Talk:Misinformation in the Gaza war

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Remove or rephrase parts of the paragraph regarding Israeli government and companies deploying AI tools and bot farms to spread disinformation: Source 4 is no longer available The report mentioned in source 5 only notes STOIC, a political campaign management firm in Israel - not the government. Source 6 does not have any information to affirm what is being claimed, other than the sentence directly quoting The Intercept. 2A02:14F:1F2:12D7:0:0:BA92:6619 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's better to give links to sources as their numbers may change. Which source is no longer available for you? As to STOIC, the phrase mentions both the government and private companies so I'm not sure what change is needed. Alaexis_¿question? 21:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The entire claim against israel using bot farms and AI is from a NYT opinion piece. If you go into it there are lots of claims with very little evidence. The only thing even resemble an evidence there is a link that claims to be what Open AI said about this, which is a *broken link* to a non existing NYT article.

I really dont understand how this constitutes as a valid souece to anything. It reeks of bias and political agenda and I doubt this would have been considered as a valid source if it was the other way around.

Yet another sign of wiki being abused by activists and no longer serving the truth. 147.235.207.47 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The section about advance-knowledge should be edited

Netanyahu is currently being investigated & heavily criticized within for possible foreknowledge, or intentional negligence, as well as a general corruption issue. Nicememes (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

For example, he probably knew about activation of Israeli sim cards in Gaza linked to the attack. Israeli SigInt is very good, they most likely had the capability to track movements & communications. He backdated documents & then blackmailed officials to expunge an intentional 10-15 minute delay to the response, reportedly saying to "call me back in 10 minutes." He also changed recording procedures for meetings relatively close to the attacks.

He was warned by IDF officials of an attack in the weeks leading up to it. He reportedly didn't take it seriously.

He was warned by border guards of mock runs of hostage-taking, sometimes as little as one mile from actual attack sites.

He knew of specific attack plans, although not dates or exact locations, up to 1 year prior.

Nicememes (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nicememes, I think this should be added to Benjamin_Netanyahu#Sixth_term as well. Can you write the proposed text here - what exactly you'd like to add to these articles? Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Nicememes (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

My reply is not showing up for some reason but I feel like the whole section needs a revision in light of the new information regarding the many, separate warnings given to the Netanyahu governmentt. Additionally, the evidence is far stronger than just Charlie Kirk's word. Saying it relies soly on his word seems misleading, when in reality there is an active discussion regarding his inplication in terms of negligence. Nicememes (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Nicememes (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

From: Iran, Russia, China, Iran's proxies, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State

To: Al Qaeda, China, Iran, Iran's proxies, Russia, and the Islamic State Dabeez1 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Confusing section headings

The main top level sections are currently "On Israel", "On the UN" and "On Gaza", but it's unclear why material is allocated in this way. For instance, a sub-section on "Sexual violence" covers misinformation about both Israeli sexual violence in Gaza and Hamas sexual violence in Israel, yet is within the "On Gaza" section. Either we need to remove the top level sections, or go through and make sure content is in the right place. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

UNRWA

I'm not sure that this should be in the article. The sources in the article are all from February 2024 and they indeed say that the claims were not proven. Note that "unproven claims" is not the same thing as misinformation. Unproven means that it's not proven but it can be true or false.

However since February 2024 UNRWA said that some of their employees likely participated in the October 7 attack. If there are sources published after August that call Israeli claims related to the UNRWA involvement misinformation then we can add them to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 10:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis If you say it is okay to be cited for the paragraph in relation to Bild and the Jewish Chronicle, then how is it feasible to conclude “its reliability is unclear”?

The fact that they are published on substack does not depreciate the content of what Drop Site News is. It is an investigative news outlets with reputable journalist who have all worked for very reputable outlets in the past.

I see no justification for exclusion as there is no proof of WP:NOTRS:lack meaningful editorial oversight and it is certainly not fringe.

Therefore, I kindly request reasons as to why Drop Site News is unreliable? Lf8u2 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's assume for now that they satisfy the RS requirements. There are still 3 major problems.

However you restored not just the content supported to Drop News but also everything else that is supported by articles published in February 2024 which were published before the UN investigation was over. At that time, these sources deemed the allegations not proven, but later it turned out that some UNRWA employees did participate in the attack.

Regarding the paragraph based solely on the Drop News article, it's a violation of WP:NPOV (specifically DUE/BALANCE). You're basically presenting only one viewpoint (Drop News criticising the NYT) and presenting it in wikivoice. If this controversy is to be mentioned at all, all major viewpoints have to be described in proportion to their coverage in RS.

