This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also ((Palestine-Israel enforcement)), the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration articles Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Palestine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations: United Nations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

On 18 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Israel and UNRWA. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of UNRWA October 7 controversy was copied or moved into Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy on 7 March 2024‎. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

It has been suggested that Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy be merged into this page. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2024.

The map at the top of the page needs to be updated. 47.187.222.98 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany should also be dark green.47.187.222.98 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japan should also be dark green. 2601:981:4302:3240:D0EC:5AA8:9967:D5BB (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austria should be light green 47.187.222.98 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand should also be light green. 47.187.222.98 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden should also be dark green. 47.187.222.98 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations go beyond employees participating in the October 7 attack - and I suspect, although without sources, that the reason so many nations have suspended funding is because of these broader allegations, as participation by a small number of employees, while concerning, doesn't appear to warrant this level and breadth of response. I think we should rename the article to better reflect these allegations; perhaps "UNRWA-Hamas relation controversy"? BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you envision this article being on specifically the allegations regarding its involvement in October 7, or its entire relationship with Hamas? Because there is UNRWA#Relationship with Hamas which covers the UNRWA-Hamas relationship controversy in general, and your proposed title would be fitting for a hypothetical separate article on the entire UNRWA-Hamas relation, but not for this article. The current title is the best one for the current subject. JM (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be on the allegations that lead to the funding suspension and the UN investigation. I think we can define that as involvement in the Israel-Hamas war broadly, rather than just the October 7 attacks - my interpretation is that this is already the scope. BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading additional sources, it isn't clear to me whether there are general allegations that facilities were used, or that there are narrow accusations that facilities were used as part of the attacks - these additional sources are solely saying this in the context of the attacks.

Considering this I think the previous title was fine; we can look at a broader title if allegations of participation in the broader conflict emerge. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the undiscussed move. BilledMammal (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: I think that's a worse title than the current one; it's not concise, and it doesn't represent the topic as well. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsourced views shouldn’t have anything to do with the page title. As it stands there are allegations against 12 employees who have either been fired or are dead. The title should be changed as currently it says UNRWA itself is alleged to have done what nobody has alleged, rather than employees of UNRWA. nableezy - 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there are sources that allegations go beyond the 12 employees - in particular, there are allegations that UNRWA facilities were used for "terrorist purposes", and that UNRWA facilities and vehicles were used in the October 7 attacks.

Note that the title when I opened this section was UNRWA October 7 controversy; ElijahPepe recently moved it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the widely-RS-reported allegations publicized by Israel and the UN go well beyond these "12 employees". JM (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are long running allegations about UNRWA from Israel, almost all of them unproven assertions, but none of that has to do with this specific case of unproven allegations. Which is what this article is about. nableezy - 15:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This "specific case of unproven allegations" includes allegations that UNRWA facilities and vehicles were used in the October 7 attacks. From the sources I linked:

Details about the Israeli allegations have not been made clear, but reports in the Israeli media suggest UNRWA vehicles and facilities may have been used for the attack in which Hamas gunmen killed around 1,300 people, mostly civilians, and took another 240 hostage.

The Israeli military said in a statement Saturday that its intelligence services had compiled a case “incriminating several UNRWA employees for their alleged involvement in the massacre, along with evidence pointing to the use of UNRWA facilities for terrorist purposes.” It did not elaborate on what that involvement entailed.

BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has all sorts of qualifications, and regardless that has nothing to do with your suggested title. Which would portray a contested view as though it were fact when it remains a series of unproven allegations. nableezy - 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section on the UNRWA page called UNRWA#Relationship with Hamas. So I don't see any evidence of problems regarding "portraying a contested view as though it were fact" in this scenario. Regardless, BM has said that they support the original consise title of this article, not the one they put forward before, so your point is moot anyway. In any case, I don't know what these "qualifications" are. JM (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section is largely about friction between the two. The qualifications in the quote are "reports in Israeli media suggest" and "It did not elaborate what that involvement entailed." Qualifications, like many English words, has several meanings that depend on the context in which it is used. Here it is used as a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute. nableezy - 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the controversy? The allegations, the blatant attempt to bury the ICJ news cycle, or the suspension of funding? The current title is ambiguous about the topic. Israel has made a bunch of unproven allegations, apparently based largely on interrogations (a.k.a. inadmissable testimony), and hawkish Western nations have obliged Israel with its smoke and mirrors by making a big song and dance about it and cutting vital aid in advance of any proper investigation. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems controversial:

One is accused of kidnapping a woman. Another is said to have handed out ammunition. A third was described as taking part in the massacre at a kibbutz where 97 people died. And all were said to be employees of the United Nations aid agency that schools, shelters and feeds hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip...The accusations are what prompted eight countries, including the United States, to suspend some aid payment to the UNRWA [1]

The dossier said that Israeli intelligence officers had established the movements of six of the men inside Israel on Oct. 7 based on their phones; others had been monitored while making phone calls inside Gaza during which, the Israelis say, they discussed their involvement in the Hamas attack. Three others got text messages ordering them to report to muster points on Oct. 7, and one was told to bring rocket-propelled grenades stored at his home, according to the dossier. [2]

Longhornsg (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another of those UNRWA blowups that occur every so often, after a while, it will blow over just like the rest, funding will be restored, justice seen to be done, etcetera. Nothing to get too excited about. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another instance of 10+ major powers suspending funding, or allegations of at least 190 staff participating in a massacre? JM (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That also didn’t happen now so … nableezy - 11:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel accuses 190 UN staff of being 'hardened' militants - Reuters JM (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is an accusation of people being part of militant organizations, not that they participated in the attack. That remains at 12, of which a handful are alleged to have participated in any killings. nableezy - 12:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Israeli official told Reuters the 190 mentioned in the dossier were "hardened fighters, killers" not sure what else "killers" implies in the context of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations other than participating in some sort of massacre, but regardless, I can't think of another time when at least 190 UNRWA workers were accused of being terrorists and at least 15 countries withdrew funding. JM (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a series of personal suppositions. No, the 190 accusation is about people being active members of the various militant organizations. The claim on involvement on 7 October attacks is about 12 people. I have no interest in discussing personal opinions, your source does not support what you have claimed. nableezy - 12:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stand by the idea that it's implicit in the word "killers" that these people have killed, presumably in massacres at some point. A small contention, considering I've already shown that there are indeed 190 workers that have been accused of being terrorists and 15 countries that have withdrawn funding. JM (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

