User:Irtapil/TalkDrafts

actually … drafting on a talk page works better

but hare's the talk page sections that really belong on pages…

see also User:Irtapil/Talk Drafts

= Draft comments =

Proposed page move
A few hours ago, 2023 Israel–Hamas war became, simply, Israel–Hamas war. This page should follow suit and become List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Does this means I get to go all the way back to Operation Bringing Hone the Goods and before? Or I think that end up at the 1990s? Irtapil (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry i should have coffee befor attention humour.
 * WTF did i spell wrong in that…
 * Irtapil (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the scope remains the same, it's the same article. This also gives me the opportunity to ask about the inclusion of a row for "Israeli settler violence" which ended on 6 October. Seems out of scope? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Kind of everything
 * Palestinian politics
 * Israeli politics
 * A bit of context is useful and it's hard to argue that things happening as recently as the day before aren't relevant.
 * international politics
 * The UN condemnation is interesting given the controversy that followed about who would condemn what when.
 * and most relevant for that table the strategic aspect of where the IDF and Israeli police had most of their forces deployed.
 * The Gaza border region was reported was under staffed because they were all busy defending and / or annexing (depending on your perspective) the West Bank.
 * The linked article is maybe not the best match for the story? Replace it with something else if you can find something suitable? Or if you can think of a more relevant name that describes the context better then feel free to add it as a more relevant name  I left it as it was because I figured that title was probably the result of many very long consensus discussions.
 * Sorry. Posted the above unfinished before my phone mangled it completely. Fixing it now. Irtapil ( talk ) 00:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Edited Irtapil (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It currently looks a bit synth? But is very widely reported thaa big reason that Hamas et al. had the upper hand got a few days
 * 1.
 * 2. It's Irtapil (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done which? Irtapil (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done which? Irtapil (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

List of Endangerments
@ User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter there are more than enough incidents to fill a page now, e.g. From yesterday's grim news (I've not watched this yet) Video shows aftermath of a summary execution of 15 men in a Gaza apartment - from Al Jazeera News feed via YouTube) but those on the wrong side of the Gaza boarder are much less well documented, so this has ended up with a worrying skew. There genuinely is less information, and it's genuinely less verifiable, but the overall effect we're ending up with is a document about a war that's severely skewed to the one half of the first ~2400 deaths, in a war that's up to 30,000 dead, 90% of whom are on the other side. Each thing included is individually verifiable, but the overall picture is … a less reliable assessment of the full story than the CGTN Radio news headlines? By which I mean each individual bit of it is factual, but the overall story is a big lie. ~ ~ ~ ~

= Deletion Discussions =

hostage page merges

 *  probably no  - Keep them all separate for now, they are likely to expand over the next few months, but make sure they are well connected to relevant other pages. Is there already a centralised list / table page of the hostages? Would that be appropriate? Should I start one? Irtapil (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Murad Abu Murad

 * Second choice, Keep or merge with an existing page, but I would prefer…
 * Start a list page - There will probably be a lot of these little articles?
 * To begin with I would include all factions and Hezbollah (not just Hamas). We can split it if it gets too long. Some entries can refer to a main page, but most probably won't. But what do we call it? And should we include notabe civilians?
 * 📝 "List of Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"
 * But that is too long?
 * 📝 "Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 war"
 * Which war is probably implied
 * 📝 "Alleged militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"
 * Some (e.g. Ali Bazi) seem to be officially unconfirmed and recently dead people probably warrant similar caution to WP:BLP? Possibly we could just make it comprehensive?
 * 📝 "List of notable deaths in the 2023-2024 war"
 * That would include journalists and any other civilians whose deaths got substantial news coverage?
 * But the 1,139 deaths on the Israeli side at the beginning probably belong on a different list, the level of detail about them could easily fill an entire wiki page?
 * 📝 "Notable non-Israeli casualties in the 2023-2024 war"
 * But I have never seen "notable" in an article title before, is there a better way to say that?
 * The 3 hostages who got shot seem like they belong in that list, but "kilted by Israel" is obviously going to cause problems. Possibly it could just be 8 October onwards? But the IDF soldiers seem like they belong elsewhere?
 * Irtapil (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

= Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war =

some of these probably belong elsewhere

belongs in casualties
For people who died in Gaza from 7 October to 26 October 2023, "Children younger than 18 years, women aged 18–59 years, and both men and women aged 60 years or older (groups that probably include few combatants) constituted 68% of analysable deaths"

apartheid
{{main| Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war # Mention of apartheid RfC ]]

did you read ?
{{main| Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war # Mention of apartheid RfC ]] Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war

{{anchor|irtapilBooknark}}
 * Did you read the articles I mentioned? They mention apartheid in some meaningful and relevant way. The stuff about New Jersey could very well be relevant - one of your articles says one of the victims of the Hamas attack was from New Jersey, and that is covered in the part on foreign casualties (whether in this article or the subarticle on casualties). VR {{sub|talk}} 18:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Like this article I found in a (slightly crazy) search for "apartheid New Jersey", which looks general from the headline … {{reflist}} … but actually contains President Cyril Ramaphosa saying, {{teal| “(the Palestinian people) have been under occupation for almost 75 years … waging a struggle against an oppressive government that has occupied their land, but also a government that has in recent times been dubbed an apartheid state.” }} (and the wrong Jersey, "Mandela famously wore the Springbok rugby jersey – for many, a symbol of apartheid – to present Francois Pienaar with the Rugby World Cup trophy.") ~ ~

less biased search strategy for apartheid views
Since so many people above are saying "most sources say" based on what Google shows them for what they call the war, I'm attempting a less biased search. Any name you give for this war, will be a name only one side uses to refer to this war.


 * That's quoted at WP:DUE, is part of WP:NPOV (which is policy) and exceptionally among policies, it cannot be overridden by consensus but must be followed. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My point is that ! But in articles about apartheid, written since the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, the vast majority agree that it is something Israel is doing, and generally relevant to the current hodtilities. Even when I add there are articles from Israeli newspapers quoting protesters in the USA, "Wall Street makes billions in profits from the US/Israeli war machine and its system of apartheid and occupation."

New Jersey ?

 * The pages found by @Mathglot "Here are a dozen articles that mention "New Jersey" somewhere in the article"
 * Tensions rise in NJ as violence escalates in Israel-Hamas war "israel-hamas-war"
 * "The Five Global Dangers from the Gaza War" … title looked terrible, but I actually agree parts of it, but … no mention of Apartheid?
 * What were you even trying to show? The war is mentioned in NJ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12).
 * But let's try the other way … My initial assessment of the results get for "apartheid new jersey" (no quotes, no date restrictions) is that either the civil war never ended or Charles Manson's plan worked … but adding dates … even despite adding New Jersey there are quite a few about the war.
 * The 4th hit is the first that looks relevant it is from the Jerusalem Post quoting some anti-war protestors on "X" posting, "While a genocide continues in Palestine, Wall Street makes billions in profits from the US/Israeli war machine and its system of apartheid and occupation." I don't think JP are agreeing with that, but  your point isn't that it's wrong or objectionable, you're trying to say it's irrelevant?
 * Further down the page is a YouTube video from a channel I have never seen before, but which does have a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel skew by the looks of the other videos. Figured I'd add for honestly or comprehensiveness.
 * Next an Al-Jazeera article which looks general but actually contains President Cyril Ramaphosa saying,  and the wrong Jersey, "Mandela famously wore the Springbok rugby jersey – for many, a symbol of apartheid – to present Francois Pienaar with the Rugby World Cup trophy."
 * All three are on the first page in "incognito mode" but Al Jazeera's ranks higher.
 * So, even adding random other parts of the world, I still find some stuff linking them… whatever that proves?


