Talk:Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Bias

Why do we have an article on Use of human shields by Hamas but not on Israel? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point. There was a discussion to merge them into the general "human shielding" page, but it was decided that Hamas human shielding topic is significant enough to warrant its own page. However, there was no consensus that Israeli use of it doesn't warrant a separate page, and imo it does as there is significant reporting on it, including over the past few months with for example the use of Palestinians as human shields on military vehicles, and the latest report by Haaretz confirming systematic and widespread use of it.

That definitely meets the standard of WP:SPINOFF.

So I would recommend you or another editor who has the requisite knowledge to go ahead and make it to ensure NPOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging Use of human shields by Hamas into Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There was a RM about a month ago regarding renaming the Hamas article, which did not succeed, but it garnered some support for this merge. The closer noted that there was a similar discussion at the beginning of this year (in which I didn't participate). However, sufficient time has passed, and with new information on the documented use of human shields by the IDF in the ongoing conflict, it has become clearer that the other article serves as a WP:POVFORK intended to support a specific narrative. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page - this applies here. There's nothing preventing anyone from creating a new article titled Use of human shields by the IDF, but why maintain two POV forks when we can consolidate them? Merging these articles can enhance the credibility of the content by presenting a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. By merging, we can address the problem at its root and include both accusations in a single article, thus preventing more forks from being created. - Ïvana (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Use of human shields by Hamas is a more specific topic and not a POVFORK, but a more specific narrow article scope. There are many actors in the historic and current-day IP conflict. Several different accusations and situations exist with regard to allegations of human shield usage. Therefore, I do not think a merge is necessary or helpful for clarity. I will also point out that while the two articles are roughly the same age as far as I can discern, the former is actually slightly older. Andre🚐 01:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Conditional support The content of the pages cover the same topic and to ensure NPOV should be either merged, or what I think is the best way to ensure it, a separate page needs to be made for IDF use of human shields. There is extensive RS on that not only recently but going back many years so it clearly satisfies the requirements for one. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support : I agree with the idea of merging the two articles, considering this article already does have a section for "Use by Palestinian forces" and a subsection for Hamas. The section can be expanded to add any details covered by the specific Hamas article. I think that would be actually the most neutral and fair option. Even people on Israel's side should agree with this, since the article will appear more heavily weighted against Israel the more evidence against Israel shows up and the larger the Israel section of the article grows. Tashmetu (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support The only logical alternative would be the tit for tat creation of Use of human shields by the IDF, which seems unnecessary when there has been a long standing article covering both sides.Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support unless "Use of human shields by the IDF" is created. Easternsahara (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. These are closely related concepts that are better covered in a single article, especially since the two are going to be frequently compared to one another in a way that would be redundant across two articles. While articles about the same concept across different parties aren't inherently POV forks, they likely would be in this case if they're created separately (see Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse and its tit-for-tat Jews and Israelis as animals in Palestinian discourse for an example of how not to do this). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an ample amount of sources that allows this article to meet WP:DUE independently. A merge is not necessary and would only obscure a well-researched subject. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support separate page. I agree with @Hogo-2020 that a merge is not necessary. It would condense way too much information into one article. That being said, I think the Israeli use of human shields is itself something that could be WP:DUE its own article - there is decades of information on the topic and I don't think it would be a WP:POVFORK to do so provided the new article does not spend time comparing itself with this or other articles. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also agree with Hogo-2020. there is no reason to cram excessive information into a single article. Whizkin (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This article is ~4,300 words; thus it is not WP:TOOBIG.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I also have no problem with two separate articles, though I think one article is slightly better as it allows for content on comparing the two. It makes no sense to maintain an article for I-P generally and also a separate article for just one side. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  But we already have that single top-level article - Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. All this proposal will achieve is to make it much longer. Whizkin (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hence, the argument that I made:

  It makes no sense to maintain an article for I-P generally and also a separate article for just one side.

  Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support for a number of reasons, including some mentioned above. One reason that has thus far not been mentioned is: Hamas's positioning its military assets in civilian areas is often directly compared to Israel doing the same. Several sources here make that comparison, including a scholarly publication by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini, which is probably the highest quality source on the topic that we have. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge, pr nominator,Huldra (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support most of the human shields accusations thrown at Hamas are accusations of them hiding behind civilians in the literal meaning (which has not been proven in any way shape or form), or tiptoey definitions such as them dressing as civilians (fair) and using civilian buildings (also dubious, proven by the two raids on Al Shifa which gave no conclusive proof of Hamas presence or usage as a base)

compare this to the idf whose article is lacking, despite them using civilians in the literal way, intentionally disguising themselves as civilians (ibn Cena hospital raid), using hospitals as military bases (Turkish friendship hospital) and other means of human shields, like using Palestinian civilians as cannon fodder by sending them to booby trapped tunnels and homes, even dressing them in IDF uniforms at that The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merging, both of the topics are covered together in a large number of sources. I suppose there can be this parent and a child article for both sets of accusations, but Israel has been long-accused of using human shields and a NPOV way of treating the topic of human shields in the conflict is to cover both sets in a single article. nableezy - 15:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. An attempt to merge two different topics is not a good idea. Israeli–Palestinian conflict doesn't involve just Hamas but others. Hamas is notable for it's terror acts and deserves a separate article based on many RS. No need to try to hide it in the broader subject. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Hamas has been recognized by the international community as a terrorist group. The same is not true for Fatah, nor for the Israeli government. Hamas's use of human shields is therefore separate from the non-terrorist use of human shields. I would support a move to Use of human shields by the Israel Defense Forces. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The international community does not recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The majority of democratic nations do so. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

So what? Your argument is entirely personal opinion, that somehow a crime in international law is different when committed by a "terrorist group" as opposed to by a state. The laws of war cover all combatants, states or non-states alike. nableezy - 00:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

“The majority of democratic nations” is not the international community The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)'

Since people have had issues with my oppose, I will clarify (side note: this RFC should probably be closed as no action due to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1262114028). First, Use of human shields by Hamas is over 70,000 bytes, and this article is almost as large. Merges should not be performed when there is a large body of sources treating the two topics as separate, unless the articles are exceptionally small. Furthermore, almost all sources in each article refer only to the use of human shields by a given side: in this article, the IDF, in the other article, Hamas. This shows that in the media and in academia, the use of human shields by the IDF and by Hamas are considered separate; therefore we should follow suit, and have two separate articles: one titled Use of human shields by Hamas, and the other titled Use of human shields by the IDF. Finally, other articles on this same topic have the same naming convention: I speak here of the pair of articles, Hamas war crimes and Israeli war crimes. There is no one article called War crimes in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, just like there should be none here. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the “Hamas human shields” in the article are mere accusations, and in fact it seems much of the article is dedicated to actual disproving the usage of human shields by Hamas with how many investigations by third parties (UN, HRW, amnesty international) were actually unable to reveal conclusive evidence of this supposed phenomenon

Compare this to the usage of human shields by the IDF in the article. Not only does it follow the arbitrary criteria they claim Hamas is using (civilian buildings as bases) but also using it in the literal sense, putting civilians in front of them, or using them as cannon fodder or bait when investigating booby traps. In some cases, the civilians are even dressed in IDF uniform so that when if is a Hamas ambush they are the ones who will be targeted, not the soldiers that use them as shields. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support: There is no cause for the existence of this undue POV split outside of the parent article Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There is no benefit in covering the topic from the perspective of an exceptionally narrow POV framing outside of the broader context of the parent page, which addresses the conflict as a whole. On the contrary, having the material on a separate page and only summarised on the parent page denudes the parent of important content and context, and for no reason, since the parent is not even that long. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Support no need to have a separate article, seems to also have POV issues. It really only seems to exist simply for presenting a one-sided view of this article. Mason7512 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Support: per non Lililolol (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Following @Hogo-2020, I don't believe a merge is necessitated. Hamas in original has a special relationship with human shields over many decades.