190 people are accused of being so called hardened members of militant organizations. You can stand by whatever you like, but your source does not support your initial statement and what you think is implicit is not relevant for the article. Is there anything related to the title or content of the article here? Again, not interested in personal opinions on who is a "terrorist" or what you presume that implies. nableezy - 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I stand by my previous comment, and if it's irrelevant to the article then you didn't need to contest it in the first place. There is no need for further replies. Someone uninvolved should close this. JM (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody making false statements of fact on an encyclopedia talk page should be corrected so others don’t take for granted that the false statement is actually true. nableezy - 12:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was false. Regardless, you're still off-topic in doing so. Again, someone uninvolved should close this. JM (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does the source say 190 employees of the UNRWA are accused of participating in any massacre. That remains completely made up. nableezy - 13:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all that I need to say for this already. Perhaps WP:LASTWORD is relevant here. I would really appreciate it if someone could come close this already. JM (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that her statement is useful; she isn't a particularly important politician, and it only repeats what the previous paragraph says with the addition of "remove the mask", which would need clarification - and when clarified, merely repeats the belief that UNRWA is a tool of Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't see how this quote improves this article. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources appear to say that Israel provided UNRWA with this evidence, who then took action based on it on 26 January. However, it is unclear when Israel provided this evidence; an article in Israel Hayon implies that Israel provided it a while ago, but doesn't explicitly state this.

Looking elsewhere, I can't find any source that makes an explicit statement on when the evidence was provided - can anyone else been able to find one? BilledMammal (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For months, American intelligence agencies have been aware of vague allegations that some among UNRWA’s 13,000 employees may have been working with Hamas or even potentially involved in the Oct. 7 terror attack. It was only this week, American officials said, that the United Nations and Israel shared detailed, specific intelligence with the State Department and White House, including the names of the individuals who were fired. American officials said the tough U.S. statement and action to withhold funding from the aid agency was not a result of any formal review of the Israeli intelligence by American spy agencies. There's this, still not quite what we want. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNRWA has long denied Israel’s claims that it fuels anti-Israeli incitement in Gaza. But it took a sharply different approach to the more serious accusations, just days after Israel presented them to the agency. and this I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That second source is very useful; it is vague but it starts to establish a timeline. It's also helpful with ((Three Israeli defence officials said military intelligence officers have collected an enormous trove of information after October 7, and in the past two weeks they matched it with a second cache of intelligence that solidified an assessment that the UNRWA employees had been involved in the attack)), which gives context to the Israel Hayom source I previously added. I've added it to the article until we get a more specific source.

"This week", from the first source, is quite vague; it could be that they were provided with the information on the 26th, which would align with this Irish Times source, which says The affair began after Israel Defence Forces intelligence chief Aharon Haliva met with senior US officials and revealed information that ostensibly indicted UNRWA workers from Gaza. Hours later the Biden administration announced it was suspending its funding of UNRWA pending an investigation, and at least nine other countries took similar action.

I think we should include this information in the article, but I'm not sure where and how yet.

Regarding the second, that's also vague, but it establishes a timeline - Israel presented the information "days" before. I think we can use that in the article, pending more specific information.

Thank you, that was very helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For additional perspective, please consider adding the following to the article:

According to the pro-Israeli watchdog organization UN Watch, UNRWA has long been critized by donor countries for allowing its staff to openly glorify or incite to terrorism.^[1] Most of UNRWA's major donors have designated Hamas a terrorist organization and recognize only the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Under EU law, it is illegal to donate aid directly to any group listed as a terrorist organization, including Hamas, which controls all hospitals and schools within the Gaza Strip.^[2]

94.252.84.96 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more appropriate for the main UNRWA article, which I think already has material on this, we only need a wikilink here at most. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of elsewhere on Wikipedia, are we missing a 2021 Palestinian election?

It has been bugging me for ages, who should be "the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people"? The government elected in 2006 isn't a very democratic option, but the president elected in 2005 is worse? The election Hamas won in 2006 was all of Palestine and pretty decisive … did they win an election and then lose the West Bank in a minor Civil War?

Was there an election in 2021? I've stumbled upon things about the campaign, but not had time to follow it up. Where did that cover? Did it even go ahead? Even if it was aborted, it probably needs some coverage here (as in on Wiki, and linked here if it comes up).

Irtapil (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems non sequitur. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNRWA says "UNRWA, pronounced /ˈʌnrə/ UN-rə". So I guess it should be "an UNRWA spokesman". Unless people are spelling out in their heads? Moscow Mule (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, go back to the original source and quote a human. Sources that say things like "an UNRWA spokesman" are usually not the best option, keep it if you can't find the original, but quoting a human is always better. Irtapil (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. But that doesn't help for cases like "a UNRWA teacher" or "a UNRWA school" (not here -- at least not at present -- but both currently found on UNRWA). Moscow Mule (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this is a new page in the contentious topic category, so the WP:1RR applies.

If somebody asks you to do a "self revert" to correct an alleged violation of the WP:1RR make sure you explain this clearly in this edit summary. This will make it easier to resolve any future disputes. Key info:

• say it is a self revert
• say who asked you to do it
• say which edit you are reverting (time stamp or version number)

If you use the "undo" button, leave what is there automatically and just add (for example, if I asked you to do a "self revert") "self revert requested by [[user:irtapil]]" to the start.

Irtapil (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this talking about links to the Al-Qassam Brigades? Or discrediting an aid body for it's unavoidable work with local authorities?

Hamas are like Sinn Fein and Al Qassam are like the IRA, very roughly, or if you want a less democratic analogy, Hamas are the Communist Party of China and Al Qassam are the People's Liberation Army.

Islamic Jihad are a bit different they are more of a pure militant group, but lumping them together with Hamas seems even weirder. The best analogy I've got for that is Hamas are Zelenskyy's Government, Al Qassam are the regular army, and Islamic Jihad's Saraya Al Quds are the Azov Battalion? (but now I need to explain Saraya Al-Quds?)

Irtapil (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier I'm talking about the wiki article.

I'm saying the article needs to be specific about who it is referring to there's a problem with it and I don't know which.

• It needs to explain that Hamas are the government of Gaza and aid agencies interacting with them is unavoidable.

OR

• It needs to be specific about the accused people being connected to the military / militant wing.

The long analogies were because whoever wrote the page seemed unlikely to understand what I meant without them? "Is this talking about links to the Al-Qassam Brigades? Or discrediting an aid body for it's unavoidable work with local authorities? Islamic Jihad are a bit different they are more of a pure militant group, but lumping them together with Hamas seems even weirder." The problem is the article conflating all three entities, so it seemed necessary to explain the difference?

