Jump to content

Talk:Kidnapping and killing of the Bibas family

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

Held by "another group"

[edit]

The family were not held by Hamas. They were held by "another group", reliable sources all refused to be any more specific than that.

This is from memory from what I've read over the last few months, I'll try to find some sources to follow up, but hopefully this is enough information to help others find some if I get interrupted before I manage to rediscover them..

I think wiki has a policy of "veritable rather than true"? but we should at least try to avoid saying things that are false? And not being held by Hamas is a key element of the story. Most other women and children were released early. Part of the problem with getting this family home seemed to be that the secular factions were not participating in some of the early negotiations, only Hamas and Islamic Jihad (PIJ) showed up.

There are probably reliable tertiary sources (e.g. "The Guardian says that Haaretz says, that someone directly involved says…") saying that the child was "the youngest held by Hamas" but that is a case of the story getting distorted in retellings.

Several sources that are generally very reliable imply they were held by Hamas, by describing all ~250 hostages as held by Hamas, e.g. this list in Haaretz gives a one sentence description covering all ~250 hostages, but that is an over simplification. It is also possibly an issue of being out of date. That Haaretz list has updated some details for individuals, but kept the simplified version to describe the group.

The complexity of the situation didn't become apparent until Hamas showed up at negotiations, with PIJ who claimed to have a few dozen of the hostages themselves, but then neither group claimed to be holding the last few. Even the IDF repeated the "held by another group" story as fact, and anything those two opponents both agree on is as true as we can ever feasibly know.

It is plausible that they were initially kidnapped by Hamas, and then handed over to the other group, that was the IDF story, but I'm a bit sceptical of it. Include it if you want, but it needs a source that says they were "handed over to the other group" not just a source saying "over 200 hostages taken by Hamas", because the difficult situation this family were in does not fit in the one line summary trying to cover all the hostages.

18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC) updated Irtapil (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least three separate groups had hostages, Hamas, Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and at least one other group. In the current citation the sentence supporting "youngest held by Hamas" contains a hyperlink to another article that only has preliminary information. This is not an appropriate source to support Hamas being the group who held these specific hostages, because it only lists one of the 3+ groups who held hostages. Irtapil (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article "Hamas, Islamic Jihad: Holding Hostages is a War Crime" points out that other groups had some of the hostages, it says at least 30 were held by Islamic Jihad and uses the plural for "other groups". Irtapil (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this article from Times of Israel the IDF claim that the family were originally captured by Hamas and then transferred to another group, "The Bibas family, including baby Kfir who is now 10 months old, was transferred by Hamas to another Palestinian terror group in Gaza, the military said Monday, dampening hopes of their release during the current truce." The Times of Israel paraphrases the tweet, but the original says kidnapped by Hamas and held by "one of the factions". Irtapil (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, why was that in the lead at all? it's contradicted twice later in the page. Irtapil (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mountain of Eden would you agree here that the Bibas family weren't held by Hamas but rather another Palestinian group? VR (Please ping on reply) 16:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It seems that Hamas kidnapped and held the father, and a different group kidnapped the mother and children. I don't know whether the other group transferred to Hamas the people that they kidnapped.
Regardless if another group held the mother and children and hostages, Hamas negotiated the release of their bodies on behalf of the other group. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source: Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman in Jordan, said the Bibas family was not captured by Hamas but by a smaller, lesser-known group.[1] VR (Please ping on reply) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of wrong description

[edit]

why use the word "militants" when "terrorists" is a better description? 77.137.10.226 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed absolutely. No room for political correctness. Nirva20 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! And attack? A POGROM. Not a military attack. 46.183.108.60 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 deaths?

[edit]

Why does it say 4 deaths in the infobox? Only 2 deaths confirmed in article (Shiri's parents). Nirva20 (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

[edit]

the Palestinian Islamist terror organization Hamas 31.154.46.218 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Cannolis (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2024

[edit]

remove the word 'allegedly' abducted by Hamas as this is inaccurate as it is largely agreed the Bibas family members taken hostage on October 7th were kidnapped by Hamas. 37.174.114.192 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I would advise that a reliable source be provided when making edit requests in the future. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian terror group

[edit]

In the second paragraph of the intro, one group is described as a Palestinian terror group. This is POV. Sardaka (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is contrary to WP:CONTENTIOUS. More generally, if it's not appropriate to label the Mujahideen Brigades as a terror group on their own article, it's not appropriate to do so here. Prezbo (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US State Department designated HAMAS as a foreign terrorist organization in October 1997.
https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/hamas_fto.html#:~:text=HAMAS%20uses%20hostage%20exchanges%20to,Palestinian%20prisoners%20from%20Israeli%20prisons.&text=The%20US%20State%20Department%20designated,terrorist%20organization%20in%20October%201997. Debunkering (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has different norms than the US State Department, rightly or wrongly. Prezbo (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Street art section should be removed per WP:NOTGALLERY

