Jump to content

Talk:Gaza war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Adding the United States to the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Question withdrawn. Discussion is here: [16] (non-admin closure) —TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the United States be added as a participant under Israel in the infobox?

  • Option 1: Yes, add the United States as an ally of Israel.
  • Option 2: Yes, add the United States as a co-belligerent under Israel.
  • Option 3: No.

Rationale for this RfC: Previous RfC (no consensus) had several issues: the question changed half-way through the RfC, it used "US/UK" implying that the foreign policy of the two countries is the same when that is clearly not the case. This RfC focuses on the question of including the United States only.

Option 1 or 2. There are several arguments for both positions. It doesn't matter to me whether US is listed as an ally or a co-belligerent.
1) There are US troops listed in the infobox under "Strength", it is unusual that the United States itself wouldn't be listed in the infobox.
2) WP:RS call the US an ally of Israel explicitly.
"White House has then firmly backed its Israeli ally's decisions"[1]
3) The US has sent THAAD missile batteries and troops to operate them in Israel, WP:RS say that the US troops are deployed "in combat".
"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed in combat in Israel during the current crisis."[2]
4) Some academics have explicitly stated US is a co-belligerent, although I am not sure if it is WP:UNDUE.
"The Israeli military forces' war on Gaza, following Hamas's 7 October attack, is the first Israeli war in which Washington is a cobelligerent."[3]
5) While the THAAD missile system was sent to defend against possible attacks from Iran, the first missile it shot down was from Yemen.[4]
6) The THAAD missile system was sent to "defend Israel" in general, be it from Iran, Yemen, Hamas, etc. There is nothing in WP:RS to suggest that the THAAD missile system is used only against Iran's attacks, it can be used against Hamas rockets too (it's just that geography doesn't permit Hamas to launch "long range ballistic missiles" on account of them being so close to Israel.
"President Joe Biden said the THAAD's deployment, along with about 100 U.S. soldiers, was meant to help defend Israel"[5]
"Mr. Biden said only that he had ordered the Pentagon to deploy the system "to defend Israel.""[6]
7) US has already sent a THAAD battery in response to Hamas' attack on October 7, meaning that the US is involved in the Hamas-Israel conflict.[7] The same BBC article also points out that US sending troops to Israel is "more rare". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Per the points I made in the previous RFC.
1. USA has sent forces on the ground in combat operations to Israel, which is a geopolitical first.[8] If a country like, say, China, sent 100 soldiers to Russia to help them fight Ukraine, editors would no doubt add China as a belligerent to the infobox. America has done the same thing, as seen here, and thus should be added.
2. USA regularly runs flights of spy drones over Gaza and uses them to give key military info to Israel. Pentagon statements about the issue state that ""The US is conducting unarmed UAV flights over Gaza, as well as providing advice and assistance to support our Israeli partner as they work on their hostage recovery efforts," the Pentagon's statement on Friday said. The confirmation comes after reporters spotted MQ-9 Reapers, usually operated by American special forces, circling Gaza on Flightradar24, a publicly available flight-tracking website."[9] The WSJ also reported that America used this data to share the locations of militants.[10]. Significantly, this also helped Israel locate Yahya Sinwar.[11] Going back to China/Ukraine, imagine if China was flying drones in Ukraine that gave Russia information on where, say, Zelensky is located leading to his assassination. That would surely be grounds to include China, so why not here?
It is worth noting that Israel accounts for a measely 20% of reconnisance flights over Gaza. With the USA representing 33% and the UK representing 47%. The data gained from these flights provided Israel with data of ground movements in Gaza.[12]
3. RS have called this war the first Joint US-Israeli War.[13]. Genabab (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 2 per my and others' arguments in the previous RFC and the ones reproduced here. I think the evidence shows that the US is an essential ally and co-belligerent of Israel whose military, diplomatic and economic actions have profoundly shaped the outcome of the war by supporting or restraining the range of action of its other belligerents, for example through carrier group and anti-air deployments and by providing military intelligence, arms and other battlefield support. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3, and moratorium. The US has not fought in the Gaza War. The US has, however, continued its longstanding "war" against rebel groups in the Middle East. They have done this since before the Gaza War, and they will continue to do so after the Gaza War, because their reason for doing so is not to support Israel. The United States' rationale for attacking the Houthis/other militia groups is because those groups attack the US separately for their own reasons. The closest the US has come to being actually involved in this war is either providing arms to Israel (if you look at it that way), or by providing training and a few (well under 1000) trained personnel to operate defensive equipment. As such, option 2 is blatantly false.