Irtapil (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the article if you think something is wrong. There are enough editors around this page to sort things out. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But i wasn't sure which to edit it towards? I'll try making a start on option 1 and they can provide some better sources if its option 2? Irtapil (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand second sentence? Irtapil (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section, Past UNRWA-Hamas Controversies, is overkill, all that is needed is a summary of past problems (plenty of sources doing that) and a link to the main UNRWA page where those are discussed properly. Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to show the issues relating to Hamas-UNRWA relationship aren't new.

The section shows the following topics which supply background relating to the matter discussed in the article:

1. UNRWA is threatened by Hamas to comply (repeated retracted statements and changes of policies)

2. UNRWA facilities are used as staging grounds for Hamas military actions (rockets, tunnels)

3. UNRWA staff is infiltrated by Hamas (unions)

4. Misuse of UNRWA supplies by Hamas

5. Previous pressure by donating states on UNRWA

And these are only the instances that I've added that made the cut, these issues sometimes go further back as the nineties (textbooks) FoodforLLMs (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but you don't need a list, just some summary sources like Israel Has History of Friction With U.N. Agency for Palestinians and a wikilink back to the relevant section in the main article, otherwise it looks like cherrypicking. Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you dont get to frame things based on what you personally think. Sources used in this article must be related to the topic of this article, see WP:SYNTH. I removed the section entirely as a synth violation. If sources related to this article bring up other issues that can be included, but you cannot just determine what you think is important, any more than I can include past instances of Israel attempting to malign UNRWA to counter that. nableezy - 15:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a background section and adds relevant history, I believe I am not combining different sources to imply what I think important. What I do is combine different sources on the topic of "History of relations between Hamas and UNRWA". If these cast a negative light it is because the relations were problematic historically.

If you think there are sources that may cast a positive light at cooperation between Hamas and UNRWA, please add those and these may create a more neutral stance instead of reverting this outright.

I am reverting this back, let's finish discussing before doing anything drastic :) FoodforLLMs (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS. Take it out and then discuss it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, in your opinion, should an article about a controversy between Hamas and UNRWA include history about related controversies? Isn't that what a reader needs for background? FoodforLLMs (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered this above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you may not include material that is unrelated to the topic of this article without sources directly connecting it to this article. And per WP:ONUS, the onus is on those seeking to include disputed content. Kindly self-revert and seek consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 19:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am self reverting, but can you please describe how the history of previous controversies between Hamas and UNRWA is unrelated to an article about the latest Hamas and UNRWA controversy?

How does describing a Hamas landslide victory at employee union election is unrelated to an article about Hamas members among UNRWA employees? FoodforLLMs (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only stuff that is relevant is the stuff that other sources call relevant. Other things that are irrelevant and cited to sources not mentioning this topic should also be removed. nableezy - 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Palestine Response, the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" should be the "Palestine Liberation Organization."

A minor change, and I assume the mixup is over the difference between the P in PLO being Palestine, while the P in PA is Palestinian.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have restored it, This diff with edit summary "..Undue [for the lead].Various perspectives exist on this matter" seems strange.

This is the material:

US officials say that funding will depend on a credible investigation and acknowledge that there is no real alternative to UNRWA. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said "Let’s not impugn the good work of a whole agency because of the potential bad action here of a small number".^[1][2]

I would like to understand why the position of the number one donor to UNRWA is considered undue? Or what are the "various perspectives [that] exist on this matter"

Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis why is the Intercept piece Scahill's opinion? Bret Stephen's view has not been given any coverage that I can see, it is a personal opinion that has no weight for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Scahill's piece is however not an opinion piece, it is an analysis from a reliable source. Not a personal opinion labeled as opinion. Kindly self-revert your edit and seek consensus for the inclusion of Stephens. nableezy - 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What policy makes this distinction relevant? The last revert's edit summary was Rv irrelevant opinion from a non expert. Why is Jeremy Scahill an expert and Bret Stephen isn't?

In case there is no consensus to add this content (and it's not just Stephen), we shouldn't include similarly thinly sourced opinions. Scahill asserts the connection between the accusations and the ICJ proceeding without providing any evidence for it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well because it The Intercept, not just Scahill. Bret Stephens has been a columnist and editorial writer his entire career, he is only useful for opinions. Scahill however is an investigative journalist who has published extensively on the Middle East. WP:NEWSORG lays out the difference. nableezy - 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Stephen’s is a Pulitzer winning commentator with a focus on foreign affairs. The section is “Reactions - Media analysis”, which is what his column is. Drsmoo (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer Prizes have nothing to do with any expertise on a topic, it is a personal opinion by a non expert without weight for inclusion. nableezy - 11:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has far stronger credentials as an expert than Scahill. There is no argument in which is commentary is not notable. Drsmoo (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has far stronger credentials as an expert than Scahill According to whom? Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Pulitzer, The Jerusalem Post where he was editor in chief, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, and his many other awards and accolades. Please substantiate your claim that his opinion is irrelevant and he’s a non-expert. Drsmoo (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those say that He has far stronger credentials as an expert than Scahill, that's just your opinion. Furthermore, the comparison is Intercept/Scahill versus Stephens opinion, no contest. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens is more of an expert and more notable. As is The NY Times. You have not attempted to substantiate your edit summary, in which you removed a notable expert. Please substantiate your allegation, which is the root of this discussion. Drsmoo (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a "notable expert", he is an opinion writer. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the actual basis for your edit summary that he’s an “irrelevant non expert”. We can also discuss on the reliable sources noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See you there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before then, could you TRY to substantiate your allegation? Drsmoo (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that the Stephens material was added by a now blocked sock, I suppose? As part of an entirely POV article creation by that same editor. So anyone could have reverted it for that reason alone.

And then to make a specious argument that it is comparable to the Intercept/Scahill material, I mean, really. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No substantiation then Drsmoo (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best sort out your own argument first. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We dont cite any opinion pieces for their personal views here, and I see no reason has been given as to why this individual opinion that nobody seems to care about to discuss in an actual reliable source so as to give it some weight should be the one we use. Nobody is disputing that Stephens is reliable for his own opinion, so Idk why you would go to RSN unless you are trying to establish that Stephens is a subject matter expert, and if you want to do that feel free. But this is an issue of weight, and Stephens' opinion has none. nableezy - 14:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. starship.paint (RUN) 15:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like 2023-2024 UNRWA controversy or similar, any other ideas? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still prefer "Alleged UNRWA employee involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel". Makes the title far more clear about what the controversy actually is while remaining neutral. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like that too, just trying to address the closer comment re conciseness. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think conciseness was actually the main sticking point; much of the opposition in the previous discussion was over the proposed title implying that UNRWA itself was involved with the attack (and the alternative proposals weren't addressed by many !voters). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I think conciseness is the main point raised in the RM discussion that it's possible to overcome. Since it's part of WP:CRITERIA, it's possibly going to be a more persuasive point as well. FOARP (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2024

I agree with Elli. The present title "UNRWA October 7 controversy" is concise, precisely informative and objective. Let's leave it. Errantios (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I proposed doing? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Elli, let's keep the current title as is. Just kidding, that's not what Elli said.