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a gallery, and these images do not contribute to the information in the article 143.58.201.47 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the street art images add to the article, they're a demonstration of how much attention this kidnapping has attracted in Israel. I don't think the same is true of the drawings above them, and I'm going to remove them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images is the relevant policy here.Prezbo (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WP:NOTGALLERY. Twenty images is really excessive given the length of the article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy detailing a relationship between the number of images and the length of the article? --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the plight of the Bibas Family has inspired many artists, and the only way to demonstrate it is to show it with photos. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that can be written with words, like you just did. Find a reliable source that supports its. Again, WP:NOTGALLERY. This is totally excessive. If we ran photos commensurate with those inspired by the plight of others, the The Holocaust would have thousands of images. Same for any other atrocity. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A picture is worth 1000 words. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page has about 20,000 too many. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Paragraph Claim Unsubstantiated

[edit]

Last sentence of the second paragraph: “…Hamas later claimed that they were killed as a result of an Israeli airstrike in Khan Yunis.”

What is this? Where is this claim from? Who made it? What publication can be cited as a source for it? If it is just random social media gossip, it should be removed. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2025

[edit]

Hello, I am requesting that the photo used in the infobox have the date it was taken, 17 December 2023 be added to the image's caption. Thank you! AssanEcho (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox photo has since been replaced. However, that same photo in question is still shown in the section titled "Art inspired by the plight of the Bibas family". I don't think there is a need to put the date of the photo in the caption. The date can be found when clicking on the image and seeing all the information associated with the photo. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for responding! while yes, the wikicommons file can be accessed via clicking on the image, its clear that the general public using wikipedia does not do that for the most part for multiple reasons which is why its a general principle across multiple pages to show the date of a image used in the infobox, for example:
these are all useful, and i believe it would be best if the new image on the page have its caption changed from
  • Shiri Bibas holding her two young children during the kidnapping. Photo is a still from a body cam of one of the kidnappers
to
  • Shiri Bibas holding her two children during the kidnapping. Photo is a still from one of the kidnapper's bodycam on Oct 7th
its specifies the date, reorders and slightly changes word order to make its somewhat shorter. i believe its better to remove "young" as the word "children" is already generally specific to pre-adolcenet Children, [2] so its unnesscary to keep it for a somweaht blooted caption AssanEcho (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Not sure why you think children implies pre-adolescent. You can have adult children (i.e. you could be a great grandparent, and your child would be a grandparent, meaning a grandparent would still be considered a child of their parent). Regarding the addition of the date to the caption, I feel that it's unnecessary, given that the date already appears two lines below the caption.
Regarding your examples, they are all biographies. For biographies, it is definitely useful to add the date because people's appearances change over time. This is not a biographical article. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Children in almost every context is primarily used in regards to pre-adolescents, every usage time it is used like in your own example is either a metaphor, in regard to a depersonalised explaintion of a family history or someone using the conatation of pre-adolecents to an effect.
there are also dates given to images on non biography pages too. but this is all unnescary, im not going to push for this any further since the new image does render this edit request obsolete. if for whatver reason the old art photo is returned then ill request the same as before but until then, sorry for the bother AssanEcho (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of fact missing citation

[edit]

Can a citation be added for this sentence in the first paragraph?

In late 2023, Shiri, Ariel and Kfir were killed during the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip, according to Hamas. Mneidich (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, added reference in this edit. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mountain of Eden the MOS:OPEN needs to define the topic, including "It should also establish the boundaries of the topic". The topic here is the kidnapping of the Bibas family. The kidnapping ends for a particular member, by definition, when they are released, or they unfortunately die. The date of when that happens defines the topic and should be in the first paragraph.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this information needs to remain in the first paragraph. The date (or approximate date) of the death of someone is so important, it belongs in the first paragraph.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2025

[edit]

Under the "In captivity" section, there is a grammatical error. Please change "After Yarden Bibas's released the group was identified as [...]" to "After Yarden Bibas's release the group was identified as [...]" IcedClub (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“And murder”

[edit]

Add “and murder” to the page title. 2601:280:5C00:6910:A1E0:9B09:6874:3F33 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths of the Bibas mother and two children were reported in November 2023 and attributed to an Israeli airstrike. Hamas even offered to return the bodies of these three individuals to Israel during the exchange that took place during the December 2023 temporary ceasefire. Israel declined this offer. Absent an autopsy, there is no known cause of death, therefore there is no establishment of "murder". Musicmax (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Musicmax I agree there's not great sourcing for that, hence I'll remove "mass murder" from the infobox.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video

[edit]