• Support per nomination because, as most users have already commented, there is no reason at all for why this page exists when Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists. It seems rather clear, as the OP stated, that the former is merely a POVFORK of the latter. Moreover, this page seems to have multiple NPOV issues related to the presentation of unevidenced claims made by Israel as having equal or greater weight than actual evidence provided to refute those claims. It is also worth noting that a great deal of the well-sourced content on this page also exists on Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. So, again, I support this proposal. Abu Wan (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The use of human shields by Hamas exceeds that by Israel by orders of magnitude. Editor behavior in the I/P area has been described by numerous journalists. Both articles need a complete rewrite, as do many articles in the I/P area. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Comment: Its not clear what you meant by this ("has been described by numerous journalists." as what?) But, you cite:

  • The Jerusalem Post - see WP:RSPLIST: "It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited."
  • CNN - no problem here
  • The Times of Israel reporting on what the ADL says - see WP:ADLPIA
  • Pirate Wires - Never encountered this site before, but there has been 1 RS discussion (Jan 2025, mostly focused on citing it for info concerning itself/its writers, but bias is brought up). It was apparently was founded as a newsletter in 2020 by Mike Solana (also never encountered, but is apparently a Peter Thiel guy, according to the article by The Atlantic where im getting this info, if that matters) and both had WP pages deleted for not being notable, so I wouldn't personally use it to cite anything about a contentious topic, but its less clear.

  No matter what you were trying to say (I assume it was that Wikipedia article are too bias against Israel), I don't think these sources could prove anything. Besides that, I would challenge your assertion that "the use of human shields by Hamas exceeds that by Israel by orders of magnitude". Mason7512 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, the sources overwhelmingly support the article to retain its current title. Sufficient evidence has been provided from reliable sources to close this discussion out soon too and remove the discussion tag on this article. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Discussion

I'm not sure about that the quote from WP:PAGEDECIDE applies here. There is no relationship between the use of human shields by Hamas (using civilian buildings as cover and in general waging war in a way to maximise own civilian casualties and thus generate more support for their cause) and the use of human shields by Israel (embedding enemy civilians into their units to reduce the likelihood of being attacked). There is very little in common and no real reason to discuss both in the same article.

Two articles are considered POV forks if they discuss the same topic from two different POVs. Alaexis_¿question? 13:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There absolutely is a relationship between the two; we are discussing the same crime within the same conflict, committed by both parties involved. Your belief that one group is more justified than the other doesn't change that fact. Referring to civilians as "enemy civilians" is simply obscene, it fosters dehumanization and justification for harmful actions against them, while purposefully obscuring the fact that Israel uses ordinary civilians (some of them children) as human shields, something that has been thoroughly documented for years. It's surprising that you see this as less morally wrong. Even if you were completely correct in your interpretation of Hamas actions my initial point remains valid: both groups are committing the same crime within the same broader conflict. Therefore, there is no valid reason to avoid discussing the two in the same article. - Ïvana (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not justifying either. Where did you read in my comment that I see one as less morally wrong? My point was that while this is claimed to be the same crime, the modus operandi is different and a joint article would simply consist of two disjoint parts. Alaexis_¿question? 18:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Alaexis weighed in on the moral dimension. That's rather outside the scope. But in terms of your argument that "both groups" - well, there are more than 2 groups. For example, PLO is not the same as Hamas. Andre🚐 19:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Just want to say that Use of human shields by Hamas is not a WP:POVFORK, it predates the parent so it's not a fork at all. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Andre🚐 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Both this and the other are in fact child articles of Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict, except that this is a proper child and the other is POV driven. Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx we judge something as a POVFORK by two things: (1) massive overlap and (2) a one-sided presentation of the topic. If someone rushes to create a POVFORK, that doesn't make it a non-POVFORK.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Since forking is about the creation process, I don't think an article can retroactively become a fork (POV or not) based on overlap with a newer article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's impossible for this to have been a fork of any kind since it predates the article people are incorrectly claiming it is a fork of. Andre🚐 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It was actually split off of Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict, so still a POV fork, just from there. nableezy - 15:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it is absurd that this article exists.....while Use of human shields by the IDF is still red-linked, as the use by IDF is far more common, and well-documented. Huldra (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Last section on Activists as human shields