    That leaves option 1 - which suggests to list as an ally. Sure, they're an ally - but they are not involved in fighting on Israel's behalf as a "co-belligerent" or "ally" would be. As such, they are a "supporter", not an ally. And there was previously a consensus (see Template talk:Infobox military conflict § RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter) to deprecate the use of "supported by". Deprecation does not mean "shoehorn it in under another field that has a completely different meaning". It means deprecated. As such, unless/until the US engages in active hostilities, they are not an ally by the definition of the template as per longstanding consensus.
    I recommend a moratorium on this issue until there is a significant change in any country's (whether the US or otherwise) involvement. This topic (re: US and UK) was discussed at length, and the purported problems with the past RfC (which was only closed not even 2 weeks ago) are, bluntly, non-issues. Regardless of what the question itself asked or if it was changed, people discussed the US and the UK at length independently from each other, and there was still no consensus to add it. Attempting to claim that there was some "fatal flaw" with the question (so to speak) that means a new RfC is merited is simply attempting to wikilawyer a reason to hold a new RfC in the hopes that people who contributed to the last RfC are exhausted and won't contribute. In other words, it is "civil" POV pushing and an attempt to bludgeon the process - especially holding this so soon after the last RfC ended in a resounding "no consensus to add". This is evidenced also by the fact that, rather than holding a new RfC on that page, or at least notifying the page the last RfC was held on, it is being held here in a different forum to try and get a different result.
    Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "their reason for doing so is not to support Israel."
    You need to show WP:RS that say this, because the consensus among WP:RS is that US deployed the THAAD battery "to defend Israel".
    "rather than holding a new RfC on that page, or at least notifying the page the last RfC was held on, it is being held here in a different forum to try and get a different result."
    I do not agree with your characterisation. For every other conflict article the infobox is discussed on the article's talk page. This is the first time I have seen that an infobox has its own talk page. I don't think we need a separate talk page just for the infobox and in fact I am going to suggest that that Talk page be deleted and topics moved/archived to the Gaza war Talk page.
    "imply attempting to wikilawyer a reason to hold a new RfC in the hopes that people who contributed to the last RfC are exhausted and won't contribute."
    Or, you know, WP:AGF. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez
    > The US has not fought in the Gaza War.
    How can you argue that sending 100 soldiers to fight in combat, even if to operate defensive equipment, is not taking part directly in the war in Gaza?
    > but they are not involved in fighting on Israel's behalf as a "co-belligerent" or "ally" would be.
    This is not what RS's seem to suggest at all.[14]
    > It means deprecated. As such, unless/until the US engages in active hostilities, they are not an ally by the definition of the template as per longstanding consensus.
    And the argument being made here is that they already have and do.
    > This is evidenced also by the fact that, rather than holding a new RfC on that page, or at least notifying the page the last RfC was held on, it is being held here in a different forum to try and get a different result.
    I assume good faith here but it is quite a stretch. Turbo's account is only a few months old. It's entirely possible they just don't know the relevant RFC etiquette. You should have checked if that whole WP about biting Newbies was in play here smh. And in addition, Turbo also got permission (kinda) from the previous closer to re-open it anyway. You probably should have checked that as well. Genabab (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3. The reason is "dispute over Israeli allies". Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or 2 per Turbo and Genabab 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 per Berchanhimez and this should be speedy closed as being improperly opened in a naked attempt to forum shop. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "naked attempt to forum shop."