Video that IDF spoksman showed was filmed in 7 october and not as quoted several days after the abduction. 2A02:14F:17B:6355:0:0:76D2:2881 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGALLERY

[edit]

The artwork section of this article is not encyclopaedic. All historical events tend to inspire artwork, but we don't need to catalogue them all on an article about a kidnapping 143.58.201.47 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork section of this article is not encyclopaedic.
Why not?
All historical events tend to inspire artwork.
Really? --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2025

[edit]

Hamas is a terrorist organization not a militant group 107.129.179.1 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TERRORIST. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request

[edit]

"left the families safe room, reportedly to distract the militants"

I believe "families" should be singular and possessive ("the family's safe room") based on the cited article. Thank you! Keslambo (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See this edit.
Thank you for making the edit request. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please update immediately

[edit]

No where here is it mentioned that they DIDNT even give the coffins with the correct keys!!!!!! And that they were MURDERED BY TERRORISTS!!!! 2600:4040:ACF1:D000:40D:D4F8:E23E:3603 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added in this edit.
Next time you make a request, please provide a reference, to help facilitate the edit request, as nothing can be added to Wikipedia without proper referencing. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please proceed with the knowledge that their are bad actors among wikipedia moderators who will attempt to slow or question edits. 2601:280:5C00:6910:657E:F9BC:8268:C310 (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Hamas provided the correct keys. The Israeli army conducted X-ray screenings on the four coffins and confirmed that their locks could be opened.

  • The Times of Israel reported that the Israeli occupying forces confirmed all four coffins handed over by the Red Cross underwent security screening.
  • Military troops ensured the locks could be opened to prevent delays at the Forensic Institute. Moreover, the Israeli military officials' statements on social media did not mention any issues with opening the coffins.--87.170.197.102 (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion contradicts The Daily Telegraph which says that Hamas did not provide any keys. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mountain of Eden: Yes, it does. Thank you for your attention and quick feedback, Mountain of Eden! That was only the news ticker of the Daily Telegraph. The Daily Telegraph assertions were just the rumors or misunderstandings of the day. Please read:
Cheers, --91.54.1.163 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that was outdated information. I have therefore removed it from the article. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone dead be released?

[edit]

I'm surprised Leaky.Solar removed the claim that members of the Bibas family were dead from the "efforts to release" section. Without it, it is quite misleading to state "After the brothers were not freed during the temporary ceasefire, their relatives launched a campaign demanding their release." Also, one piece of info can be mentioned in multiple places.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, the deaths of the Bibas family is relevant to both the captivity section and the "efforts to release" section. VR (Please ping on reply) 16:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that people are released from captivity, and bodies are returned to the loved ones. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many images

[edit]

This is a small article, less than 2000 words, but it has more than 20 images and these images disrupt the flow of the article. Why do we need two image galleries? We should just have a single image gallery.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any policy regarding the ratio of number of words in an article to number of photographs. Based on what I see, each photo has a specific purpose, and I see no duplication. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting: usually, less is more." Of course, there's no hard and fast rule, but this article has way too many.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
In my opinion, the images help demonstrate the uniqueness of the kidnapping of the Bibas family. 251 individuals were kidnapped during the Hamas attack on October 7. Obviously, not all 251 kidnappings captured the sympathies and imagination of the public the same way. The photos help make the story why the kidnappings of this family are more notable than the vast majority of the 247 other kidnappings. So in my opinion, the images are essential to the article. None the less, we can debate the contribution of any specific photo.
But there is absolutely no reason to reduce the number of photos just because the quantity of photos in this Wikipedia article is higher than in the average Wikipedia article. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say the Hebrew page of this kidnapping is also overflowing with images, including street art, the kidnapped posters, performance art, protests and photos of the family. I would agree that maybe spreading them out or parring them down would be beneficial.Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the article on the Hebrew Wikipedia does indeed suggest that in the article there, the photos are scattered haphazardly and do not convey a coherent message. I believe here the photos are better grouped to form a more coherent message and thereby add a lot more value than the way they are scattered around over there. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it beneficial/is it possible to create a collage of pictures to be used in the infobox to show case some of the street/performance art. It was done for the September 11 attacks showing during and after the attacks.Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The collage at the September 11 attacks makes sense, as it is composed of photos from the attacks. In this article, the appropriate collage would be a collage of photos from the kidnapping. There are several photos that would make sense to add as a collage to the infobox: This one of Yarden being carried on a motorcycle, and a still image from this video.
If there is consensus to add them to the infobox, I'll make the effort to create the collage. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies identification dispute

[edit]
Section formerly titled « The IDF announced that Ariel and Kfir Bibas have been identified and that the other body is not that of their mother Shiri. »

