done by Hamas in Israel to fight with the disinformation done by Hamas and other islamists. 89.79.15.76 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we need to put a section from the main article Decapitations by Hamas here. I dont kn ow why someone put it there 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In the section Allegations of beheadings, there is enough evidence to cast doubt on some of the more wild and outrageous claims of human rights abuses. For while the US President said he had seen the pictures, was not the Whitehouse later forced to backtrack on the claim? Given how dodgy these claims have proven to be, should not people stop banging on about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.210 (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Taylor swift
A quite odd disinformation campaign was israel falsely saying Taylor Swift's bodyguard is gonna fight in Israel

https://www.koimoi.com/hollywood-news/taylor-swifts-name-used-by-israel-for-propaganda-bodyguard-who-doesnt-even-work-for-her-gets-wrongly-mentioned-swifties-slam-she-would-never-support-genocide-rep/amp/

https://thenamal.com/amp/featured/taylor-swift-gets-trolled-by-official-twitter-account-of-israel/ Hovsepig (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hovsepig how ironic that on the talk page for Wikipedias article on Israel misinformation, you post... Israel misinformation
 * https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2023/10/20/xs-community-notes-is-spreading-false-information-about-taylor-swifts-bodyguard/ MoshiachNow (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press article for anyone wishing to add information
GnocchiFan (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war is flooding social media. Here are the facts, AP News

Differences in Arabic versions of Wikipedia pages compared to other languages
There are substantial differences between the Arabic version of wikipedia pages that I think are notable for this page. For example, this page itself, whose Arabic version is called "Israeli propaganda during operation al aqsa flood". Also the Al-Ahli hospital explosion, which in all languages is shown as not clear who is responsible, except for in Arabic, where only Israel is labeled as responsible. Also the main page of the war, which in all languages chronicles Hamas attacks on civilians on October 7th, but in the Arabic version this is totally omitted. I believe that wikipedia should be able to admit its own shortcomings, and mention these on this page. LlanitoSheep (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Someone has to publish a report saying that :/ And for balance then examine the Hebrew version of Wikipedia Hovsepig (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting right now this is forum talk, but this was mentioned here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WeatherWriter, you are very much right that that page addresses the same problems, however, I'd say that the problems have grown substantially since then. LlanitoSheep (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hovsepig, although personally, I only speak English, Spanish and French, I have looked at the translations of the Hebrew versions of the pages I mentioned, as well as many other translations, and it really does only seem to be the Arabic one which is substantially different to the rest. I suppose the main thing to note about the Hebrew is that there are simply many more pages in existence in Hebrew, for example individual "massacre" pages for each village where civilians were killed on October 7th. These pages mostly only exist in English and Hebrew. LlanitoSheep (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We would need reliable secondary sources to cover it. And overcoming our usual avoidance of WP:Navel-gazing will probably require several such sources, not just one. Until then, there's not much to discuss. DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Arabic article is explicitly partisan, which may disqualify the need to expand language therefrom. يوسف قناوة (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources needs to be rechecked
Some of the sources are being an articles and blogs without any other "proper" sources indicated in them. It looks like the author is using the articles that he/she read, instead of using the proper sources, or writing that there are many official sources giving different stories about them. 89.79.15.76 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
I’m not sure if conspiracy theories about the war would qualify as disinformation or not, but there are definitely plenty of the former. If this article isn’t the right place, maybe someone should create 2023 Israel-Hamas war conspiracy theories instead. To give just one example, Alex Jones has claimed that Netanyahu deliberately allowed the attack to happen by issuing a “stand down” order to the IDF; so has Charlie Kirk. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7B67 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There's speculation there in the attribution of direct agency to Netanyahu, but it's not exactly conspiracy-level stuff. It's clear that there was fore-knowledge of the attack, including just hours before, and it was ignored. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Cory Mills
U.S. Representative Cory Mills has actively promoted “paid crisis actor” theories regarding dead Palestinian civilians, see: 2600:1014:B072:E984:40AF:89E8:B1B1:2AC1 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas is ISIS" is not information, so it can't be misinformation
This is a slogan. No one thinks that this is a factual claim, but a moral comparison which deals with the barbaric cruelty of both organizations. One might think that the comparison is wrong, but it is not misinformation. החבלן (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not just a slogan though. Searching for this under misinformation confirms that it's not about comparing actions of these the two organisations, even if that's not majority use case, but also claiming that Hamas shares the shame ideology as ISIS, and therefore are the same entity. Given that we know this to be inaccurate information, it's clearly also misinformation.
 * https://www.newarab.com/investigations/israel-misinformation-behind-hamas-beheading-babies-claim
 * Notably Israel has stuck to the line of making comparisons in their actions rather than ideologies, but it's not representative of everyone who uses and popularises this slogan. People take the slogan at face value, which is the precise purpose of popularising the slogan as propaganda.
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna120042 CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Israel disinformation
This is partly in response to the anonymous comment above from 31 October 2023 regarding neutrality of this topic. I'm not sure how accurate that it, but thought I'd provide some sources for anyone interested in using them.