What about the facilities/equipment aspect of this allegation? It's not just employees? Levivich (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to mostly be scoped around the alleged employee participation in the attacks -- so I'd rather keep this focused on that, and rename accordingly, and then maybe cover the allegations of the agency having supported Hamas more generally at an institutional level somewhere else instead of conflating them. Not an expert in the reporting/sourcing/allegations though so I don't have a very strong opinion; I just do not like the current title as it is not descriptive/clear enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, well we can do an RM with a choice I guess, between the short and long versions. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the "UNRWA controversy" wording (not just the current month-day order), as objectively speaking UNRWA has never been particularly controversial, however hardly anything better comes to mind. 2023–2024 allegations against UNRWA?

Also, I'm mindful that in a couple of years, the whole 2023 funding epizode will appear as a relatively minor, historical detail in the organisation's profile, and editors will probably decide to merge it into the main UNRWA article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same boat, I don't really like either the current title or the proposed longer versions, but I think my problem is that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around "allegations against certain unrwa employees" as being a notable topic of a stand alone article. I think UNRWA has been controversial for some time in the eyes of Israel. In my head the topic is called "Israel and UNRWA" and these latest allegations are just that: the latest allegations. (Which may or may not be true, I have no idea.) Levivich (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the UNRWA article, there is a subsection "Alleged staff participation in the Hamas-led attack on Israel" and showing this article as a spinout. The broader theme in the UNRWA article is "Relations with Israel" which would be your "Israel and UNRWA". Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNRWA has been controversial for some time in the eyes of Israel I think UNRWA has rather been a thorn in the eye for Israel. Let's remember that Israel's overarching policy goal is to unite all of "Israelite" land[3], and the living conditions imposed on Gaza were aimed at forcing the Palestinian population to leave; as is the ongoing invasion, just in a more brutal way (Egypt has to-date refused to give shelter to Palestinians en masse, and the planned onslaught on Rafah is aimed at forcing it to change its stance). UNRWA working hard to improve the living conditions in Gaza, with the support and money of the international community, has long been a pain in the neck – but IMO not "controversial" in the slightest. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spain^[1], Portugal^[2] and Ireland^[3][4] have all pledged to fund an extra €3.5m, €1m and €20m respectively to the UNRWA in response to massive cuts from other countries. Should it be in the article? Lough Swilly (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Errantios (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Finds Some Israeli Claims on U.N. Staff Likely, Others Not

US intelligence has ‘low confidence’ in some of Israel’s UNRWA claims, report says

US finds some Israeli claims on UNRWA-Hamas links unlikely

Of interest, in the WSJ "There is a specific section that mentions how Israeli bias serves to mischaracterize much of their assessments on Unrwa and says this has resulted in distortions," one person familiar with the report said.

Also the contradiction with Blinken's "highly, highly credible" and that "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence—which includes the National Intelligence Council—the State Department and the White House declined to comment." Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a section which had a header indicating that it was about doubts regarding the neutrality of the WSJ article, for multiple reasons. One is that it had zero mention of anyone expressing doubts about the neutrality of the WSJ article, nor did it have any mention of the topic of the page, the UNRWA October 7 controversy. Beyond that, without even raising the question of whether "Literary Hub", which describes itself as "\a site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books", is an RS for the material being covered, some of the material using it as reference is not stated in Lit Hub's voice nor the essayists voice but are claims he attributes to third parties. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the entire "Wall Street Journal" section, which was overlong with regard to the allegations and the criticism, in my opinion. Also I don't think we need the names of the journalists who wrote it, as they are not especially notable. One has an article about her but its fate is dubious. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to make a section header more neutral, but the section itself is of excessive length, such as to suggest a possible WP:COPYVIO issue. This article really needs to be tagged and examined top to bottom for neutrality. Coretheapple (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple I don't think that removing the names of WSJ article authors is helpful. Primo, it wasn't "WSJ reporting" but two journalists writing for WSJ under own names. Secundo, the gist of the controversy was specifically around one of the named authors. Besides, Al Jazeera did not really dispute the WSJ account but questioned authors' credibility. The section needs further work IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was WSJ reporting, just as the section above is New York Times teporting. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keizers has attempted to restore the inclusion of a photo in the article, and has added content using a self-published source as justification. As this material concerns the living persons pictured in the photo, this is not allowable under WP:BLPSPS. I have used my revert for the day; I ask that others review this inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are normally an acceptable source. The photo is simply UNDUE in this article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the use of an X/Twitter from someone behind the Intercept. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: that's your assumption or conclusion, please see the new section I added explaining why the relationship (and this particular article) is actually quite notable and widely covered: a close friend and business partner of the woman who created social media for the IDF, who seems to have emigrated to Israel and served in the IDF as well, suddenly appears as a correspondent for the WSJ, publishes basically exactly what the Israeli state provided, not even identifying it as from the Israeli state until the 4th paragraph, and as part of the headline states the "10% of UNRWA has ties to terrorist groups" not once defining or question what defines such a "tie". The obfuscation of the source, the near verbatim repetition of the accusations, the lack of any kind of questioning or fact-checking. And this, this triggered the near immediate removal of nearly half a billion dollars worth of funding from UNRWA, the agency that coordinates the distribution of most aid in Gaza, at a time when 2+million people there are suffering severe lack of clean water and food. Keizers (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: I would encourage you to look at policies in more detail.

WP:BLPSPS states that self-published sources should not be used for material about the person in question. In this case the SPS was used to establish something that happened on the Internet, i.e. that the photo was widely circulated'. look at WP:USESPS and you will see that "Acceptable use of self-published works" includes when the "author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Scahill is a founding journalist from The Intercept, a reliable source, covering Israel's wars in Gaza there. He is absolutely an RS that the photo was widely circulated'. I think we need to talk about this whole topic in general so I will start another section.Keizers (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few people seem to think it odd that I added information about these topics to this article and have tried to revert removal of it, giving reasons why. And some of the reasons given have appeared to me to be "finding excuses to remove the information" based on attempts to apply Wikipedia policies beyond their scope. So let's talk about it here.

The topic of the article's authorship being problematic has been widely covered: Al Jazeera, TRT World, Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss, Forum (Brazil). Some of those sources require attribution because they may be considered biased in some cases, but there is no rules against not using them, as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Now, why is this topic actually important as opposed to being some attempted random hit job on a journalist in Israel?