 * And that AJ one makes me wonder if bothered looking past the headline in the "lots of Nelson Mandela stuff"?

refs

New Jersey
I should abridge this… 19:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The pages found by @Hob Gadling "Here are a dozen articles that mention "New Jersey" somewhere in the article"
 * Tensions rise in NJ as violence escalates in Israel-Hamas war "israel-hamas-war"
 * "The Five Global Dangers from the Gaza War" … title looked terrible, but I actually agree parts of it, but … no mention of Apartheid?
 * What were you even trying to show? The war is mentioned in NJ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12).
 * But let's try the other way … My initial assessment of the results get for "apartheid new jersey" (no quotes, no date restrictions) is that either the civil war never ended or Charles Manson's plan worked … but adding dates … even despite adding New Jersey there are quite a few about the war.
 * The 4th hit is the first that looks relevant it us from the Jerusalem Post quoting some anti-war protestors on "X" posting, "While a genocide continues in Palestine, Wall Street makes billions in profits from the US/Israeli war machine and its system of apartheid and occupation." I don't think JP are agreeing with that, but your point isn't that it's wrong or objectionable, you're trying to say it's irrelevant?
 * Further down the page is a YouTube video from a channel I have never seen before, but which does have a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel skew by the looks of the other videos. Figured I'd add for honestly or comprehensiveness.
 * Next an Al-Jazeera article which looks general but actually contains President Cyril Ramaphosa saying,  and the wrong Jersey, "Mandela famously wore the Springbok rugby jersey – for many, a symbol of apartheid – to present Francois Pienaar with the Rugby World Cup trophy."
 * All three are on the first page in "incognito mode" but Al Jazeera's ranks higher.
 * So, even adding random other parts of the world, I still find some stuff linking them… whatever that proves?


 * And that AJ one makes me wonder if bothered looking past the headline in the "lots of Nelson Mandela stuff"?

refs

= Talk Drafts for Pages =

❓

these 3 things can't all be accurate together
Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and first two points on actuations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel

This story has either a big error or a big gap, because there are 3 parts of the story that cannot plausibly all be true at the same time.

We can't "synthese" (WP:synth?) our own conclusions in the article, but there are probably reliable sources that address this, we just need to look harder to find them.


 * 1) 1 - There were 2900 militants
 * 1000 were killed
 * 200 were captured
 * that still leaves 1700 who don't seem to have been stopped, possibly wounded, but not so badly that they didn't get back to Gaza.


 * 1) 2 - Their goal was to kill as many people as possible.

So 2,900 men (mostly with automatic weapons?), whose goal was maximum death, and who were mostly not stopped, killed fewer than one person each?

Point 3 is extremely well documented, so we can trust that and look at the other two.

Things to check on point 1
 * Possibly the story is more misleading than wrong? I've noticed I'm only assuming that each of those 2,900 has powerful weapon? from the description "militant". Possibly only a small proportion actually had automatic weapons? There are probably more detailed sources that could give a more realistic picture.
 * or possibly that number is the total number of PEOPLE who crossed the boarder, not actually militants. Possibly there was a large crowd of unarmed civilians celebrating the destruction of the boarder wall (it looks like Berlin in the desert if you see just that part of the videos) and a MUCH smaller number of actual militants? So we need to dig back to see where that number comes from,and what it actually refers to.


 * Things to check on point 2.
 * This is the one I trust the least, but I might believe it if the wisely repotrd 3000 militants was made up of a few hundred actual armed men and a mostly unarmed civilians excited about the wall being torn down. But I'd still be skeptical of the main piece of evidence this article presents for it.
 * "Israeli first responders reportedly recovered documents from killed militants' bodies with instructions to attack civilians, including elementary schools and a youth center, to "kill as many people as possible", and to take hostages for use in future negotiations." Then a long LIST of citations… … but they all trace back to the same "one side said" story.