The fact that Jackson Hinkle hasn't got a mention here yet tells me there could well be some bias. He's been regarded as "Twitter's most viral misinformation spreader" on anti-Israel in regards to the conflict, so it's surprised he's not referenced here.

I'm not cross-referencing which sources have already been used on the topic, so here just a quick Hinkle related list, mostly RS:


 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/israel-hamas-fake-news-thrives-on-poorly-regulated-online-platforms
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/09/tech/musk-x-misinformation-israel-hamas-conflict/index.html
 * https://www.thejc.com/news/world/who-is-jackson-hinkle-twitters-most-viral-misinformation-spreader-and-anti-israel-activist-3Zi4QV3sKIShrzZ6RHff9E
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israel-gaza-war-misinformation-ai-social-media-x-tiktok-3vpb8q3k9
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/10/29/elon-musk-says-x-users-spreading-lies-wont-get-paid-for-those-tweets/
 * https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/twitter-hate-speech-accounts-palestine-clout-1234867382/
 * https://english.varthabharati.in/india/fact-check-viral-videos-falsely-attributed-to-israel-palestine-conflict-debunked

I also posted some links to the Pallywood topic, though I think many if not most have already been picked up here.

- CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Claims refuted by the Bild newspaper
https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/politik-ausland/israel-bombardiert-gezielt-zivilisten-bild-entlarvt-die-schlimmsten-gaza-luegen-85742234.bild.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Jackson Hinkle
It seems disingenuous to describe Jackson Hinkle as a communist without any sort of qualification. He's a pro-Trump right-wing influencer, if anything. 92.24.63.200 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed, he's most commonly described as "right-wing" or "far-right". He describes himself as an "American Conservative Marxist–Leninist", but that's beside the point. He's often described as a "MAGA Communist" as this is what he promotes. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Bloomberg analysis
How Musk’s X Is Failing To Stem the Surge of Misinformation About Israel and Gaza

https://web.archive.org/web/20231121165714/https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-israel-hamas-war-misinformation-twitter-community-notes/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-israel-hamas-war-misinformation-twitter-community-notes/ CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023
In the (Fake videos) chapter and after the last paragraph that talks about the fake nurse video. Add in the following sentence as the (last sentence);

"Additionally according to Esther Chan from RMIT FactLab CrossCheck, an analysis by open-source investigators had determined that the video was likely doctored to artificially include in fake sounds of explosions."

source; https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/from-pallywood-to-us-troops-four-viral-claims-about-the-hamas-israel-war-fact-checked/8k4zj3x9h 49.181.47.40 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Beheaded babies
I've reinstated coverage of the beheaded babies, which I had removed a month ago. Given the page move I think it's now clearly in scope. DFlhb (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

section "on Gazan"
from sources I've seen (including wiki) Israel didn't exactly "attack the church" but rather carried out an airstrike on a nearby target, accidentally damaging the side of the church building next door. The incident was tragic of course and probably negligent on Israel's part, but wording is important, especially in an article about "misinformation". MoshiachNow (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Nurse video source
I was wondering about the source of the fake al-shifa nurse video. Who or what organization created it, published it, etc. According to this: https://www.thedailybeast.com/israels-comically-bad-disinfo-proves-theyre-losing-pr-war it was published on the arabic account of the israeli governments foreign affairs ministry, it would be nice to get more information on that, apparently the identity of the person in the video is in question. Was the original source an account called osint613? It looks like the account was IsraelArabic according to https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-gaza-propaganda-biden/Fanccr (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible new source
This article goes into detail about attempts by the far-right and white nationalists to pass themselves off as pro-Palestinian by creating sockpuppet accounts. Their motive is to lure in new followers by expressing support for Palestine and then gradually exposing them to more overt antisemitism and bigoted rhetoric. So far it seems to be having some success, unfortunately. It’s mainly happening on Twitter/X, but 4chan’s /pol/ board is helping to organize these campaigns. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:8887 (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Intentional lack of clarity on Hamas.com
Hello; I'm a longtime editor but not in any contentious topics and I don't know how to mark this for high concern. Hope someone sees this soon.

Hamas.com is a website put together by Israel which has quite a one-sided narrative; however, it also contains lots of legitimate videos of the Hamas activities on the day of October 7th. It is a useful website given how most of these videos have been scrubbed from major websites on the internet such as X, leaving this site as one of the few ways these videos can be accessed.

When you Google "is Hamas.com legit" the infobox quotes from this page, meaning this section has very high visibility on the internet. However, the sentence "Israeli government accounts have widely shared the website hamas.com claiming that it belongs to the armed group" is unsourced; with the only quote offered clearly showing the Israeli spokesperson acknowledging Hamas does not own the website.

More importantly, "its completely in English, BBC Verify confirmed that its a fake website." Is ambiguous nearly to the point of misinformation. The claim that it's a website owned by Hamas is fake (but this claim is unsourced!), but the claim that the videos hosted on it are fake is a very different claim for which there is much evidence to the contrary.

Overall grammar is also poor and lacks credibility.

