Talk:Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duplicated sections[edit]

@Iskandar323: Much of this article's content was directly copied from other articles. Should these duplicated sections be included as excerpts instead? Jarble (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of this content is rapidly changing, so I expect it will diverge quickly ahead, but the general principle of Wikipedia's summary style is that the material is now less essential/can now be summarised on the parent page, so should be trimmed there if anywhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2023[edit]

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

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

Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – Much of the substance of the body seems to be about misinformation rather than intentional disinformation. It's a bit of a mixed bag here, but I think if we're to keep the body then we might want to change the title. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 02:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I agree that this is a better title, as there's no evidence that a lot of the misinformation in the article is deliberate disinformation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sources support both misinformation and disinformation. The 40 beheaded babies claim is a classic case of disinformation that was knowingly propagated by official Israeli channels. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because on mass balance, the material is all about self-evidently poor, unverified or demonstrably false information that was actively disseminated, amid war, in a propaganda-strewn environment. It is not a collection of mere oopsie moments. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quite the opposite, "misinformation" should be changed to "disinformation" in the section titles. The bulk of the examples are such that they're unlikely to have arisen unintentionally: Beheaded babies, children in cages, footage from 2020, a modified version of a photo from 2010, Hamas militants that turn out to be Egyptian paratroopers, footage from a video game, etc. Joriki (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some claims are clearly just misunderstandings and are not intentional. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Hemiauchenia. There's no evidence whatsoever that a lot of the misinformation in the article is intentional and deliberate WP:DISINFORMATION. Deerove (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Comment stricken per WP:ARBECR WP:PIA. SilverLocust 01:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Disinformation#Etymology reveals roots in propaganda, esp. government-sponsored attacks. Wikipedia should adopt the term "misinformation" unless there's plenty of sources saying there's evidence of a coordinated effort. fgnievinski (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Topic is analogous to COVID-19 misinformation and 5G misinformation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think a lot of it is genuine malice, but people reposting it may simply be misinformed. Still, bad actors are clearly trying to push propaganda.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Comment stricken per WP:ARBECR WP:PIA. SilverLocust 01:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is worth noting that the disinformation in the conflict has been started to be covered in depth, and with specific bad actors being pointed out,[1] so "disinformation" is supported. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the definitions are complicated and vary somewhat, but disinformation is usually a subset of misinformation based on intent. The move to misinformation doesn't mean that certain bits of disinformation can't still be covered and labeled as such, where the intent was clear (or where sufficient sources call it as much). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Misinformation covers the broader topic of inaccurate information with intent or not, and it's not always obvious if there is intent or not. Most of what is covered is considered misinformation rather than disinformation. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 22:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There is no evidence that all these things are intentional. Parham wiki (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for more policy-based discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Media has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

Strong POV and OR in article[edit]

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

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

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

Taylor swift[edit]

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

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

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

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

Associated Press article for anyone wishing to add information[edit]

GnocchiFan (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in Arabic versions of Wikipedia pages compared to other languages[edit]

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

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

Some of the sources needs to be rechecked[edit]

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

Conspiracy theories[edit]

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

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

Cory Mills[edit]

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

"Hamas is ISIS" is not information, so it can't be misinformation[edit]

This is a slogan. No one thinks that this is a factual claim, but a moral comparison which deals with the barbaric cruelty of both organizations. One might think that the comparison is wrong, but it is not misinformation. החבלן (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anti-Israel disinformation[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Claims refuted by the Bild newspaper[edit]

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

Jackson Hinkle[edit]

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

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

Bloomberg analysis[edit]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023[edit]

In the (Fake videos) chapter and after the last paragraph that talks about the fake nurse video. Add in the following sentence as the (last sentence);

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

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

 Done Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beheaded babies[edit]

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

section "on Gazan"[edit]

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

Nurse video source[edit]

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

Possible new source[edit]

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

Intentional lack of clarity on Hamas.com[edit]

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

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

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

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

Overall grammar is also poor and lacks credibility.

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

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

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

People burned alive by Hamas[edit]

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

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

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

194.193.223.241 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the connection to misinformation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big update[edit]

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

Biased sources[edit]

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

Any sections referencing them are clearly to serve an agenda and should be taken out HonestEditor51 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Struck under WP:ARBECR & WP:PIA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HonestEditor51: See WP:ALJAZEERA — “Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned news organization considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.” In short, Wikipedia editors and consensus has determined that despite being state-owned media, Al Jazeera is a reliable source for information. If you believe it is no longer a reliable source for information, you can open a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Note, you need to provide evidence (with links to sources) that show why it is no longer considered reliable if you start a discussion on the noticeboard. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the response! Will go to the noticeboard
Seems a bit strange that a state-owned media where the state is a monarchy that is answerable to one person could possibly be considered reliable, but you are right, the forum for this should be broader. HonestEditor51 (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Struck under WP:ARBECR & WP:PIA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

prior knowledge conspiracy theory[edit]

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

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

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

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

Beheading and mixing claims[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misinformation_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1220913870"