    Can you please cite the section of the policy that applies here? We all make mistakes and I'm always willing to learn. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not engaging in a bad-faith discussion with you on this matter -- you're well aware that there already was an RFC just days ago on this matter, which closed as no consensus, covering *exactly* this same question with no substantive differences or new edits in that point. Sealioning isn't going to make this any more in-process. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the policy and it doesn't apply here, I have not made multiple posts on several Talk pages and noticeboards, only here.
    It doesn't cover the same question because the previous RfC asked to add US and UK as "allies in other theatres" while this RfC asks whether the US should be added to the infobox as either a belligerent or ally.
    I hope that addresses your concerns. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swatjester Are you aware of the fact that the previous closer did not have a problem with a re-open? Genabab (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's irrelevant whether the previous closer has a problem with it or not; there is a longstanding established consensus against immediately re-opening an RFC, and even longer-standing consensus against out-of-process disruption of the project in this particular topic space. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > there is a longstanding established consensus against immediately re-opening an RFC and even longer-standing consensus against out-of-process disruption of the project in this particular topic space.
    @Swatjester That doesn't appear to be the case per the previous closers statements that there is no issue with re-opening the RFC. Just where are you getting that consensus from? Genabab (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reread my prior statement about the complete irrelevance of the previous closer's comments. Then please read up on what the purpose of an RFC is and the definition of what a close is and why one is performed. By definition a closed RFC represents a consensus (including a consensus that no consensus exists); absent new information that changes the standing consensus, a new RFC on the same topic definitionally represents a disruptive attempt to ignore consensus. Per the FAQ at WT:RFC: The formal closing summary of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time. and per WP:RFCBEFORE: If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC and editors are instructed to attempt all other options first. (No such attempt has been made here). Since per the longstanding procedures of our RFC process, a closed RFC represents a consensus, there was no need to start a new RFC on the same question. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > Please reread my prior statement about the complete irrelevance of the previous closer's comments.
    What is that based on though> As of right now it sounds like an assertion and not a steadfast rule smh
    > a new RFC on the same topic definitionally represents a disruptive attempt to ignore consensus.
    I just don't see how that can be the case if the previous closer takes no issue with RFC being re-opened.
    > (No such attempt has been made here)
    That's not true, there were loads of discussions made about this issue before this RFC and the one before it. Inbetween, eh, not so much. But so what? Not like there was any reason to believe the end result of the discussions between either one would have changed Genabab (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, did I just read that correctly? Did you just admit that there was no discussion in between this RFC and the previous one 10 days ago, nor that there would have been any reason to believe that the end results of either would have changed? Well, I guess that puts to rest any outstanding dispute whether this RFC was created in bad-faith. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39le0dp4p7o
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/
  3. ^ https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/us-israel-joint-war
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-anti-missile-system-israel-used-intercept-projectile-yemen-2024-12-27/
  5. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-says-thaad-anti-missile-system-is-in-place-israel-2024-10-21/
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html
  7. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20jye8v5dro
  8. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/
  9. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67317218
  10. ^ https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-and-israels-unprecedented-intelligence-sharing-draws-criticism-a85979b4
  11. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/politics/israel-hamas-sinwar.html
  12. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/10/24/how-us-and-uk-military-airlifts-have-supported-israels-war-on-gaza
  13. ^ https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/us-israel-joint-war
  14. ^ https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/us-israel-joint-war
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.