REQUESTING an experienced editor in this topic to overhaul this section, given the high visibility thanks to Google search. Ideally would include specific sources for the origin of the website (Israel) and the videos themselves (Hamas) rather than simply claiming the entire website is "fake" without probing into these critical details.

REQUESTING to include information regarding the widespread claims that the website hosts malware and is meant to add viruses to your computer. This can be debunked by searching Hamas.com in any of the popular virus scanners (ex. VirusTotal) DoctorTamago (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @CommunityNotesContributor you seem experienced; can you help with this at all? DoctorTamago (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @CommunityNotesContributor: DoctorTamago (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

People burned alive by Hamas
This article ought to also cover the burning of people alive by Hamas, in addition to the discussion of beheadings of children. Source (27) used in this article, for example, discusses the topic somewhat:

“The proportion of bodies we’ve received who are charred is high,” Kugel explained. “Many have gunshot wounds in their hands, showing they put their hands up to their faces in defense. Many were burned alive in their homes. … We know they were burned alive because there is soot in their trachea, their throats—meaning they were still breathing when set on fire.”

https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/

194.193.223.241 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And what is the connection to misinformation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Big update
Lengthy new piece from the Intercept on the sustained, concerted propaganda pushing during the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Biased sources
Guys we shouldn't be quoting sources like Al Jazeera (media arm of a monarchy with limited press freedoms) or OpenDemocracy (loosely sourced site full of unproven conspiracy theories)

Any sections referencing them are clearly to serve an agenda and should be taken out HonestEditor51 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Struck under WP:ARBECR & WP:PIA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:ALJAZEERA — “Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned news organization considered generally reliable. 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.” In short, Wikipedia editors and consensus has determined that despite being state-owned media, Al Jazeera is a reliable source for information. If you believe it is no longer a reliable source for information, you can open a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Note, you need to provide evidence (with links to sources) that show why it is no longer considered reliable if you start a discussion on the noticeboard. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank for the response! Will go to the noticeboard
 * Seems a bit strange that a state-owned media where the state is a monarchy that is answerable to one person could possibly be considered reliable, but you are right, the forum for this should be broader. HonestEditor51 (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Struck under WP:ARBECR & WP:PIA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

prior knowledge conspiracy theory
Israel having received prior warning of an attack is listed as a conspiracy theory with no evidence, although this article says they did. should it be changed to having an unknown extent of classified evidence instead?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/12/israel-hamas-war-egypt-warned-foreign-affairs-gaza

Mrloggy (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between risk awareness and foreknowledge of an attack. I can tell you your car might break down sometime in the next few months, and it will probably be this part that fails, but that is different from telling you the date and time you will have an accident. The conspiracy theory is that Israel knew the attack was going to happen on October 7, and simply allowed it. Ryan McBeth explains it well here.  ––Scharb (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Beheading and mixing claims
https://www.the7eye.org.il/504682 https://www.camera.org/article/poynter-politifact-fact-check-misleads-on-beheadings/?fbclid=IwAR3hzzOgxPGv-mDk71lBGHcKRVW5pJVKwAFfZOXfHiq8NLLLipQaujNWxHA

The article (and the press) mix up several claims. There is the false claim that 40 babies' heads were beheaded in the Gaza village (the claim that was made on the internet and in the press but not by official Israeli officials and it was not proven that it was even said by Zeka or soldiers). There is the claim (which is not false) regarding cases of decapitated/severed heads and there is the estimate regarding forty dead babies (a press report. The speaker was not introduced. It states that the number of murdered children, infants and teenagers was about 40). I will comment that the collection and identification of the bodies, some of which were dismembered, took more than a month, and Zaka people or soldiers are not pathologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.10.137 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation or misinformation?
Maybe this article should be renamed to Disinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That was the original name, it was later renamed following a discussion. Isi96 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite it being quite euphemistic given the volume of intentionally disseminated falsehoods. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Zaka
You have to mention: "יש להדגיש כי בזק"א אחראים רק על פינוי הגופות ולא על זיהויין, עליו אמונים המשטרה והמכון לרפואה משפטית שבאחריות משרד הבריאות."

"It should be emphasized that the ZAKA is only responsible for removing the bodies and not for their identification, which is entrusted to the police and the Institute of Forensic Medicine under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health."

At the past you mentioned something like that ( about the possibility of mistakes ) But it was deleted 2.55.14.11 (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.ynet.co.il/health/article/yokra13912477#autoplay 2.55.14.11 (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove the IDF misinformation section
It's so obviously biased and and lacks any neutral POV. And if you're going to mention "IDF misinformation," you need to mention "Hamas misinformation," too. Why doesn't the article mention anything about Hamas literally making up on the spot that the hospital explosion which was from an Islamic Jihad missile was an Israeli bombing, and decided to go with "500 deaths?" Nobody here is questioning how Hamas figures in this war are greatly exaggerated and published literally minutes after an incident, with no way of possibly getting accurate figures beforehand?