That story is incoherent. Attacking a school makes no sense because 7 October was a Saturday, and not just a Saturday when a boarding school might have had kids there, the attacks occurred on Simchat Torah a major religious holiday? The school would be empty? My own anonymous assessment obviously can't be included, but there's possibly someone much better qualified than me who has already critiqued it in something citable?

The evidence is weak and makes no sense (attacking a school on a religious holiday) despite the huge list of citations in reliabile sources. They all trace baby to the same dubious source.

A similar story I've heard, that might be part of where this came from is that they were instructed to take the HOSTAGES that would most manipulate the emotions of the Israeli public. And that actually did happen. (This actually resembles another "9-11" which turned out nearly as badly. Beslan School seige.) They took a lot of very young kids. Do the linked citations indicate it could be a distortion of that?

&
(The rape allegations in lead on the war page)

Why would you separate the first attacks? Or do you just mean that's where the detail belongs instead of the mean page?

I think the war definitely includes the first attacks. They were part of the war, not like 9-11 and the wars that followed that.

The 2003-(to ISIS?) Iraq war started in Iraq. But arguably the "war on terror" started on 9-11 in New York, and if it didn't, it started in the 90s with the Russian apartment bombings. But that wasn't a normal war, it was more like the "War On Drugs" it just had bigger wars within it.

But this is 2 sides of ultra nationalists who both want the whole country to be their country, it is a fairly normal war. Even saying the other country is not a county is weirdly normal, e.g. Putin about talking Ukraine being just part of Russia, or the PRC claiming Taiwan is not a country, etc.

But it is usual for BOTH sides to claim the other is a non entity? That might be a unique symmetry in this conflict? (Despite it being a classic case of "asymmetric warfare".)

There have been rape allegations since the beginning, 8 October or 9 October at an estimate. But the witness testimony appeared recently.

Originally, all of the alleged victims had also been killed. Has that changed? Or just new evidence?

As far as I remember the reports of sexual violence.

First there was alleged video evidence, but it now seems unclear how accurately the war described, few talking about it had screaming seen it.

Then there was evidence from dead bodies, but it was often a bit off, e.g. interpreting

I've currently got way too much time on my hands, so I've been following this is detail from the start. But I've been avoiding this aspect of it because it's particularly distressing. From what I've managed to take in, or failed to avoid, it seems like something extremely likely to happen from the overall situation, but the specific evidence I've come across seems very weak.
 * Originally there was alleged video evidence (from the go pros), but that was all described second-hand, because pretty much nobody on earth wanted to watch it. It seemed plausible at first, but it now seems a bit unclear what these videos showed or if they existed at all. Possibly they are not being released out of respect for family members, there are some possible legitimate reasons.
 * Then three were some interpretations based on the dead bodies, but some of it was burnt bodies. The clothing and positioning of severely burnt bodies seems like it would have other explanations? One of the better Israeli newspapers (Times of Israel or Haaretz) reported that no specific forensic investigation had been done to detect sexual assault, again that might be innocent because it was a massive mas casualty event, but it makes it hard to work out what happened.

I'm a little bit worried this will repeat the Satanic Panic

what sort of victory?
Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel


 * Because the main goals seem to have been:
 * - Destroy the fence.
 * - Destroy automated surveillance points.
 * - Massacre IDF personnel stationed at border.
 * - Take hostages and bring them back to the Gaza Strip alive.
 * - Launch enough rockets to saturate the Iron Dome and hit areas that are usually unreachable.
 * They succeeded in all of those? (and they might have intended to start a war, but that's unclear?) They didn't seem to have any supplies with them for staying long (allegedly not even water, but I haven't seen thar anywhere citable). So it looks like the intended mission was a cross boarder raid followed by a fairly prompt return to the Gaza Strip with hostages.
 * There is no sign of anything they were trying to do and failed at?
 * Until the next day, or possibly the day after. Because they got hostages very successfully, but they initially failed abysmally at negotiations about the hostages.
 * Irtapil (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kataeb Al-Qassam's initial demand was for the IDF to not bomb homes "without warning" (see the topic below). But the IDF responded by "warning" the entirety of Gaza City to move south, including about dozen hospitals. That is not a warning, that is just a crazy excuse, But it left Hamas a bit stuck. So that was the first big failure of any of Hamas' plans?