• The author is a very close friend and business partner, i.e. co-producer of two series of podcasts, with Aliza Landes, the woman who pretty much created social media for the IDF
• The author suddenly appears as a correspondent for the WSJ
• The article itself basically is written in the voice of the Israeli state:
  • The headline: "Intelligence Reveals Details of U.N. Agency Staff’s Links to Oct. 7 Attack", the verb "reveals" is a word that is used for facts. She chose not to use a word like "asserts", or "claims". She did not include the word "alleged".
  • Under the headline: "Around 10% of Palestinian aid agency’s 12,000 staff in Gaza have links to militants, according to intelligence dossier". So here is an accusation that 10% of staff, 1,200 people have "links to militants" but the definition of links is not mentioned, the author does not say she tried to find out what it meant, nothing. Yet, the assertion is apparently important enough to come right under the headline in the Journal!!.
  • Only at the end of the fourth paragraph is it acknowledged that the intelligence dossier came from the Israeli State. To me, this is clear obfuscation of the srouce. When would a newspaper ever normally publish the key findings of "an" intelligence dossier and only halfway through happen to mention that it came from a foreign country?
  • A whole section in paragraphs 2 & 3 states lengthy accusations by the Israeli State as facts in the "voice" of the Journal: "Two helped kidnap Israelis. Two others were tracked to sites where scores of Israeli civilians were shot and killed. Others coordinated logistics for the assault, including procuring weapons. Of the 12 Unrwa employees with links to the attacks, seven were primary or secondary school teachers, including two math teachers, two Arabic language teachers and one primary school teacher."
  • Nowhere in the article is there any questioning about how valid the information might be since it comes from the Israeli State, for obvious reasons since Israel is conducting a war in Gaza, but also because a simple fact is (whatever side you're on) UNRWA is a pain to Israel because its presence reflects the status of all Palestinians in Gaza as refugees, which also means that the right of return to their properties that in Israel's view, it definitively confiscated from them in 1948, is theoretically still an open issue.

No matter what side one empathizes with, it's quite obvious that the article is seriously flawed and basically channels the Israeli state. The obfuscation of the source, the near verbatim repetition of the accusations, the lack of any kind of questioning or fact-checking.

Yet, the article precipitated the near immediate freezing of nearly half a billion dollars worth of funding from UNRWA, the agency that coordinates the distribution of most aid in Gaza, at a time when 2+ million people there are suffering severe lack of clean water and food. The planet's highest court agreed that it was plausible that people in Gaza could be in danger of acts of genocide due to those factors, amongst others.

So yes, this controversy really was about something weighty which may show undue influence of a foreign government to speak through our media of record, as well as the unreliability (in such cases) of our most trusted sources, its about a half a billion dollars, the possible downfall of a UN agency, and a possible major deterioration in the lives of Palestinians.

The third part of the story is the story of how people started realizing what was going on. It started with Twitter posts of people who found the picture of Keller-Lynn and Landes on iTrek. The circulation of the photo itself was widespread and clearly an important factor in the problem becoming well known and then covered widely by the large media with global reach I described above.Keizers (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of talk to support the inclusion of something which is not a statement nor demonstration that the article was inaccurate, and you've been blowing off sourcing requirements to try to support it. Despite what you said in the above section, yes, WP:BLPSPS applies. The statement "a photo of the person was widely circulated" is not actually different from "the person was in a photo that was widely circulated", they say the same thing and are both statements about a person who still appears to be living, so yes, WP:BLPSPS applies. Even if that were not the case, WP:SPS would apply, and your explanation above (Scahill is a founding journalist from The Intercept, a reliable source, covering Israel's wars in Gaza there. He is absolutely an RS that the photo was widely circulated'.) fails heavily, because even if we accept the source as an expert on wars in Gaza, the picture is not a war in Gaza, It's not even a picture of the war in Gaza. It is not a relevant expertise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be condescending ("that's a lot of talk") - it is apparent that some people commenting did not understand why the topic was notable and I like to be complete, no WP policy against that. In any case, you refer to BLP, I am talking about including the information in *this* article, not the article which is a bio of her which seems like it will be deleted. *This* article is not a bio. It is about the UNRWA controversy. And stating that a person was in a certain photo, is clearly a simple fact (should I add all the sources that published the photo?) Secondly as for the statement the photo was widely circulated, you seem to be pushing against Scahill as an expert on this specific topic, sorry but why not? He doesn't just cover actual bombing, he also covers [4] background to the war including communications aspects, PR/propaganda campaigns, etc.Keizers (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP rules do not only apply to articles on living individuals. WP:BLP starts "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" and WP:BLPSPS starts "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person"... so it's the "information", the "material" that matters, and not what article it's appearing in. We do not need a "why not" for a person to be an expert, we need a "why", and the fact that he as articles about war and such in a newspaper that he is an editor of does not make him an expert on the topic of the internet circulation of photographs, so again, even if the BLP matter was not relevant (it is), the SPS matter kills that reference.

As for "a lot of talk", yes, your message has a lot of pointless filler. "The author suddenly appears as a correspondent for the WSJ" -- in what way would that happen that is not "sudden"? She was a correspondent on similar topics for another source, she apparently switched employers. To the degree that one can fade in, she did, as many of her stories she's been just co-author of, including the one at hand, despite your attempts to paint it otherwise. "The headline [...] She did not include the word "alleged"." A work with co-authors and you assume she wrote the headline? Odds are neither of the listed authors did; headlines are generally written by the editing staff. "To me, this is clear obfuscation of the srouce." ... which would be relevant if we were doing an article on your opinion of the matter. And so on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keller-Lynn's authorship of a contentious matter deserves an airing of some sort, I don't actually care that much about the photo, I would prefer sourced text myself. If the point of the photo is that she was an IDF reservist and the other is her friend, then text to that effect may be warranted if appropriately sourced. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AJ photos of KL are at 7:33 on, https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2024/2/3/israel-vs-unrwa-deflection-and-deception Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal section currently has Landes launched IDF's social media presence in 2008.^[1] One photo was from an iTrek interview where the two women are hugging, and in which interview Keller-Lynn expounded on her close friendship with Landes, their co-production of a podcast series,^[2] and in which Keller-Lynn said Landes was her "best publicist".^[3]

This uses as the main source for the statements two source that predate the topic of this article, and we should not be basing statements directly on them for WP:OR reasons, nor trying to suggest things about the current situation for WP:SYNTH reasons. (They would make acceptable second references for statements about those particular items sourced to material directly about the subject of this article.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Al-Jazeera report as a source to substantiate that it showed the photo, one of which clearly showed "iTrek", and the other, the women hugging. I disagree with you that we cannot clearly explain simple fact about who Landes is beyond "army spokesperson". I added a source which supports her having produced a podcast with Keller-Lynn. If you want to go ahead and remove other statements from the iTrek interview that "Landes was her best publicist" or expounding on their close friendship, I mean, go ahead and do so.