They are dead :(. In addition, According to professional sources, intelligence, and forensic findings, terrorists murdered Ariel and Kfir in captivity in November 2023, about a month after they were kidnapped. The IDF said that they had "forensic and intelligence evidence that they were brutally murdered," thus negating the claim by the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip that Kfir and Ariel Bibas were killed in an air force attack. https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/862605/ 2A0D:6FC0:808:EF00:9B7:FD91:14CB:E5B1 (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bodies of Ariel and Kfir Bibas were identified at the Institute of Forensic Medicine (Abu Kabir Forensic Institute).
https://13tv.co.il/item/news/domestic/internal/bibas-904471910/?pid=7&cid=902992371 2A0D:6FC0:808:EF00:9B7:FD91:14CB:E5B1 (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starved

[edit]

The entry includes a reference to the humanitarian situation in Gaza (while relying on unknown sources, one of which defines them as prisoners, which is questionable). Suggests removing because, according to testimonies, the captors acted to deliberately reduce and prevent food from the hostages.

Channel 13 reported: sometimes the captors ate in front of the hostages and did not give them food, and that sometimes they forced the hostages to choose which of them would eat and which would not.

"We were unable to distinguish between day and night in the tunnel, the terrorists deliberately deprived us of food and interrogated us about our period of service in the IDF. We were shoeless the whole time - and we showered once every few months."

https://13tv.co.il/item/news/politics/security/exiuk-904454764/

https://www.davar1.co.il/579761/ https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2025-02-09/ty-article/.premium/00000194-ec2a-db48-a395-ee7e09920000

"The terrorists ate in front of us while we were starving. They wouldn't let us drink. They would rush Keith out of the bathroom and shout a second after he entered" https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/828787/ Aviva Sigal, in her voice. 2A0D:6FC0:808:EF00:9B7:FD91:14CB:E5B1 (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...They starved us, didn't let us drink. Every time they were cruel to us, we would say - 'Well, the main thing is that we have air.'"
"One day the girl who was with us asked what about food, because they hadn't brought us food for more than 20 hours. He looked and said 'it's taking time'. After four hours he brought us a tray with three halves of dry pitas from a few days ago. I waited for morning. They brought us another half of a pita with nothing on it, dry, while ***they ate in front of us, entering the room and chewing in front of us***".
"One day Keith got up to go to the bathroom, stumbled and almost fell, after 24 hours of not eating. One of the terrorists brought us two dates. They were the most delicious dates they had ever brought us. I said 'We need to fall every now and then, maybe they'll bring us food.'"
https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/740500/ 2A0D:6FC0:808:EF00:9B7:FD91:14CB:E5B1 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. added to article. Thank you for bringing this up. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the exact part from the exact source so we can verify this? VR (Please ping on reply) 16:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The terrorists ate in front of us while we were starving. They wouldn't let us drink" translated by Google Translate the content of the article at IPBC. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"appeared released"

[edit]

should be corrected to "appeared to have released" or some such thing. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:68A0:2871:2E77:5D15 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed, but not the way you proposed. Thank you for posting this alert about the grammar error. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 21 February 2025

[edit]

New editor here, so I apologize if this is somehow against WP's policies. The article should probably be updated to reflect the fact that Shiri Bibas' body has not actually been returned: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sksmuehcyl — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoTheWiseAss (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already does: both in the lead and in the subsection titled "Return of the bodies of Ariel and Kfir". --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship update needed?

[edit]

According to German media, including an article from today in Der Spiegel, Shiri Bibas and both of her sons additionally held German citizenship ["Alle drei haben auch die deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft."] Ereb0r (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Added to article. Thank you for bringing it up. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should this not also be added to the lead, where their other nationalities/citizenships are noted? Ereb0r (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a summary of the article. I don't think this detail is so significant that it belongs in the lead. Had the German government been involved in the story, then perhaps it would have been appropriate to include this detail in the lead. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here - the governments of the other countries mentioned in the introduction (Peru, Argentina) were no more involved in this event than the German government was, yet they're included. The omission seems arbitrary, imo and more based on whether you personally find it important. Can I ask what specific WP guidelines you're using to back your decisions?
It also doesn't seem to line up with standard practice for how Wikipedia articles about people are written. They generally mention the subject's citizenship(s) right at the start ("So and so was a Canadian-American blah, who did blah...") or in a biographical sidebar. Ereb0r (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the confusion. The article says that the family has origins from Peru and Argentina, so it makes sense to mention Peru/Argentina in the lead.
The German connection is a single statement that to me does not seem to be so important that it should be mentioned in the lead. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning doesn't make sense though - because, again, it revolves around your personal preferences and impressions instead of WP practice and policy.
When has "their country of citizenship isn't involved enough in the article" ever been grounds for not mentioning citizenship in the places where citizenship is usually mentioned?
Can you cite the actual WP guidelines you're using to justify this omission? Peru is barely mentioned, yet it's prominently in the lead. Typically, ALL known citizenships, irrespective of the country's level of involvement (??) are shown together in the lead.
There's simply no WP-based reason for this picking and choosing. A reminder about WP:OWN seems relevant here. Ereb0r (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that you are missing the boat here, so please allow me to refocus you.
This has nothing to do with any WP policies. This is purely an editorial decision as to what is significant enough to go into the lead and what is not significant enough to go into the lead. The lead is obviously not intended to cover all the information in the article.
If you think that having a German citizenship is significant, please explain the family's connection to Germany. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of either claim?