Where
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war seem to each think the other should be the comprehensive list. Things keep disappearing from the List of engagements on the basis that a few editors think that pages should function as an index of content that is elsewhere on Wiki. Meanwhile, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel directs to List of engagements as the "main pages" for more details.

"some are held by other groups"?

 * on a related note to what i said above, gaps in the story that need refs…
 * The "other groups" might have made their own hostage demands? I suspect the PFLP wanted their leader Ahmad Saadat released, right from the start? But the Israelis weren't even willing to talk about adult male prisoners, let alone leaders. So nobody even mentioned Saadat until this week?
 * But I cannot find anything definitively stating that the mysterious unnamed "other group" even is the PFLP, or even anything saying clearly that anyone from the PFLP's Kataeb Abu Ali got more than a few meters into Israel that day?
 * But Hamas themselves tried to release Saadat in 2006, and the demand now seem to come from Hamad, even according to Arabic media (who don't generally claim that Israel is "only at war with Hamas"). Has this story surfaced in English yet?
 * If anyone has some reliable references to solve the "some held by other groups" mystery? I would be very interested to include them.
 * Irtapil (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems to answer it… "After a failed attempt to free him, the spokesman for the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades announces the killing of an Israeli prisoner." (machine translation of original headline) Irtapil (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are citations for this on the Kidnapping of the Bibas family page, and it's associated talk page. Irtapil (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

= Talk Drafts for People =

❓

reply to
User talk:Iskandar323

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Beheading by Salafi jihadist groups. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Bq1=Nice work}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So much for neutrality
User talk:Bijak riyandi]]


 * Re: List of … talk


 * I tried to adapt that into "massacres, hostages takings, and mass imprisonments" to include the trick loads of alleged militants taken away by the Israeli Army, but someone changed it back to "massacres and hostage takings", and now those incidents are nowhere.
 * If you can think of a better subheading for that section that covers the data already in the table, then suggest it here, if we can find something enough people agree on that counts as "consensus" and people aren't allowed to keep changing it back. The massacres table also previously included:
 * The total blockade on Gaza. No food, water, or medical supplies sounds like a massacre? but it seems someone disagreed.
 * And the forced evacuation of hospitals?
 * And the resulting deaths of premature infants
 * And there I think there were also others.

needs link

 * One problem is a lot of possible massacres committed by the army are less well documented.
 * I am thinking of compiling a list of poss
 * Invite to extend the school massacre stub.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023
User talk:Weather Writer]]
 * Re: List of… talk.
 * Possibly the events discussed on this part of the talk page should be re-added?
 * I'm noticing a distinctly one sided pattern of content removal on that page, and I'm really daunted by what to do about it? The pattern I'm noticing is removal of:
 * controversial actions of the IDF
 * military targets of Palestinian Militants
 * things outside Gaza (West Bank, Lebanon, etc.)
 * The best documented cases of those things seem to stay, but there's a very biased pattern in the removal of anything that's ambiguous for notability, relevance, or reliable sources. e.g. The lone remaining military target from 7 October appears to be a massacre of female soldiers that was reported in the Times of Israel?
 * The 7 October attacks indisputably included multiple war crimes, but it's still wrong to distort the story into a one sided propaganda narrative. And it is definitely wrong to be symaltaniously removing questionable actions from the other side.

= Resources =

Templates

 * tq

Related Pages

 * [User:Irtapil/Palestine
 * [User:Irtapil/PS
 * User:Irtapil/Draft Test