Shame on everyone involved in this propaganda article 72.78.76.172 (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about removing the whole section but there are certainly a bunch of issues throughout the whole "IDF reliability as a source" section.
 * For starters, a lot of it has nothing to do with the IDF. Eylon Levy, ZARA volunteers, "Israeli government officials and media outlets" - none of these are IDF representatives. We could broaden the title to something like "Reliability of Israeli sources", but that doesn't seem particularly meaningful.
 * I think there are other issues as well, but I can start by deleting bits that clearly aren't even topical and go from there. XDanielx (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if everything noted in this article is factual, it is intellectually dishonest and grossly unethical to thoroughly canvas every example of Israeli misinformation and skirt over the countless examples of Hamas misinformation. This is not okay. The section should be removed until an equally exhaustive section covering Hamas misinformation is added. :By portraying a grotesquely lopsided account of misinformation in this war, you reveal a clear bias. More importantly, you give the impression that Israel systematically falsifies reports whereas Hamas propaganda is accidental, if it exists at all. There's literally no mention of Israel taking pains to neither dispute nor substantiate Hamas's slander that Israel bombed Al-Ahli Hospital. Of course, it turned out that an errant (and recklessly fired) Islamic Jihad missile was shown to be the real culprit. While the article mentions the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion, all it can muster on the topic is a minor point about Al Jazeera's contested authorship of a Twitter account that posted a video about it. This is unfair and glaringly incomplete. The Hamas propaganda regarding the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion is just one example of the numerous inaccuracies and outright lies propagated by Hamas, all of which are overlooked in this article. :I propose that at least one of these steps is taken to rectify this article’s unfair treatment of misinformation in the Israeli-Hamas war. :1. Add some kind of caveat to the article acknowledging that it is incomplete and that misinformation by Hamas is not covered. :2. Add an equally exhaustive section on Hamas misinformation. (Preferred) :3. Remove the section on Israeli misinformation. (This should be done if step 2 is not taken) Joshuakoloski (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Non EC editor.
 * I do agree there's a serious WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT problem here.
 * (1) seems like an easy short term remedy. It's not a proper solution, but better than leaving major NPOV violations with no remedy. I can add something now.
 * (2) could make sense, though I wouldn't personally want to commit to the work involved, and we might need a shorter term remedy.
 * (3) seems like a reasonable solution to me - we don't really need a dedicated IDF section - though it would be a pretty bold change, so perhaps we should at least allow more time for other input. — xDanielx  T/C\R 14:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are basically having a conversation with two non EC editors that are only permitted to make edit requests (not speeches) on article talk pages. There is nothing to do here unless EC editors want to do something themselves. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not protected, and there's no rule against non-confirmed users engaging in discussions on a talk page of a protected page, see WP:ATPROT. — xDanielx  T/C\R 15:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBECR is the rule, non EC editors are restricted to making edit requests only. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, I stand corrected, didn't realize there were stricter rules here than the usual ECR policies on WP:PP. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * please don't revert this without seeking consensus, engaging the relevant discussion, or even leaving an edit message. This seems like a pretty clear WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT issue, even setting aside any NPOV concerns with some of the content itself. Template:Unbalanced serves to draw attention to this so we can build consensus toward a resolution. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then seek consensus yourself before imposing the label on article. As is, it was a clear ideological move to invalidate the section, which is against Wikipolicy. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Its purpose isn't to invalidate but to draw attention, so a consensus can be reached about the best resolution. I've been seeking consensus, hence my engagement here.
 * Do you not agree that there's a balance issue? It's a war with two sides, with plenty of dubious claims from both, such as Hamas' outright denial of the Re'im music festival massacre ("the Palestinian fighters only targeted the occupation soldiers"). Is it balanced to dedicate a length and evergrowing section one side, and none to the other? — xDanielx  T/C\R 02:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your engagement here has only been with non EC editors and therefore lacks a proper consensus. If there is a balance problem, then add material. There is no rule that says two sides have to "balance" only that we respect NPOV by reflecting sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is such a rule, it's just WP:BALANCE. A section can be perfectly sourced and still fail NPOV based on weight, balance and structure.
 * Tagging doesn't require preemptively establishing consensus, although of course if there was a consensus that the section is balanced, then the tag should be removed. Is anyone actually taking the position that the section is balanced, though?
 * I can try to add some material, but I can't really fix the problem single-handedly. A proper fix should probably involve removing some content too, which I wouldn't want to boldly do without more input from non-involved editors. — xDanielx  T/C\R 14:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE seems to me is what you are aiming for here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Misinformation from Hamas isn't a "minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim". Let's take their statement that "fighters only targeted the occupation soldiers" as an example. The most mainstream coverage I can find is Haaretz, which calls it "blatant lies". Even Middle East Eye follows the quote with some contradictory facts. — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PROPORTION is a probably useful guide here too - editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" with the caveat to avoid excessively sampling of isolated incidents, news reports etc. Weight is proportional to the amount of reliably sourced information external to Wikipedia. It's not dependent on current article size or the incompleteness of coverage of other topics in the article. The comment '3. Remove the section on Israeli misinformation. (This should be done if step 2 is not taken)' by the non-EC editor is a good example of how inexperienced editors can get things completely wrong. What is a bit weird about this is that there's no dependency between information about the IDF and information about Hamas. They're independent things that happen to both fit into the article topic. It's not a zero-sum game between A and B for article real estate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree WP:PROPORTION should be the main guiding principle here, and we shouldn't be aiming for some artificial 50-50 proportion; a different ratio may be fine.
 * Still, I think there's a serious lack of proportionality at the moment. The issue, in my view, isn't just that Hamas misinformation isn't covered, but that that the IDF section is an evergrowing laundry list of related comments or controversies, many with questionable relevance or significance.
 * For example, the section currently includes four separate quotes (3 in the intro + the Qatari PM) which aren't making any specific misinformation claims, but just vague accusations of Israel not being truthful. Isn't that excessive? — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Misinformation_from_Israeli_officials Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should we pretend that untruthfulness, untrustworthiness, and the malicious production of fake videos and audio as as propaganda tools are necessarily equally distributed between the parties in this war? One could be much more guilty of all that, and all evidence points to Israel. There's no section on Palestinian militant misinformation even though, as far as I know, nobody ever objected to one being created here. What are all the Palestinian misinformation that is being prevented from being inserted here? If there's none, then I guess I can see why someone with a pro-Israel POV or obsessed with the idea of proportional balance would try to delete whatever content exposes the IDF. Which is however against policy on Wikipedia.
 * Articles on election campaigns in the West often make sections on right-wing misinformation bigger than left-wing misinformation in recognition that the former is simply a more common phenomenon. The article on disinformation in the Ukraine war likewise makes the Russian section much larger. Why should a false balance be pursued exclusvely here, then? Work on a Hamas section instead of exploiting tags to invalidate properly sourced work by other editors or try to get it removed under false pretenses like you've been doing lately, Daniel. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again I'm not suggesting some artificial target like a 50-50 proportion. Sometimes the proper balance is different. That doesn't mean we should throw WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE out the window though.
 * Even ignoring balance, it's just not a good idea to let this section grow as an exhaustive laundry list, with no regard to the strength or significance of each allegation. There needs to be some kind of curation here. — xDanielx  T/C\R 16:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Go point by point instead of generalizing. You would have needed to do that anyway if a tag were added. What is it specifically you object to? One by one. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a lengthy discussion and I'm not sure it's the right thing to focus on right now. Even if each paragraph was perfect in isolation, the overall section would still have a WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE issue. — xDanielx  T/C\R 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We are dealing with it below and by editing, don't trouble yourself any further. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I'm copy-pasting my response at the NPOV noticeboard. I agree that we should look at individual items.