[edit]

Has there been evidence of either Israel's or Hamas's claims on this matter? This source says neither has provided evidence. How could Israel know the children were killed with "bare hands" after their bodies have been decomposing for more than a year? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Israel’s statement, they have provided the evidence to other countries for independent review. This is in the actual video release, but I haven’t yet seen it written in an English language press account.Drsmoo (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has forensic evidence. Whether or not they publicize the evidence is a separate matter. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They claim they have forensic evidence, right? But they haven't provided any details.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Text removed. Seen here. Dgw|Talk 18:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
In this case there are claims to the contrary. Further, the government of Israel also recently admitted that they knew all along that the Bibas family members were dead, but mislead the public into believing they were alive[3].VR (Please ping on reply) 06:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Confused about how we would create a consistent standard here. Are you suggesting that WP policy should be that any claim, by any country, which is not verified by some "independent" party (another idea that would need definition), that such claim shall be subject to the disclaimer that is has "not been independently verified?" Johnadams11 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using attribution for claims by belligerents to a conflict is a consistent standard. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point did not concern attribution generally. It concerned the dynamic in this conversation in which a claim, attributed to one of the belligerent governments, is noted for not having been independently verified. I asked therefore whether the standard is that all similar claims would have a similar disclaimer. Thanks again. Johnadams11 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11 The disclaimer isn't coming from me, but rather its coming from WP:RS like BBC, NYT etc. That implies that RS are treating these claims with a degree of skepticism. We should apply it elsewhere too as long as that skepticism is present in RS.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Thank you VR. I hear you. However, I believe that inevitably this is going to be rather slippery. This is very little in the Gaza war for which one could not find RS stating that something has not been verified. (I assume you don't need me to demonstrate this.) As it is, the article is clear that there are conflicting claims. It's not obvious what value or information is added with the "verified" language. Indeed, I would argue that the presence of this language suggests that when such language is absent, the reader might assume that information IS "verified." Johnadams11 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11, we have WP:DUE. For example, the casualties published by GHM have been disputed by some sources. But the overwhelming majority of sources find those casualty lists dependable, and hence we don't need to add the skeptical claims.
I would respectfully disagree: the absence of skepticism lends a claim more validity, the presence of skepticism ensures that the skeptical POV is also reflected.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this edit. Hopefully everybody can live with this wording. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That Israel has forensic evidence to show a murder has not been independently verified.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further there is a difference between releasing your evidence and having that evidence be verified by an independent party. You shouldn't collapse both of those into one statement. Both Hamas and Israel have not released their evidence, and the Guardian believes Israel's evidence has not been verified by an independent party.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you disagree that Israel has forensic evidence does not make it so. The bodies have been taken to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute where they have been forensically examined. The article has to reflect that. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOV we don't take sides, we mainly explain them. We can certainly say that "Israeli National Forensic institute states X". But we can't state it in wikivoice, and we must state that RS (like BBC, Guardian, NYT) have stated that Israel hasn't released any evidence, nor has it given specifics about what lead to its conclusions.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things that are not controversial are said in wikivoice. There is no controversy that Israel has forensic evidence. In fact, Hamas acknowledged that Israel's forensic evidence regarding the "first Shiri Bibas body" that it returned was indeed correct. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Understood. Thanks. Now let's test the negation of your theory. What would have to have to occur for you to adopt the position that Guardian comment ought to be removed from the article? Johnadams11 (talk) Johnadams11 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the editing of The Mountain of Eden, because Israel shared evidence with partners around the world, so they could verify it. Dgw|Talk 22:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article doesn't say that in its own voice but simply quotes Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Daniel Hagari as making that statement. The article also puts scarequotes around "forensic findings" and notes that these "have not been seen by the BBC".VR (Please ping on reply) 01:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11 Consider Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Several independent sources backed Israeli claims (while other independent sources backed Palestinian claims). Now consider Tel al-Sultan attack: no major independent source backed Israeli claims, while some independent sources backed Palestinian claims. So we would need some kind of analysis by a WP:RELIABLE source, that is WP:INDEPENDENT of the government organs of both Israel and Palestine.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Thanks VR. This is helpful, and very much my point. The most evolved state this discussion will ever reach is that WP is going to present arguments from both sides. There is never a point in which one side's claims are going to be regarded as truth. And that's just where we are right now. We already have language that says no claims have been substantiated. The Guardian quote (the only one of its kind) signals to readers that WP views the Israeli claims with greater skepticism than it does the Palestinian claims. That is undue. Johnadams11 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11 You're right that it comes across as imbalanced. In fairness, the Guardian article only mentioned that Israel's claims are not independently verified, even though I'm pretty sure that Hamas's claims are also not independently verified. So I'll try to find a source that says that about Hamas too and we can add that to the article. Does that address your concerns? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Good morning. I think the present edit is perfectly fine, and one that may actually be durable over time. X says A; Y says B. From a practical standpoint, I find it highly unlikely that we will ever do better than this. Once there is any independent review, we can add that. I don't see what value the addition of its absence adds to the present competing claims. Johnadams11 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please enforce WP:ARBECR. IPs cannot participate in this discussion. Their comments should be removed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland, Johnadams11, The Mountain of Eden, Dorian Gray Wild, here is the wording I propose for the lead:

Hamas stated in November 2023 that Shiri, Kfir and Ariel were killed during the Israeli bombing of Gaza Strip in that same month, and again asserted that in February 2025. After the bodies were examined by its National Institute of Forensic Medicine in February 2025, Israel stated that Shiri, Kfir and Ariel were not killed in an airstrike but were instead "murdered", and that Kfir and Ariel were killed with "bare hands". Israel says it has shared evidence of this with its partners, although BBC said it had not seen the evidence, and The Guardian says the claim has not been independently verified. Media sources observe that neither Israel nor Hamas have publicly released any evidence to substantiate their claims.

VR (Please ping on reply) 16:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed wording would be significantly worse than what is there right now. It ignores that the Israeli authorities are making two key points about their forensic findings: first, that they found no evidence of injuries consistent with a bombing (which would contradict the Hamas claim that the family members died in an airstrike), and second, that they did find evidence of murder (which implies the family members died at the hands of their captors). I also don't understand your desperation to retain this "not independently verified by the Guardian" wording. It's clear that Hamas has no evidence of something it alleges happened 15 months ago. Israel has had the bodies for just 3 days and has already disseminated forensic evidence that will presumably be commented on independently at some point. Israel naturally will not post forensic evidence of murder publicly in the same week as a highly sensitive funeral of two little kids. Selfgyrus (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent My comment on your treatment is that it assumes that BBC is an Israeli "partner" and similarly assumes that the media not seeing it is an exception to the Israeli claim. I have already said The Guardian quote is extraneous. Would simplify per below:

Hamas stated in November 2023 that Shiri, Kfir and Ariel were killed during the Israeli bombing of Gaza Strip in that same month, and again asserted that in February 2025. After the bodies were examined by its National Institute of Forensic Medicine in February 2025, Israel stated that Shiri, Kfir and Ariel were not killed in an airstrike but were instead "murdered", and that Kfir and Ariel were killed with "bare hands". Israel says it has shared evidence of this with its partners. Media sources observe that neither Israel nor Hamas have publicly released any evidence to substantiate their claims.

Johnadams11 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept the quotation marks of the words of "murdered" and "bare hands". It is indirect speech – "Israel stated that..." There is no need to add the quotation marks, even if the source did it. WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
The evidences were not revealed because the family requested it.
There is no need to write: "Media sources observe that neither Israel nor Hamas have publicly released any evidence to substantiate their claims". Positions A (Hamas) and B (Israel) have already been written. WP is not a judge. Dgw|Talk 18:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dorian Gray Wild I disagree on the quotes. As a reader, I'd like to immediately know that this is exactly what was said. On the media sentence, I probably lean your way because it seems to rebuke the Israeli claim of sharing, when it really does not (Israel did NOT say it would share with the media.) More generally, my observation of these debates has caused me to be compromising in the interest of consensus. Johnadams11 (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dorian Gray Wild ignoring perspectives that have been mentioned in multiple reliable sources in their own voice would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11 thanks for working with me: "Israel says it has shared evidence of this with its partners; BBC reported it hadn't seen the evidence, and The Guardian says the claim has not been independently verified."
Why do you think the "claim has not been independently verified" is extraneous? Independent verification is usually the strongest method of verification.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent It seems to me that we have: A) Two conflicting claims, followed by B) A statement that the media say they've seen no evidence. Seems obvious to me that B could not hold if in fact there had been verification, and media had been advised. For example, if Germany saw evidence and confirmed one account, we would never assert B. So I suppose I don't see a scenario where B is true, but there had actually been verification, something that the Guardian quote suggests might be possible. Perhaps I'm missing something? Johnadams11 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11 we have two different assertions:
B) that one claim (or both) is endorsed by an independent parties. Example, in Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion both sides were endorsed by different independent parties.
C) the one of the sides (or both) have released their evidence publicly. Eg in the highly contested 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes both sides released their evidence publicly (including pictures, videos etc) in an attempt to convince the public.
I suspect more might become clear in the coming days, and if one of the parties releases their evidence publicly, we can no longer say they haven't released it.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent The quote I've been talking about is: "the Guardian also adds that Israel's claims have not been independently verified." This idea is redundant in the present context. It's also unrelated to the notion of a "public release." If you have some other idea I've not seen, I'd be happy to comment. Johnadams11 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its unrelated to the notion of public release, because it adds information that the "public release" doesn't contain. Why is it redundant? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Guardian article was written before Israel released evidence to its partners, so it has now been superseded by changing circumstances. Furthermore, the family has since requested that forensic evidence or specific details regarding the deaths not be published, which implies that the media, even if they have seen the evidence, aren't going to be publishing it out of respect. Agreed with @Johnadams11 that this Guardian quote is redundant. Selfgyrus (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"During the 7 October 2023 attacks, part of the broader Gaza war"