I reject your insinuation of WP:SYNTH in this case. I am simply giving airtime to the controversy (after we give 5x as much airtime to Israeli accusations). I did not add anything that would "accuse" Keller-Lynn or "imply" any malfeasance beyond the juncture of facts which is, in and of itself the controversy that RS have reported:

The controversy IS:

• that Keller-Lynn was a new contributor to the Journal
• the article was obviously not balanced/fact-checked not even questioning what the word "links" meant and often times spoke in the voice of the Israeli State,
• that that same new author is both ex-IDF (potential conflict on interest) and is best friends and ex business partner with the founder of IDF social media.

Please indicate what substantial thing I "synthed" here and I will remove it.Keizers (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that we cannot clearly explain simple fact about who Landes is beyond "army spokesperson". You disagree with a statement that you made up for me? I cannot say that that has much impact on me.

When one uses a source that says "Bob was friends with Mary" and a different source not discussing Bob that says "Mary invented the upside-down boilermaker" to create the point that "Bob became friends with the person who invented the u-db", then one is synthesizing a point that one is not finding in sources. When you are using a source that is not referring to the issue of the page (cannot, in this case, as they predate the subject of this article), then you are inventing the relevance of that yourself. Getting by that is not hard -- just find a relevant reliable source citing the information and you can cite that and include the source they are citing as a second source.

As for your list of "the controversy is", at least the first two items sound more like your concerns than the concerns you've been sourcing. We are not here to document what seems obvious to you, and I doubt you have actual internal knowledge of what the WSJ article looked like when submitted and what processes it went through. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I see that you've added sources that don't necessarily support the statements. I don't see anything in the Lit Hub source quoting the "best publicist" line... and then there's the problem that LitHub, being a site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books, is of dubious reliability for this topic, which is not about anything books. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keizers: Look, there is no need to do it this way, use the AJ video I linked above instead of the prior sources, I haven't looked into this in depth but I am fairly sure that there is sufficient material available to say what you want without using old sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the original Al-Jazeera post.Keizers (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit added material from TRT World regarding the Journal article. Per WP:RSP, TRT World is "not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest". The Turkish government is a staunch supporter of Hamas. This paragraph should be removed, barring a reliable third party covering TRT World's reaction (in which case we would need to adjust it based on that third party.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a reach, I think they are OK with attribution for UNRWA related material not directly related to Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cited material is about Israel's treatment of Hamas and about a dossier on UNRWA's links to Hamas. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unnecessary reference to Hamas in the article so that the material attributed to TRT only relates to UNRWA and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish government holds that Israel is a war criminal. Really, anything in this area should be outside the use of TRT World. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then we cant use any Israeli source for anything about Hamas? nableezy - 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should be avoiding sourcing solely from Israeli government documents for statement about Hamas. We should instead be citing reliable news sources which are apt to give context and select for us what is due for coverage, and have the government source as a second source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the material in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, Selfstudier, material from the Israeli government has nothing to do with material in the article? I believe there are entire sections where I have personally summarized the accusations in the Israeli intelligence dossierKeizers (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to Nat Gertler. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few RS colored green on WP:RSP still have disclaimers that under certain conditions, they may be biased - these include such trusted sources as The Guardian and the ADL (cough cough). Unfortunately there are not clear guidelines to follow in these cases, but I do see repeated suggestions to (simply) attribute the content to the source explicity in the text (in addition to the <ref> of course). That it what I did. Keizers (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Biased" is different from "not reliable", in Wikipedia context. See WP:BIASED. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, could you clarify what points about the TRT response are unreliable? The points being supported are about what TRT's reaction to the Journal article was. Obviously they are a RS for what their reaction was. I know your reply will be "but that's original research!" Well, the reactions of Sky News and Financial Times are also supported by Sky News and Financial Times as the sources, why did you not address that? I seem to remember a phrase - oh yes: "original research - we bend the rule - except when the source - is Istanbul". If you remove the TRT points, then please be consistent and remove the parts about the UK media supported by OR. Personally I find it quite pedantic, but that's just my opinion.Keizers (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not an RS for their reaction being WP:DUE. That's what having a reliable third-party source would provide. I do not believe that unreliable sources should be treated the same as reliable ones. If you are disturbed by dealing with folks who want sourcing and other policies to be followed, then you may want to find areas of editing that aren't contentious topics or biographies of living persons. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRT World is a regime's propaganda arm. That is not true for any of the papers you are using for whataboutism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling: Insane Astonishing that you call it a "regime". I'm not a fan of Erdogan because he manipulates Twitter and the media, but the elections are free (Google it). Everyone within the territory that Turkey controls is (or can become) a citizen. 100%. And vote, and have the same civil rights. So, that's a "regime". Compare that to a certain "democracy" where - now get this Hob - really, you're not going to believe this - only 66% of the people in the territory under its control are citizens. (By "control" I mean borders, freedom of movement for people and goods, control of the water and population register, etc.) They officially annexed half of their capital city 57 years ago, and people in that half can virtually never obtain citizenship, even when they're born there, and their parent's parents going back thousands of years. The real (unofficial) reason is - that they are not members of the national religion. And 33% of the people - whose DNA also goes back at least 10,000 years in that territory - live in another area - a sort of collection of 227 Indian reservations - land under the country's control for 57 years, and they can NEVER get citizenship, and if they want to move between the 227 parts of the reservation, they have to ask the government for permission! They are under martial law, the army can occupy their houses, grab their kids and torture them without charge, and right now the country is starving and denying water to about half of them on the biggest reservation, forcing them into a concentration camp-type situation where they live in tents. Would you call that an apartheid regime or a democracy? Asking for a friend, Hob.Keizers (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going after folks on the basis of your assumptions of what they believe and will say is not actually a productive strategy. I recommend you reconsider that post, and strike it through if you then deem that appropriate. (Certainly suggesting that it is "insane" that someone used a term that can be found in many common sources is inappropriate.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Keizers (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About your first sentence: Read regime and insanity. About the rest: Read WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken Keizers (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised issues regarding this page at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_regarding_UNRWA_October_7_controversy -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify the second paragraph in the introduction, replacing “According to Israel, between 4 to 12…”

to: “According to Israel, at least 42…”