The section contains several pretty clear-cut examples of statements made by Israeli officials that turned out to be not true (Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City and the white phosphorus incident), so the section should be kept. Including information in a section called Misinformation is pretty much equivalent to stating it in wikivoice. We should not do it unless we have multiple RS calling something "misinformation" or at least explicitly contradicting the words of Israeli officials. Much of the current content should be removed as it's not described as misinformation by RS, for example:
 * 1)   - no mention of misinformation so including it here is WP:OR
 * 2)   - no mention of misinformation, "heavy shooting" and "precise fire" are not mutually exclusive
 * etc. etc. Alaexis¿question? 21:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You want to hang your hat on the specific use of the word "misinformation", one definition of which is "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." Our lead says it is "the dissemination of false, misleading or unsubstantiated information" so if it fits that description, we're good.
 * 1.Editing video for the media is exactly misinformation/propaganda/misleading etcetera. In fact the whole al-Shifa thing, not just the video editing, was misinformation and propaganda from the getgo and that is all sourced in the relevant articles. See Al-Shifa Hospital siege "France 24 found the video to likely be staged.", "The irony is they might find something and nobody is going to believe them, at this point their credibility is shot." etcetera.
 * 2.Precisely, duh. We have, from the relevant article "A CNN investigation reported that Israel's claims that the incident had begun after 4:30 a.m. local time cast doubt on its version of events, as it had collected and analyzed footage from survivors, including one video showing that gunfire started seven minutes prior. It also reported that the Israeli military's publicized drone footage misses the moment capturing what caused the crowds to disperse, and that Israel had rejected its requests for the full unedited footage." and "Human Rights Watch stated the attack was part of a "decades-long pattern" of Israel using "unlawful, excessive force against Palestinians." Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We should use common sense obviously. If a RS calls a video staged then we can consider it misinformation and include it. However please note that the France24 article is about a different video (the one with the nurse). The BBC article discusses the video of the tunnels and says that it's edited because it wasn't shot in a single take.
 * Re my second example, at the very least we need to follow the source and clearly state what information was incorrect (e.g., "A CNN investigation cast doubt on the Israeli claims regarding the time when the shooting during the Flour massacre"). Alaexis¿question? 10:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the dissemination of false, misleading or unsubstantiated information seems questionable, particularly the "unsubstantiated" part. Definitions of misinformation vary (e.g. some say intentional, others not), but I can't find any other definition that says "unsubstantiated" or similar. Should we change it? — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the scope, open a new section to discuss that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024
A disclaimer should be added to the start of this article acknowledging that Hamas misinformation is not covered and Israeli misinformation is disproportionately canvassed. Joshuakoloski (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a non-extendedconfirmed user, Joshuakoloski cannot participate in consensus forming processes. They are limited to making edit requests and providing clarifications if asked to do so. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Layla Moran?
you added: "Catholic officials and Member of British Parliament Layla Moran, who maintained contact with refugees in the church, stated, on the contrary, that no Palestinian belligerants were in the area and that the two women had been killed by the Israeli army, who were the ones preventing the refugees from leaving."