[edit]

remove the "part of the broader Gaza war". This makes it sound like the war was already going on by the time the kidnapping happened. Sachdev Penrose (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me. The kidnapping was part of the attack that started the war, and the release / return of bodies is part of the ceasefire in the war. It therefore seems like the note "part of the broader Gaza war" is accurate and appropriate. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is not clear if the war had started before these kidnappings, or if the kidnappings happened first, in which case they would not be "part of the broader war" Sachdev Penrose (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point regarding the difference that the order makes. Regardless, I'm not seeing any disagreements that Yarden's release and the release of the bodies of his family is "is part of the ceasefire in the war", making the note "part of the broader Gaza war" accurate and appropriate. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
some might argue that the war started after the kidnappings. and so the kidnappings were not part of the broader gaza war because the gaza war did not exist at that specific time.
the current phrasing makes it sound (to the uninformed) like the kidnappings could be a reaction to some other events in the war, which may or may not be true. It is better to keep wikipedia as unambiguous and uncontroversial as possible.
anyway it has been changed now. I think it used to be in the first sentence of the intro Sachdev Penrose (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK — I think I finally understand the point you're making. Rather than "part of the broader Gaza War", it's probably better to present as "part of the Gaza war hostage crisis", which itself is "part of the broader Gaza War". --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no! Sachdev Penrose (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you don't think this edit is an improvement? --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2025

[edit]

The Yemenite Jew (Teimanin) origin of Yarden should be mentioned (source: https://aish.com/the-bibas-family/) AndrewZanelato (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Warriorglance(talk to me) 08:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding “prisoners” to the exchange context

[edit]

I would like to request that you specify “prisoners” at the end of the statement “On 22 November 2023, Israel agreed to release 150 Palestinian women and children, in exchange for Hamas agreeing to release 50 Israeli women and children.” Under the “efforts to release” section and also cite this more neutral source for example this one from cnn https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/world/what-do-we-know-about-the-israel-hamas-hostage-deal/index.html 

Mypart1 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda  Done.
I am assuming you meant that the "150 Palestinian women and children" were prisoners, and not the "50 Israeli women and children", since the Israeli women and children were held as hostages in homes and tunnels (i.e. not in prisons).
Regardless, what do you think about this implementation to say "held in Israeli prisons"? The thing is that most (if not all) the detainees held in Israeli prisons were in administrative detention, not facing any charges.
As for the reference, I'm not sure why you think CNN is any more neutral than CBC.ca. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mountain of Eden do you know if they were necessarily held in Israeli prisons? For example, Sde Teiman detention camp is not really a prison. I don't see why we need to include this information at all.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your point. The Sde Teiman detention camp article refers to inmates there as "prisoners". --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks around the world lit up orange

[edit]

According to Ynet, landmarks around the world were lit up orange today in solidarity with the funeral of the Bibas matriarch and children. Yahoo News has an image of Brandenberg Gate lit up orange.
I think it would be difficult to justify fair use to upload copyrighted images of landmark around the world being lit up orange, but if anybody can figure out how to upload them as free images, that would be wonderful. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 February 2025