Imbalance in photos - favoring Israelis over Palestinians

Going through photos on this page, I noticed that we seem to depict Israelis frequently, and Palestinians infrequently. So I counted the number of times that an image appears with a person or (intact) vehicle in the foreground or midground, and found the following:

  • Palestinians - 3 images
  • Israelis - 20 images

For the Israelis, the images are most often of soldiers or hostages, and less often of large military vehicles (like tanks), or of politicians.

I suggest we correct this imbalance: we have images of Israeli hostages being released, but there are countless photographs of Palestinians either in detention from this conflict, or also being released. Also, we should show Palestinians in Gaza as frequently as we show Israelis in Gaza. The outcome of an extreme imbalance of this kind is to humanize one group of people who are depicted, and dehumanize another group of people who are not depicted. I'm sure we can fix this. -Darouet (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be corrected. I did notice that, for the truce pictures, there were none depicting the release of Palestinian prisoners; in the media, there are many. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is partially due to the availability of images with the suitable copyright status. We can definitely show more Hamas fighters. As to the released Palestinians, I also think that it would be helpful for the reader to see their release and reception. Alaexis¿question? 22:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's solely to do with the availability of images. I've been adding more images to this article, and intend to add more, and they are derived from the child articles. The imbalance therefore comes from the children if not obvious. CNC (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is there a way to contact UN or other organization and ask if we can use their pictures? Astropulse (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This. Can someone call the CEO of UN and ask for permission? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a UN Photo contact form here. Elsewhere, I read that one has to pay for using unwatermarked, high-resolution pictures; however, I wouldn't be surprised that, if we asked, pointing out the pictures we want to use, they'd waive the costs. There are some free photos on Unsplash, but they're too generic. Getty Images has the sort we're looking for, but they're out of the question, being non-free and carrying a wallet-thinning price tag. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ty. i send a message to them. lets see what happens Astropulse (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
omg. this is crazy. Astropulse (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in the first set of images - there is blood and video of dead Israeli's. But for gaza - its just building getting destroyed. thats also imbalance. Astropulse (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As @CommunityNotesContributor said, it could be a matter of availability. Do you have any images (ones already uploaded to mediawiki) you'd like to add to the article? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are 100 US soldiers listed under Israeli strength?

Are there any conflict infoboxes where one country has provided troops but isn't listed as a belligerent or ally?

I think it looks sloppy and incomplete. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus not to list the US in the infobox. More importantly, there is no consensus in sources that the US is a belligerent in this particular war that would meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL even though US troops may be involved peripherally. While it may be reasonable to mention their peripheral involvement in the body of the article as part of the greater Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) where prose can capture the detail and nuance of this, I agree that this is sloppy to mention them in the infobox. It should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would be in favour of removing those 100 troops from strengths if the consensus is that those troops aren't participating in the Gaza war. They can be mentioned in the article, but they do not need to be in the infobox for the Gaza war conflict, which should summarise all the important facts pertaining to that conflict. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favor of removing the 100 troops for now, though they should be added to Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) if they aren't there already. I think it's important to point out that there is not a consensus against listing the US in the infobox. Rather, there is no consensus in favor of doing so. Part of the reason why I think another RFC is needed, which also likely explains why US troops were added to the infobox, is that mid-way through the previous RFC the scope of this article changed drastically, with much of the material moved to the Middle Eastern crisis page. Now that the scope of this article is more clearly defined and the MEC page addresses the multifaceted nature of the entire crisis it should be easier to reach a clear consensus one way or the other on the inclusion of the US on this page. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed that article and surprisingly didn't see it there, though I suspect it's because the article is focused on a wider timespan and geographic scope than just the Gaza war in which there was a lot more (and more notable) U.S. Navy and Air Force involvement than the 100 troops associated with the THAAD battery (which falls under the U.S. Army). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realized the MEC article doesn't have a strength assessment in the infobox which is probably fine given how convoluted that would be. I think it's worth adding in the body. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also in favor of removing them, per all the comments above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2025