I don't see such a statement by Moran mentioned in the sources, only a brief statement that her relatives were in the church. Am I missing something? — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You certainly are, which is par for the course with how you've been criticizing my contributions. I will only be able to respond in more depth tomorrow. But notice that the statements are attributed not only to Moran but also to Catholic officials. I do, however, vividly recall from the sources I added after rereading them today that Moran makes clear the people in the church were being tormented by the IDF and not Hamas, and that Hamas was not present in the area. She even accuses the IDF, based on her relatives' testimony, of attacking the church with white phosphorus!
 * Absolutely baffling that you missed all that and all you got from the sources was that she said nothing other than her relatives were in the church. It's astonishing. It's not clear to me if you're truly this oblivious as a reader or if you're intentionally trying to intimidate other editors into not contributing here by contesting everything they write all the time. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's really no need for personal attacks, just asking for a simple clarification. — xDanielx  T/C\R 03:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is everything Layla Moran said on the siege of the church which directly implicates the IDF just in the Sky News article, which is one of the sources in my most recent contribution here:
 * ''After contacting her family today, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesperson said that they have been sheltering at the Catholic church for more than 60 days and that Israeli forces will not allow them to leave.
 * ''She also said those sheltering at the church told her that the IDF have used white phosphorus in the compound, and a sniper killed two women who went into the courtyard.
 * ''Ms Moran said: "We do not understand why this happening.
 * ''"We do not understand why they couldn't have given warning if they were doing it. We do not know what the endgame here is.
 * ''"And my ask of the Israeli government is please leave my family alone, but I would also say it makes a mockery of the suggestion that the Israeli army is protecting civilians. They're not.
 * ''"From what I'm hearing from these eyewitness accounts, they are targeting them. That is deeply concerning. (...)"
 * ''Ms Moran's extended family - a grandmother, her son, his wife and their 11-year-old twins - are Christian Palestinians who she says fled to the Holy Family Church after their home was destroyed in an IDF bombing.
 * ''The MP also said "we haven't got a clue" how long her family will be in the complex, and added: "They've been there 60 days, so if there were Hamas fighters there I don't understand why it's taken this long to say anything.
 * ''"But there has been no warning, there has been no leaflet drop, there has been no phone call to the father or the priest.
 * "We know they have his number, because today, they did manage to contact the priest and say that between the hours of 2pm and 4pm this afternoon, they wouldn't shoot at people."
 * You just missed 99% of everything Moran said, could happen to anyone! Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where does that state that "no Palestinian belligerants [sic] were in the area"? — xDanielx  T/C\R 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem said that in a statement "They were shot in cold blood inside the premises of the parish, where there are no belligerents." Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "The Pope is right, these are only civilians inside this church," she told LBC.
 * Doing great, Daniel. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation definition
The article seems to present its own unique definition of misinformation: the dissemination of false, misleading or unsubstantiated information. Definitions vary (especially with regard to intentionality), but the "unsubstantiated" part in particular doesn't seem supported by any other definition I've seen. Any objection to replacing it with a more standard definition? — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - minor edit and coverage on internet misinformation campaign by israeli government
In the On Gaza - impersonations section remove the comma after Halala, and add an "and" after "who has reported ties to the Israeli government,"

Also, at the end of the disinformation campaigns section, add:

"Continuing it's history of disinformation campaigns from previous conflicts, the israeli government launched extensive internet misinformation campaigns, often discussed in terms of hasbara. israels ministry of diaspora affairs launched an internet misinformation campaign targeting 128 American congresspersons, predominately Democratic members of the House of Representatives, also focusing on African American congresspersons.  The israeli government held discussions with domestic tech leaders to discuss how they could participate in the conflict as "digital soldiers", these discussions generated a $2 million contract with the public relations firm Stoic to launch a disinformation campaign targeting the US.  The israeli government historically has funded and generated a wide variety of covert disinformation campaigns under it's ministry of foreign affairs, israel focuses more on it's largest sources of donations, the US and EU, but targets other audiences as well. Themes of the misinformation campaign are targeted at specific audiences. The major theme targeting US audiences was "Your 9/11 is our 9/11", and in the west generally emphasizes the threat of anti-semitism to Jewish people, and the "trope of Arab terrorists", while when targeting Gulf countries the major theme is to focus on local problems, to focus on their own financial problems, conflicts, and wars. One site in the israel-hamas war disinformation campaign focused on the Muslim participation in the slave trade, as well as pushing a fiction that Canadian Muslim citizens were pushing for government adoption of Sharia law. This is believed to have been designed to attempt to undermine empathy and support for Palestinians among Native Americans."