Finally, the onus is on you to achieve consensus (WP:ONUS), so please don't restore this content until it's achieved. Alaexis_¿question? 21:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The Israeli claims made in January were based on specific documents they asserted were in their possession. These same documents were subsequently reviewed by the cited reliable sources, which concluded that the specific claims made by Israel were false. Therefore, this constitutes a clear instance of unverified information, as identified by RS. The subsequent UN investigation and Israeli claims based on other arguments are not pertinent to this matter, as @NadVolum noted.

Moreover, the claim that UNRWA employees were involved in the attacks have not been verified by the UN investigation. The internal investigation said it "may have been" the case for 9 employees, but not confirmed. The AP reported four days ago: UNRWA said it fired nine staffers after an internal U.N. investigation concluded that they could have been involved, although the evidence was not authenticated and corroborated.

The reference to Drop Site News does not violate WP:NPOV. The cited source, which is RS, provides a response to the unverified claim made by The New York Times. The issue of proportionality is not relevant in this context, as the content in question appears in a section specifically addressing misinformation and unverified information, and the RS source directly pertains to that subject. What perspectives do you propose including that would be WP:DUE? A more detailed account of the NYT's claims? How would that be relevant to the discussion of unverified information concerning the documents on which their report was based on documents that, according to RS, were not authenticated? Lf8u2 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The misinformation is stuff like Israeli intel shows 10% of UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to terror groups — report, it is not that a tenth of a percent of UNRWA were among those who attacked on 7th October. 10% is much bigger than 0.1%. NadVolum (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ashley Rindsberg

Johnadams11, I think you should probably raise this source and the context it is being used at WP:RSN. Also, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires?. I am a biased observer because Ashley Rindsberg included my name in a previous article, and it was enough to tell that whatever they are doing, a) it does not appear to be journalism, and b) it does not appear to be reliable. In fact, ironically, the article was an example of misinformation as far as I can tell. Having said that, I haven't read the article about Reddit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland Thank you. I hadn't known of your notoriety! I'm not deeply familiar with PirateWires, but at least based on the finding of WP ArbCom in January, it would seem that some/many of the allegations in that October article were found to have factual merit, which I assume would weigh in favor of their reliability. Johnadams11 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, let's not get too excited about my celebrity status, my name only appeared in a table of page intersections that was used in a way that would get someone immediately fired and escorted out of the building in my world. I don't think the ArbCom findings can be used to argue in favor of the source's reliability, but it doesn't really matter what I think. What matters to me at least is that the source resembles a partisan misinformation vector, one of many out there, the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is real, and the community should have their eyes on sources used in the PIA topic area because there is a non-stop conflict over narratives. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland Great. Let's see if we can agree. What can you point to as the best evidence of PirateWire's unreliability? (I have no opinion on the topic, and prior to this week never heard of it.) Johnadams11 (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The best evidence is, alas, not evidence because you cannot verify it, but I can. The best evidence of unreliability is the notion that I would support anything Islamist, or indeed anything religious at all, ever. I'm not sure I even support the notion of freedom of religion and often think that perhaps it would be better to treat it like cigarettes or pornography, an adults-only activity. Then there is the whole committing war crimes unpleasantness, but you get the idea. There is probably a more sensible answer to your question with more utility, but that would take some time that I don't have. As a general statement, their analysis of the evidence used deeply flawed methodologies. But I assign very low credence to my assessments of reliability, which is one of the reasons you won't see me at RSN very often. That's because I don't know how to write down an algorithm to measure source reliability. And this tells me that I don't understand it very deeply. But in this specific case I know they made some errors because I am in a position to validate claims that relate to me personally. Anyway, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I don't mind disagreements. I just think the community hasn't formed any kind of useful consensus or way to think about this source and they should probably be given another opportunity. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I should also mention that I'm opposed in general to using these kinds of partisan opinion pieces for encyclopedia articles. There are numerous non-partisan academic/expert groups that monitor and analyze the diffusion of misinformation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I just had a look at Pirate Wires and their about us page gives me the impression that editorial control is not on their wishlist of features to acquire. Their editor in chief writes rants without marking it as editorial or comment. There's a lot of these e-zines each catering for their own little information bubble. Some of the stuff is probably fine but how do we figure out which bit it is? It just won't pass WP:NEWSORG. NadVolum (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Removal of lead img

The removed image

@Stephan rostie: can you give a reason why you thought the image I added was "undue"? The provided image is an illustrative example of misinformation in the Gaza war, and the only free image I could find which can be used to illustrate the article. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)