Sources: https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/02/26/not-coincidental-drastic-drop-in-israeli-aid-that-goes-through-unrwa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/02/16/unrwa-video-oct-7-israel/ 77.137.77.101 (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keizers has repeatedly inserted a name which is not found in the source they are using for that name. They are then using that name as an excuse to perform WP:SYNTH, attaching information from sources that are not discussing the topic of this article (and could not be, as they predate the events chronicled here), and thus fail to show that the material is relevant for inclusion, with WP:DUE concerns. I recommend that they cease edit warring and pay attention to WP:BRD. If the material that they are trying to add is relevant to the topic of this page, it should be found in reliable third-party sources relevant to the topic of this page. As this is a matter of WP:BLP concern in the midst of a contentious topic, I am again removing the addition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire controversy is about Carrie Keller-Lynn being very close friends with Israeli army spokesperson Aliza Landes who effectively invented social media at the IDF back in 2008. I used a Middle East Eye report on the Al-Jazeera video-only report, and did notice that in the video the narrator says "(Keller-Lynn) seen here linked to one of the army's spokespersons", rather than naming Landes.

So, to immediately address the concerns around a source for the name Landes, I will restore the name with a RS that names Landes with the following text

According to Middle East Eye, X (formerly Twitter) users commented that Keller-Lynn is close friends with Aliza Landes, a former IDF spokesperson who helped expand the IDF's social media presence.^[1]

which I have gone ahead and made in light of your concerns.

As for the information on adding additional information about Landes' and Keller-Lynn's podcast together, etc. I think you are citing policy which doesn't exist, i.e. you are saying that the source for ANY point made in any article must be a source that is ABOUT the topic of the article, which is clearly absurd. For example if I am writing in the article about Los Angeles and say that the Pasadena Freeway was the first urban freeway, and my source is a text about freeways, you're saying that that's invalid because the source has to be about Los Angeles. I don't feel it's urgent to say more than "Aliza Landes, a former IDF spokesperson who helped expand the IDF's social media presence" so I don't feel the need to pursue more discussion on that. But I want to establish that your "rule about sources" doesn't exist.

Again I need to establish that providing a bit more of the women's relationship is not WP:SYNTH, it's in fact relevant to the section of the topic, which is a section about the controversy, and the controversy itself' is their relationship - the controversy itself is "synth" if you wish. I'm not writing about it because I personally noticed that they were friends and thought "oh, that's fishy".

In any case I've not put back information about their podcast partnership, because I'd like to put this to rest and I can see WP:UNDUE concerns in the sense of too much detail relevant to the topic. Simply making mention of what the controversy consists of is enough.Keizers (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Things that are relevant are discussed in reliable sources on the topic, that's how we know they're relevant.

While I appreciate the pared down version, what you've now put in isn't reliably sourced claims about the individuals, but a statement about what people on social media are saying... which, while you have marked as such, should still at least raise a BLP eyebrow. And it puts into the article what random folks are saying about the father of a friend of one of the co-authors of an on-topic article, which at least seems to me to be rather afield from the topic of the article and this might better be summarized closer to the bone. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: Are you aware of any WP policy that says that all sources supporting all points must be from sources that support the topic of the entire article? I would like to read it because in my 10+ years of writing I've never heard, come across, or written according to such a policy. (I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely would like to review any such policy). I reviewed WP:V and it only says "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.". Material being the individual point supported. So, this is the reason why a reasonable amount of relevant information can be supplied to complete the understanding of who Landes is (social media, father Richard Landes inventing the term "Pallywood" which is a racist derogatory term), the relationship with Landes being the core definition of the controversy. I do just want to Wikilink to her father's page. Thanks for working with me on this, I appreciate it.Keizers (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship is not the "core definition" of the controversy; the WSJ publishing an article that appears to accept the dossier's claims at face value is. And yes, I understand that you want to link to the page of the father of a friend of one of the co-authors of the article, as that falls in line with various other things you have done. You have been choosing to pick and try to wedge items into the article based seemingly on non-RSes views of what is important. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just undone an attempt to recast the WSJ article controversy into being a "photo controversy". None of the sources used indicate that there is any controversy over the photo; they use it to reference a relationship. This isn't like V-J Day in Times Square where there is debate over whether it should be viewed a picture of a a celebration or an assault,, nor The dress where there was argument about the colors depicted in the image. The only place I know of where this photo has faced controversy is in the Wikipedia editing circles. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it's not a controversy "about" the photo, but about the conjunction of (a) the article basically repeating Israeli govt talking points and (b) the relationship between the article's author and Landes. The photo is a key element in establishing (b) as noted in RS. Keizers (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of anything else, the photo is a copyrighted work. We cannot use the copy from Commmons because it is in line to be deleted from there as not having been released under a compatible license, and it cannot have a free use rationale applied while on Commons. - Bilby (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby:, fixed, I uploaded it to Wikipedia with fair use rationale. The file is the same name but ending is "jpeg" for the Wikipedia version.Keizers (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not use sources which don't mention the UNRWA controversy.