Using these as references, https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/05/israel-targeted-lawmakers-in-disinformation-campaign-00161906 https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4994027/israel-us-online-influence-campaign-gaza

Fanccr (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Done, more or less. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverts
please don't revert without assuming good faith, engaging with the concerns that have been raised, and observing WP:ONUS.

To reiterate the concerns: — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Al Jazeera quote makes no mention of misinformation. It also appears to have zero secondary coverage, so it seems WP:UNDUE.
 * As User:Alaexis pointed out, "fired precisely" does not contradict "large number of gunshot wounds". There's also no mention of misinformation; Al Jazeera's use of "however" expresses some kind of doubt but that doesn't seem concrete enough.


 * I reverted this too, I don't accept the above arguments. The entire business reeks of IDF deception, including the edited footage, a standard trick, and refusal to supply the full. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you address the specific concerns raised beyond stating that you don't accept them? — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's due, because it is clearly misinformation by the IDF and AJ IS secondary coverage. "fired precisely" does not contradict "large number of gunshot wounds" - I think it does, when taken in the overall context, being blithely ignored. In fact I may edit to make this abundantly clear in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you may be mixing up the two concerns? Al Jazeera is a primary source specifically for the content about the Al Jazeera statement ("Given Israel's unprecedented campaign against journalists ...").
 * Is there a source that says that says "fired precisely" was false or misleading, or refers to it as misinformation? It seems the closest thing we have is Al Jazeera following it with "however", which doesn't seem sufficient partly since it's just a vague expression of doubt. — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe I have answered you sufficiently. You may not like the answer but it is all I have to say ftb. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2024
The reports that PM Benjamin Netanyahu did not know about the events on October 7th are not cited, and there is ample evidence that the Israeli government, specifically PM Benjamin Netanyahu, knew of preparations for the rebellion ahead of time. There are ample and diverse sources that debunk these claims:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806634 https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/israeli-military-knew-hamas-planned-211718674.html https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/israel-hamas-attack-knew-over-year-1234906803/ https://www.salon.com/2023/12/05/israeli-officials-knew-of-october-7-a-year-ago--but-didnt-act-new-york-times_partner/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-says-netanyahu-has-rightfully-been-criticized-for-october-7-failure/ https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4657663-benjamin-netanyahu-failures-by-israel-oct-7-dr-phil-interview/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/06/israel-knew-hamas-attack-oct-7/ Jeszie L (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ER, could you propose a more specific (and uncontroversial) change? — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you going to do this ER or not? If not, mark it not done and set answered to yes. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: 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 if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Rafah strike content
re your edit,

— xDanielx  T/C\R 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a source for Israel shifting explanations?
 * 2) stating that the killing was the result of a secondary explosion resulting from an alleged Hamas weapons stockpile seems imprecise, when the spokesperson mentioned that as "one possibility" being investigated.
 * 3) no evidence of a secondary explosion exists also seems imprecise, the NYT only says that they weren't able to independently find evidence of significant secondary explosions. Not finding evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, especially since they don't appear to have asked the IDF to clarify where the purported evidence was.
 * 4) Is any source calling this misinformation, or stating that there was false or misleading information here? If not, I don't see how we can justify including it.


