Talk:Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July – 26 September 2024)

"national unity" agreement on 23 July

In the events of said date, a ' "national unity" agreement ' is hyperlinked to no article. I believe the article for said agreement is already created, under the title "2024 Beijing Declaration", but I do not qualify for the editing of this article, thus I cannot link it myself. TheRealPC77 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chomik! (talk?) 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Mostly relies on single source

This article mostly relies upon Al Jazeera, with only a small minority of the references being other sources. We should try to diversify the sources we use in this article. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The presence of a cleanup tag related to this issue means that this article's quality is not high enough to feature on the main page. It was recently pulled from the "In the news" section as a result. If this issue is addressed and resolved, please let us know at either WT:ITN or WP:ERRORS so it can potentially be restored to the main page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

change "demolishin" to "demolition"

location: 6th bullet point, 14 july 2024, 6th word Mojavelighthouse (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Borgenland (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does this timeline not begin with Oct 7?

Seems wrong no? 147.161.166.169 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The timeline is split up into several parts, as shown in the top right of the article. This article covers events beginning on 13 July 2024; for the first part of the timeline that starts on 7 Oct. 2023, see Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 October – 27 October 2023). Aid1043 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add One Source template

Proposal to add One Source template, pending likely discussion on the use of Al Jazeera in this article, as a concerning proportion of references are to Al Jazeera. While Template:One_source says the template "should only be used for encyclopedic content which has a verified, cited source, but only the one source", in practice the template is used also for articles/sections with more than one source that still heavily depend on one source. Placeholderer (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the section variant of the template could be used for sections like 8 August that do rely entirely on Al Jazeera, but that would be a lot more work. When the article is a bunch of bullet points, and most bullet points have only a single source, and most of the time that single source is the same (Al Jazeera), I think having the article variant of the template is appropriate Placeholderer (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like we need a customized template to say something to the effect of "many of the bullets rely on a single source that does not give a complete picture". See for example these edits

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

where I added details from other references to the incomplete report from Al Jazeera. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I support the creation of a more specific template, but wouldn't know how to do it myself. I might tweak that phrasing to be "that may not give", though Placeholderer (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the template {{One source}} can be used with customized text. I therefore replaced the {{POV}} template with the {{One source}} template. Feel free to wordsmith the exact wording. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Footnote for the daily casualty count

Note that the math in which Israel estimated 17,000 dead militants on the day that the Gaza health ministry reported a 40,005 combined death figure gives a ratio of 42.5% of the total death figure as militants. I purposefully rounded down the percentage to 40% since Israel's number is only an estimate, whereas the Gaza Health ministry (at least claims to be) accurate down to the last digit.
And just to preempt any challenges of WP:SYNTH, I am invoking WP:CALC. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

At "A gun attack killed three Israeli civilians at the Allenby Bridge."

Please change "civilians" into "Israeli border guards"

according to

If you will, please specify that this happened in an occupied region. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 22:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The source you state has been updated to say that they were civillians, also all other current and updated sources say so in support. Bunnypranav (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

NPOV on the footnote?

The footnote to me seems to violate NPOV? Currently it reads (emphasis not added) "Casualty count includes both militants and civillians. Israel approximates that 40% of the casualties are militants. The estimate is based on an August 15, 2024 report in which Israel estimated "more than 17,000" dead militants, with the Gaza Health Ministry reporting that day a death toll of 40,005 that included both militants and civillians.)"

This seems to violate WP:UNDUE by only including the Israeli estimate for the percent of civilian dead, and the emphasis placed on the bolding IMO makes it read like it is clarifying the death toll with some kind of objectivity. I think it would be preferable to remove this entirely, or if there is feeling to keep it, we should at least add another point of view (for example, the Palestine Health Ministry estimates a 70% civilian casualty rate 1). Pinging @The Mountain of Eden as they were discussing this note above on the talk page. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that this may also be WP:SYNTH as it implies that Israel accepts the Gaza Health Ministry numbers, which to my knowledge they do not. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This has been up for almost 24 hours so per WP:SILENCE I've gone ahead and made a bold edit and removed the footnote entirely. None of the other timeline pages for this war require that clarification, so I feel it is a safe removal. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Israel disputing the Gaza Health Ministry numbers, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. The Gaza Health Ministry puts out numbers on an almost daily basis that include all deaths. Israel does not update its estimate for the death of Palestinian militants on a regular basis. I therefore believe that using a footnote (whose wordings can be discussed) is the only way to present the almost daily Gaza Health Ministry's numbers in a neutral fashion. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

RE Israel accepting the numbers: While there are reports that Israel's military has privately accepted the numbers 2, to my knowledge they have not done so publicly. Take for example this interview 3 from May in which an Israeli official denies the number, or the US (albeit not Israel itself but Israel's closest ally and generally publicly aligned with them) barring its state department from using the numbers 4.