[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 to "Kidnapping and killing of the Bibas family", Per WP:SNOW. Although the proposal was for "murder", rather than "killing", one of the of the original !votes changed to support "killing", and the four others did not objection to "killing" after the word "killing" was proposed in lieu of "murder". (non-admin closure) The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of the Bibas family → Kidnapping and murder of the Bibas family – The murder is just as big of a part of the news story as the kidnapping, so I think it would be a more accurate title for the scope of the article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:KILLINGS, "murder" should not be used unless there has been a criminal conviction for homicide. From what I can gather, nobody has been convicted in a court of law for the deaths of the Bibas family, so it should probably be "kidnapping and killing" instead of "kidnapping and murder". NAADAAN (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NAADAAN is correct. I now support a change to "Kidnapping and killing of the Bibas family" and I don't support a change to "Kidnapping and murder of the Bibas family" Lova Falk (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I would also support "kidnapping and killing". Selfgyrus (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2025 (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.
In the template: Attack type: Kidnapping -> Kidnapping and killing? Dgw|Talk 01:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third Geneva Convention

[edit]

Please, leave out photos of captives because it's a violation of the Third Geneva Convention. Protect their rights as a fellow human. Cheers, 91.54.22.157 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Third Geneva Convention refers to the treatment of Prisoners of War. The Bibas Family were not considered prisoners of war. They were considered hostages. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)--[reply]
@The Mountain of Eden: Thank you for for responding, your receptivity and sensitivity.
The Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims (of War) are the source for much of IHL. Under humanitarian law we have "Combatant" and "Non-combatants". That's it. A status of "Hostage" has no legal basis in IHL.
« Calling things by the wrong name adds to the affliction of the world. » Albert Camus.
All benefit from guarantees of treatment in international and non-international armed conflicts. And “nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.” Either WP grants protection under The third Geneva Convention - or not.
The Bibas family send a cease and desist letter to
  • Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the State of Israel
  • Gideon Sa'ar, Minister of Foreign
  • Affairs Lt. Col. Herzi Halevi, Chief of the IDF General Staff Maj. Gen.
  • Dado Bar Khalifa, Head of the IDF General
  • Staff Maj. Gen. Daniel Hegary, IDF Spokesperson
  • Omer Dostri, Spokesperson for the Prime Minister
  • Col. (res.) Yaron Cohen, Head of the Abductees, Missing Persons and Returnees Directorate

The family demands the Israeli government cease exploiting the deaths of their family members for propaganda purposes as layers of evidence support claims an Israeli airstrike killed them. All the best, --91.54.10.212 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are expanding this discussion beyond a simple edit request; you must have an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits in order to participate in discussions about the Arab-Israeli conflict(including the Gaza war/the hostages). 331dot (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to 331dot, it's not clear to me what you think needs to change in the article. The cease and desist letter is already mentioned in the article, in the subsection titled "Cause of death". --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, observe what I wrote, the first sentence: "Please, leave out photos of captives because it's a violation of the Third Geneva Convention." Under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention and Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are required to be protected “public curiosity.”

«Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.»
«1632  The global nature of modern communications means that the prohibition of insults and public curiosity does not only concern the Detaining Power. Prohibited images or private data of prisoners leaked to the press or posted on the internet can be quickly picked up and retransmitted by television channels, newspapers or websites all over the world.[127] All States party to a conflict are directly bound not to retransmit images or data protected by Article 13.[128]»

Grant them protection under The third Geneva Convention. Respect their dignity!

(Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent speech at AIPAC has sparked renewed debate over the tragic fate of the Bibas family. Despite their cease-and-desist letter requesting he refrain from discussing their deaths, Netanyahu reiterated claims about Hamas’s role, adding new graphic details. He further violated their dignity and disregarded their wishes. Israel had previously remained silent on the specifics of the family’s deaths for over a year, but now asserts a detailed account contradicting Hamas’s claim that they were killed in an airstrike.) --91.54.19.159 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help you with actions against Prime Minister Netanyahu/the Israeli government or military, or formal legal recognition of anyone's status. You've now gone beyond a simple edit request, which is not permitted for IP users on this topic. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need no help. It's the article that needs help. --91.54.19.159 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your edit request, that's the most you can do here. You cannot contribute further unless you have an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits. Please see User talk:91.54.19.159. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, neither the Third Geneva Convention nor the cease and desist letter written by the Bibas family to Israeli government officials is a reason to remove photos from the article. If you still believe that there are photos in the article that are harmful to the family, you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and they can impose any WP:OFFICE action that they would see fit.
We recently had a similar situation in which the family of a former hostage allegedly wanted to delete the Wikipedia article about the former hostage's abduction. The Wikipedia community discussed the request, and ultimately decided that the family's request is insufficient for the deletion of the article, and the family could make a request to the Wikimedia Foundation to impose such a deletion. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just my own personal opinion I very much doubt the office would take action here; Wikipedia is not a party to the Geneva Conventions. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. I do not have a crystal ball to be able to predict how the Wikimedia Foundation would respond to such a request. But since making a request is free, there is no reason not to try and see. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_and_killing_of_the_Bibas_family&oldid=1279885680"