As for the photo itself, consider this photo for the sake of comparison. Muhammad Shehada is a senior staffer at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Would it be right to add it everywhere where we reference Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor? Alaexis_¿question? 08:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proper use of the report and photo is to help Wikipedia editors judge the reliability of a particular source. It's not helpful IMO to import discussions about source reliability into mainspace. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting per the above heading, there is now a fork of this article at Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In a normal world, we wouldn't need to carry in debates on source reliability into mainspace. We'd simply ignore questionable publications. Maybe, in the long term, we could simply work out, at RSN, a consensus not to rely on the mentioned publication? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: Which source are you referring to? The WSJ? The reason I wrote the controversy up as an article is not about whether it's a RS for use on Wiki, it's because it is a topic in and of itself, which is part of larger issues in the mainspace, such as media bias, journalistic integrity, Hasbara (narratives of foreign countries in other countries' media), etc. There are other examples such as the NYT story and the sum of this can likely be an article of itself (pro-Israel bias in US/Western media), which would be a drilldown from the topics mentioned. Keizers (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but any publication that is being challenged or retracted can be presented in a wider context of improper editorial controls, COI, plagiarism, and so on. Look at retractions of academic articles, Retraction Watch is a fascinating resource that digs into the mechanisms behind questionable academic publishing. However, does every such article need to feature on Wikipedia only because there were "larger issues"? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging the recently-created Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy article into the UNRWA October 7 controversy article. According to independent and reliable secondary sources, the recently-created article does not yet appear to have encyclopedic support for a standalone article as a notable event, and merged content based on independent and reliable sources in the recently-created article do not appear to create article-size or weighting problems in the UNRWA October 7 controversy article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as proposer, based on the article content when this proposal was made [9]. Oppose, as proposer, after further consideration, discussion, as well as review and editing of the source article and this article. I have added a PROD tag to the article. The proposed merge target section would be UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Wall_Street_Journal_article_criticism, and some of the expanded attributions for criticism now present in Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy could be selectively merged (i.e. to help clarify commentary source, etc.) although further attention to details may be needed as editing continues. This source article may also be an unacceptable WP:CFORK. For example,
  • Some content recently re-added to the WSJ UNRWA controversy article was previously discussed at Talk:UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Notability_of_Keller-Lynn's_authorship_of_the_WSJ_article,_her_relation_with_Landes,_and_removal_of_iTrek_photo in a section opened by Keizers on 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC), which included discussion of WP:BLP policy.[reply]
  • Some content recently re-added to the WSJ UNRWA controversy article was previously discussed at Talk:UNRWA_October_7_controversy#insertion_of_name in a section opened by NatGertler at 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC), which included a WP:BLP policy objection.[reply]
  • I participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Landes AfD on 06:52, 7 March 2024 [10] and then made various edits to the article, including to remove similar content according to WP:BLP, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:BLPUNDEL policy at 07:17, 7 March 2024 [11]
  • I removed similar content per WP:BLP/WP:BLPBALANCE/WP:BLPUNDEL on 16:40, 7 March 2024 from the UNRWA October 7 controversy article [12]. My removal also followed a removal of sources by Alaexis at 07:58, 7 March 2024 [13] with the edit summary "removed sources which say nothing about the UNRWA controversy; please don't add them back before reaching consensus"
  • I removed similar content per WP:BLP/WP:BLPBALANCE/WP:BLPUNDEL on 00:16, 8 March 2024 from the WSJ UNRWA article controversy article [14]
  • This content was restored with minimal change and no discussion nor consensus by Keizers at 16:23, 8 March 2024 [15] in the WSJ UNRWA article controversy article

Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC) updated to reflect substantial changes to article since proposal. A merge proposal may not be the appropriate forum at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC); comment updated to add past article talk discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC) update comment to change to Oppose Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a procedural note, I have also opened a discussion at Talk:Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy#WP:BLPUNDEL to discuss recent additions to the WSJ UNRWA article controversy article by Keizers. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Once one wipes away the BLP problems, and material that is not about the topic of that page, one is left with little that isn't already on this page. No visible need for a separate page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) There is no longer material at other page that needs to be integrated here; just let PROD do its process. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is one of two "article controversy" articles out there that are BLP and NPOV hornet's nests. The other is Screams Without Words. Both present BLP as well as NPOV issues. Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merger is the right tack. It does not appear this material is covered in detail on this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I further considered the proposed merge source and content in this article at UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Wall_Street_Journal_article_criticism, the non-redundant content to merge seems to be clarified and corrected attributions - as noted in the discussion below, I added those adjustments and could do it in this article; I have just not gotten to it yet. I am thinking a merge does not seem necessary and was considering removing my support, but also appreciate other perspectives. Beccaynr (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've flipflopped and restored the prod, having reviewed the material and not seen much of substance that really needs to be brought to the parent. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any reason why the merge tags aren't up? I'm a bit confused, are we saying that the other article doesn't meet GNG or it is a BLP vio or what? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keizers removed the notability tag [16]; it is my mistake to have only added the merge tag to the article talk page, and I can fix that. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Also, the content that appears to be contrary to BLP policy was re-added to the article and expanded after this merge proposal began. Beccaynr (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the notability tag for the reasons given. Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the BLP issues that have not been addressed (I reverted within the past 24 hours) in the WSJ article, I think according to WP:IAR, giving further publicity to similar content that has been removed from other articles, by placing a merge proposal notice banner on this article does not seem best for the encyclopedia at this time. My sense is when we are discussing potential BLP violations, we are not supposed to call unnecessary attention to the content during discussions. Perhaps we can extend the length of this discussion to accommodate a delay in fully publicizing it due to substantial good-faith BLP policy objections to content added to the article soon after the merge proposal began. Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K, if insufficient grounds for AfD, best thing is to take it to the BLP noticeboard, no? If there are obvious vios they are not going to sit there for very long after that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are grounds for an AfD, per WP:EVENT, and now including other reasons for deletion such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. BLPN is an option, but I only have so much time available; I happened across this topic via an AfD discussion, and this has become an unexpectedly time-consuming for me as similar issues seem to migrate from article to article; trying to figure out how to efficiently and effectively proceed is something I am trying to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD does not result in delete, it may still result in merge. Still, if the BLP vios are potentially serious, then BLP would be the way to go and wouldn't take that long. Selfstudier (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is fairly textbook poorly-sourced sensationalism that is seriously contrary to BLP policy, particularly because Aliza Landes appears to be 'an American-Israeli business executive in the cryptocurrency industry, who previously worked as a Chief Marketing Officer for Asia Times Online and before that, for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as a spokesperson and on the development of IDF social media content in 2009 and 2010.' The sourcing about her role with IDF social media when she was in her mid-20s, before she left the IDF, went to graduate school and then became a media executive, is fairly minimal - a 2012 interview-based source in Tablet Magazine, a 2012 Atlantic source quoting the Tablet source [17], an employer profile, and a Youtube link to a 2011 conference panel she participated in as a member of the IDF spokespersons unit [18], after leaving her role with the social media team.

So the recent opinion, commentary, social media, and low-quality sources, etc that publicize a 2009 photo as if it is damning guilt by association that undermines the WSJ article (is the photo/purported friendship supposed to imply Landes still works for the IDF? that Landes has influenced the WSJ report on behalf of the IDF?) seems to be the type of tabloid-style guilt-by-association sensationalism about living people that is not considered encyclopedic according to BLP and NOT policies. Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• fyi, I have posted at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy
• As the editor who created the page and had been its sole supporter is now under a topic ban that prevents them from editing it, I suspect that a simple WP:PROD would make that article go away. While it does have some more depth about the specific criticisms, I am dubious that this is of long term interest; the existing mentions on this page with their proper references are likely sufficient. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking that because I edited the source attribution that could have been merged (On the Al-Jazeera English current affairs programme The Listening Post, ... and In commentary for The Intercept, ...), there is no attribution needed to add it to this article, so a PROD could be a straightforward way to address these various issues. Beccaynr (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) clarify/expand comment Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have updated my !vote; based on the discussion here and developments with the articles, a merge does not appear necessary or appropriate at this time, and I did PROD the article, in part based on the apparent lack of content to merge. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]