If we are going to present the numbers with that clarification (I'm not totally convinced it's needed), I think we need to use a source that has actually tried to estimate directly such as the PHM, which says 70% as cited above. The closest I've been able to find to an official Israeli estimate is "more than half" of them are militants from 5. It may just be better to link to a page which is discussing this more directly, such as this. Maybe a neutral wording could be something like The Gaza Health Ministry death toll does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. For further information see casualties of the Israel–Hamas war § civilian to military ratio. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In the interview you linked, the official effectively does the same thing as the footnote. The interviewee contrasts the Gaza Health Ministry numbers with the Israeli estimate for militants killed. I did not see the interviewee outright say that the number put by the Gaza Health ministry is wrong / bogus / inflated.

In this reference, the Gaza Health ministry does not give an estimate for the percent of the casualties who are civillians. It gives an estimate that 70% of the casualties are "women and children", who could very well be militants.

I'm not opposed to your suggestion for the footnote to say that "The Gaza Health Ministry death toll does not distinguish between civilians and combatants", but I think a more informative footnote would be to give the Israeli estimate given that the Gaza Health Ministry does not give such an estimate. For additional perspective, we could also add to the footnote the Gaza Health ministry estimate for women and children if we note that women and children could be militants. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty opposed to platforming an Israeli estimate as fact here, seeing as how they are the perpetrators of these killings and have an obvious, strong motivation to lie about how many innocent civilians they have killed. I think the most neutral thing to do and the best course of action is to just link the article, and let readers consume the discussion on their own, rather than try to recreate that discourse in a footnote of a timeline page.

Could you please also clarify what you mean by saying that [women and children] could very well be militants? It seems like you're suggesting that the killing of women and children could be justified, but I'm trying to AGF so I'd appreciate a clarification. In any case I think that verbiage could be interpreted that way and should absolutely not be included in the article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The same reasoning you apply to the Israeli estimates could be applied to Gaza Health Ministry's numbers. They too have a strong motivation to lie.

The fact is that nobody has challenged the Israeli estimates (or I haven't seen such challenges).

Not sure what's not clear about "[women and children] could very well be militants." What prevents women and children from taking up arms? The word "children" applies to anybody under the age of 18, and teenagers can (and have been) recruited to be militants. Same for women. Women have been recruited to be militants. Therefore, the estimate that 70% of the casualties are women and children does not contradict the Israeli estimate for militants. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact is that nobody has challenged the Israeli estimates. Just a few quick examples of RS that explicitly challenge the Israeli numbers, there are many many more:

• https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6004/Contrary-to-Israeli-claims,-9-out-of-10-of-those-killed-in-Gaza-are-civilians%E2%80%8B
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864
• https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/12/18/destroying-hamas-or-destroying-gaza_6353881_4.html

As for what's not clear, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that the killings of women and children could be justified. Hamas does not use women as frontline fighters, and the vast majority of children killed are not boys of fighting age. I'm assuming that your point is just that we should just be direct with what the sources say, though I'd recommend being more careful with your phrasing as to not imply that women and children deserved to be killed in future discussions.

Regardless, I think this is all a bit lost in semantics. Do you have any objection to just linking to the page I linked which has a full breakdown of these discussions? I see no reason to try to recreate a complicated argument in the footnote of a timeline page. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Reference 1 challenges a specific incident. Can't use a specific incident of 10 casualties to say that an estimate of 17,000 is wrong.
• Reference 2 takes a look at how Israel comes up with its estimate, but I don't see where it refutes the estimate
• Reference 3 does not talk about the estimate of number of militants who have been killed.

Seems to me that WP:NPOV means that we should display an estimate for the number of militants that the casualty count includes. Since the only estimate for it comes from Israel, thta's what we have to use. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I would dispute your characterization of those sources but it literally does not matter, why don't we just link to the page that is already discussing this? I'm confused what your objection to that is since I've raised it multiple times but you haven't responded to it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not object to your proposal to link to Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#civilian to military ratio. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also in the interview, the interviewee does explicitly say at the 1:10 timestamp that "I reject [the Hamas numbers] as being false", with "the Hamas numbers" referring to the Gaza Health ministry statistics. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You'll note that when pressed by Piers Morgan the interviewee cannot give "correct" numbers. So his assertion that the Gaza Health ministry numbers are false amount to just an unsubstantiated accusation. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree that their accusations of the numbers being false are unsubstantiated, but it seems the official position is that they are incorrect. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As for other timeline pages, we can add the same footnote to those pages (probably want to use older estimates for the older dates). The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)