 * You're grasping at straws to have sourced content removed. We can add "significant" before "secondary", but I doubt that's going to get you satisfied. The NY Times was clear there was no significant secondary explosion in the "DOZENS" of videos it analyzed. The usage of "independently" is meaningless here and adds nothing to what's being conveyed. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you address the particular concerns? The last being most important, if that can't be addressed then the content doesn't belong and the other concerns don't matter. — xDanielx  T/C\R 01:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources are saying something that that contradicts Israel's story -- there's no evidence of a secondary explosion, and that's what's being claimed in the entry. At the risk of being banned, I will say this: the fact that you blank-deleted the information instead of trying to "improve" it, shows that you have no concerns for objectivity or accuracy; you're implementing a pro-Israel agenda in your edits. You're removing information you think is embarrassing for Israel. And it's time administration take some action against this. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And by the way, it's very interesting that you asked whether there's a source for Israel shifting explanations, instead of asking whether there's proof, since it is clear, from our discussion in the other Talk Page, that you do know Israel shifted explanations, as the other entry documented. Readers who want more in-depth information about the Rafah tent massacre can click on the other entry to get it there. For the purposes of this entry, I think the few lines written are enough. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what you're referring to. Is there a reliable source that characterizes some Israeli statements as "shifting" or similar language? — xDanielx  T/C\R 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then you were trying to admit Tel al-Sultan massacre without even reading what was in the entry: On May 27, Israeli officials initially told their American counterparts that shrapnel from their airstrike ignited a nearby fuel tank, creating a large fire. The same day, an Israeli reporter said the explosion was caused by a "Hamas jeep loaded with weapons". Later, the IDF suggested that a militant warehouse containing ammunition or "some other material" in the area caused the fire. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't the source attributing "Hamas jeep loaded with weapons" to "the Gazan narrator", not to Israel? I also think that even if Israel was shifting explanations, we would still need a reliable source to say that, per WP:SYNTH. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the additions are problematic, primarily from WP:OR point of view. For example, the whole Flour massacre paragraph was added without any sources that call it misinformation (unless I'm missing something). Alaexis¿question? 08:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added back a restructured version of the Flour massacre material, clearly belongs. Will probably add back the Rafah strike as well, since it is clear that there were indeed shifting explanations as well the final explanation not holding water. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia?
Get this could be quite meta and on the nose, but should there be a section on the article about Wikipedia? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Based on what sources? Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wikipedia-entries-show-anti-israel-bias-says-wjc
 * https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/383752
 * https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-792808
 * https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2024-06-25/ty-article/.premium/leading-jewish-groups-rebuke-wikipedias-attack-on-adls-credibility-on-antisemitism/00000190-4f10-da42-a1ba-7f7a12ad0000 MaskedSinger (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Attacking ADL credibility is not misinfo, that's WP usual procedure for classifying sources. Nor is alleged bias misinfo. Which sources allege that Wikipedia has spread incorrect or misleading info? Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's all i have for now. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does seem a little meta, as well as a little misinformed. Bias is not misinformation, and Wikipedia, when edited correctly, only reflects other sources ... so the only misinformation it should contain is the misinformation in other sources, which would be the fault of the other sources not Wikipedia, so the blame game is misdirected. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What if misinformation is due to bias? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Says who, tho? Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some day in the future, some of the content of those sources will be used by someone as examples of misinformation and disinformation about Wikipedia, due to bias. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When all you bigshot, superstar editors comment on my threads, I get imposter syndrome. Y'all legends round here and I can't think of a bigger nobody than me! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the World Jewish Congress says Wikipedia is not neutral and advocates ways to make it neutral. And it starts with the call "We must act now, together, with our unwavering support for Israel". I think I can see a wee problem with taking what they say about Wikipedia at face value? I've no problem all that being included with a straight face and readers can laugh at it if they feel that way inclined! NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As to the ADL, I fully agree with the results of the RfC and am very sorry the ADL has weaponized labelling as antisemitism the way it has. NadVolum (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay I agree a section can be added about Wikipedia. Can't think of anything particular to say about the contents - probably best just to stick in the two topics and summarize what they say. NadVolum (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If something were to be added, how would it relate to "the distribution of false, inaccurate or otherwise misleading information" per the article scope? Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They have alleged that Wikipedia is disseminating misleading information and we go by the sources. I know, it is hard to figure out a decent angle that relates to actual misinformation that's why I suggest just a heading and a summary of what they say. Perhaps we can alo in general cover allegations of spreading misinformation even when the information is correct - after all that is also misinformation. Sorry if that is starting to sound like There are unknown unknowns! :-) NadVolum (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They should also probably be put into Criticism of Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry
Just to give you a chance to explain: What makes the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank, a reliable source/worthy of inclusion for casting doubt on the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll figures. More importantly, being doubted by a think tank does not mean the ministry is spreading misinformation when it is approved by other far more neutral organizations like the UN; thus it is frivolous to include this study in this article at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yep, the majority opinion of reliable sources (which WINEP is not) is that GHM is reliable and they are certainly not spreading misinformation. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Was this in the GHM section? I have to ask why this section exists at all. Apart from being WP:NOTNEWS content, I don't see a clear assertion of misinformation, or mention of the word misinformation in the sources. They just speak of the Congress ban and the Israeli claim that it's not accurate. Inaccuracy, even if it's accepted, ≠ misinformation, but could be caused by all sorts of things. So the sources don't say there's misinformation, and it can't be deduced, so why is the material here? Seems distinctly WP:COATRACK-ish. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed that section, the only sources alleging wrong info are the US and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Two countries that ironically used to use the same information for their reference: the US state department internally and Israel to verify the collateral damage models of its own military. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to prohibit the State Department from citing the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll in the Israel-Hamas war.
 * https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/06/28/House-votes-State-Department-Gaza-death-toll/9491719560088/
 * This absolutely belongs on this article. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to prohibit the State Department from citing the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll in the Israel-Hamas war So what? The Senate hasn't even approved it, just another silly resolution from US congress. it doesn't even say the numbers are unreliable, duh. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even the UPI article you cite doesn't call MoH spreading misinformation. You are making an original research here. And I am really concerned that you only restored the part about the US house vote, but left out the reliability approval by the UN part. I wonder why. Also I don't appreciate UPI as a reliable source which is currently under the control of the Unification Church just like the Washington Times, and better source should always be sought after. Anyway this whole section about the Gaza MoH "spreading misinfo" should be removed completely. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Ill remove them. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is about misinformation and disinformation, I have no objections to it having the stuff from the Washington Institute though it is fairly low grade trashing of the Gaza Health Ministry data. A much better example I think is the stuff from Professor Wyner alleging the data is faked which has been called "One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen" by another professor of statistics. NadVolum (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have a consensus to remove the US House bill from this article? (I have already copied it to the actual Gaza Health Ministry article.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, fits better there, here it just looks WP:POINTy. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)