The section is about the use of human shields against Israel, not by Israel. How does it belong in this article? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Renaming

This has been renamed since a very lengthy article about the Israeli allegations against Hamas already exists, and I don't see why we need two articles given large space to these often unproven allegations while the much solid evidence against Israeli human shield military culture only gain one entry. User:Gonnym is insisting on the old format. Despite my move being a bold one, I think the move is on him to argue for this asymmetry. Rafe87 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Ost316: We're entering the second day I posted this topic, and no one has come forward to argue against the name change. If you have nothing to say, I'll be making the change by the end of the day. Rafe87 (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rafe87: Two days is rarely considered enough time for a discussion on Wikipedia, as there is no deadline. Editors take time off and likely aren't paying attention to this talk page even if they are editing regularly, as you did not post it as a Request for Comment. With the still unclosed merge discussion that seeks to reduce the number of articles and the concerns of @Gonnym and myself, I would have expected a longer discussion that attempted to get more opinions rather than another bold move. —Ost (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Do check the entry history. I did not change the name on that day, but awaited two days more. I'm basically the only person frequently making edits to insert new material here, as the entry history shows. If people didn't show up to discuss the issue after four days, they wouldn't after a week or two, either. Topics here get the most response on the first two or three days after they are posted, not after. There's no ongoing discussion on the merge with the Hamas entry, either. That discussion was basically working merely to delay a much needed change to this entry. Basically, prior to the change, Wikipedia had two articles about mostly false allegations of Palestinians using human shields, and only one on Israel's much better documented history in the practice. You can see why someone who's highly concerned about the asymmetry and systemic pro-western bias on Wikipedia would try to remedy the situation. Not sure if you're still interested in changing the entry or merging articles, but if you are, have in mind that because of the successive changes and change reversals in the last few days, I can no longer change the title here to "Use of human shields by Israel", so I ask you'll let this change be until further input. Rafe87 (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your undiscussed move. Standard procedure is to open a move request (RM) on the talk page, which draws in wider participation. By the way, I support. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Without arguing the merits of a move, please understand that we are all volunteers here and some editors may login less than weekly or may be on vacation. This is why there are processes like Requested Moves and Request for Comment to try to generate more input to gather consensus. Less than a week of discussion is rarely considered enough time, unless a large number of editors participate and have the same opinion. I understand that these processes may seem slow, but they have developed over years to try to provide a framework that allows sufficient participation by concerned editors; you may someday appreciate them if you need to take some time off and don't want others to boldly revert your efforts while you are away. —Ost (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This article implies that Israel definitely uses human shields while Hamas has been accused (without evidence) of doing so. This is patently false. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There's probably a better statement than "This is patently false." It's not clear what the "this" is. Isn't it the case that both Israel and Hamas have definitely used human shields, and both Israel and Hamas have been accused of using human shields with and without evidence? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not patently false, it's the state of the evidence. Rafe87 (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2025

Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict → Use of human shields by Israel – There's already a lengthy article about alleged human shield use by Hamas. There's no need for this entry to cover the exact same ground, especially when Israel's own real practices aren't receiving equal focus in the form of a standalone article. Use of human shield by Israel is a very well documented subject (evidence goes well beyond enemy-provided accusations), and it has been acknowledged by human rights groups and the UN reports; soldiers have confessed to such usage, and official IDF admissions have been made to the Israeli Supreme Court; material evidence such as videos and photos periodically comes out exposing the practice, as well. Since October 7, 2023, Haaretz, the AP, the New York Times, CBS News have all exposed human shield use by the IDF in Gaza, and some of the reports were quite lengthy -- no such in-depth look has ever been published by these and similarly prominent English-speaking media outlets on Hamas's alleged human shield use exists despite at least some of these media being known for carrying systemic bias against Palestinians. There's no need to treat this aspect of the war as secondary, which is what Wikipedia is doing at the moment. Rafe87 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)