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: Not moved. Consensus to close this early per last month's RM. SilverLocust 💬 23:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza war → Gaza war (2023–present) – There have been multiple articles titled "Gaza war" which include Gaza War (2008-2009), 2012 Gaza War, and 2014 Gaza War. ColdestWinterChill (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural oppose – we just changed this article's name. Maybe wait a little before yet another move request on this high profile article? Did you read the previous move request, closed not even a month ago, in which this issue was discussed to death? That move request determined that this article was the primary topic over the three other articles you name. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 21:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally agree with this proposal. However, there was a discussion less than a month ago with consensus that this war is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with no need to disambiguate by adding years. I don't think enough time has passed for the consensus to shift. MT(710) 21:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment - why is this article called gaza war? Israel-Gaza War (More neutral, naming both parties.) or War on Gaza captures intensity of Israel military operations in gaza Astropulse (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I do think this war is the primary topic, I don't see any reason to oppose adding more specificity to the title. However, I think this RFC is likely to fail on procedural grounds. I don't necessarily think it should; with a consensus now settled on Gaza war in some form, it seems reasonable that the next step would be to debate how specific the title should be. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I can think of to oppose this name change is that it may be better to wait until sources agree that the war is over, so that another RFC is not required to remove the "-present". If the end of the war proves controversial, this could result in the title being outdated for months, as it was when it was still named Israel-Hamas war long after sources moved away from that name. This could also be resolved by opting for simply 2023 Gaza war which is enough specificity to differentiate it from the others and won't be inaccurate if sources and editors disagree on the war's end. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Monk of Monk Hall If you agree this war is the primary topic, then policy says we shouldn't have a disambiguator: "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification" (WP:TITLEDAB).VR (Please ping on reply) 03:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the section you quoted is the title need not have a disambiguator, not that it shouldn't. I can see why in the case of the example given on the policy page of Turkey the country and Turkey the bird, using parenthesis on both titles is unnecessary and undesirable. However, in the context of military history I think distinguishing to this level of specificity is more in line with the norms in the field. See for example the Italian Wars of Independence. Come to think of it, I think first, second, third Gaza war would be the best naming convention to use for these articles. However, I don't think there would be enough good sources to support that change. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose because it has present, and while I know it is still going on, it will eventually end and then we'd have to do more discussions on that. I think the best title alternative would be the Israel-Gaza war. Also, a month ago, wasn't there another discussion on the title name change?StormHunterBryante5467 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and procedural oppose because I think we should wait for the conflict to end, so that we can add an end year rather than move now and then move again later. For the record, I am in support of changing the name, just not right now. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close. I think if the title needs to change, there should be discussion beforehand. Also, such a change should wait for more time to pass: to see how events in the real world go, as well as more distance from the last RFC. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closure

If anyone disagrees with me closing this RM (With a good reason) then please let me know so that I can self-revert 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert close, per talk page discussion and WP:INVOLVED. The only thing worse than this RM would be reviewing it again basically. Let's throw more !votes in for a speedy close and let someone else close it is my suggestion. CNC (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
aight 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Gaza War Status

Why does it say in a few places on the Gaza War page that the war is ongoing, even though there is currently a ceasefire, and the war is no longer ongoing? Janan2025 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current status is a ceasefire. I have amended the infobox accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaflet content

This content has been added and removed multiple times now per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The citations being provided for the content are two organizations listed as no consensus on reliability on the RSP list - WP:RSP § Democracy Now! and Middle East Monitor, both of which state that at a minimum statements sourced to them should be attributed if even included at all. The third source, newarab.com, is one I cannot find any prior discussion of its reliability on. However, our own article on that source does not provide much information on its ownership (and in fact, there is no article on Fadaat Media, the owner, to go off of). However, our article on the source has a quote from the (at the time, potentially still) "head" of the paper, saying "Sometimes the newspaper might be sensitive about what not to say, because you are not there to provoke the people that finance you" and a cited statement that it is meant to be a rival to pro-Muslim Brotherhood Al Jazeera as a major outlet for the Qatari state's views. So regardless of its reliability (or lack thereof), statements to it should be attributed per WP:PARTISAN.

I take the view that if the only sources for this information are the three, that it does not meet WP:DUE at all - much less the strong sourcing needed for what is an extraordinary claim. If it must be attributed to only low (Middle East Monitor and Democracy Now!) quality activist sources to at best clearly biased medium quality sources (newarab.com), then it is not DUE for inclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that attribution is appropriate. I'm not convinced that an attributed statement would be undue based on the source quality alone. Democracy Now hasn't been discussed on RSN since 2013 and the 12 year old discussion about it is not substantive, which I take to mean that its use on-wiki has generally been uncontroversial since then. While your concerns about MEM or New Arab being unwilling to publish info critical of their financial backers' interests might be relevant in other contexts, I don't see how that applies to them publishing a story critical of Israel. The other editor who reverted this material made a case that was more impactful imo - which was that other sources argued the document was a forgery. I'd like to see those sources. If they are more reliable than the ones listed or make a convincing case, I'd consider that a strong argument for the material's exclusion. If they're equally questionable, I'd say both should be attributed. Overall, I don't think this material is all that important either way. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_war&oldid=1277964279"