Talk:Hamas baby beheading hoax

Requested move 2 March 2026

Hamas baby beheading hoax → Forty beheaded babies (disproven claims) – Revised request: – This is a revised version of my suggested title based on the discussion so far. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Several people wanted the word instead of the numeral.
• Most people said it needed something in the title to say it is false. Everyone agrees it's false, but some object to "hoax". The common name is just "40 beheaded babies". There is no extra word that is used as part of the name itself, so the qualifying statement should be neutral, factual, and separated by brackets.
• "Disproven" is a fact. "Claims" is not ideal, but whichever word is used should be plural ("stories", "allegations", etc.) because "40 babies" and "beheaded babies" were both false, and because the phrase "40 beheaded babies" is commonly used to refer to a collection of related disproven claims about the October 7 attacks.
• Separating it in brackets means the name forty beheaded babies can be used by itself in the first sentence? The start of the page can more strongly say the claim is false if the negative is part of a clear sentence, instead of being directly attached to the title.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, the current title is WP:NDESCR and it is recognizable to the reader. "40 beheaded babies" is unclear. Furthermore, many RS actually mention this hoax but don't say "40", "fourty" or "forty". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley, as @Sean.hoyland mentioned above, Le Monde says Israel "instrumentalize[d]" false information against its opponent – isn't that a hoax? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  No. Hoax has a specific meaning. This is misinformation that was perhaps subsequently used to create disinformation once the Israeli authorities knew it was false, but that’s not the same as a hoax. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is the first time somebody has posted a source to support the word hoax, but looking through it I can’t see that word. Am I missing something? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I also did not find it the provided Al Jazeera source. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Though furthermore, as a "Qatari state-funded news organization", and also considering that if that is all there is, and given that consensus has found that "Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict", then we might need a better source. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  A source being WP:BIASED has no relevance for its reliability (would've booted WP:WSJ a long time ago otherwise). WP:ALJAZEERA is WP:GENREL and can certainly be used for determining the factual basis of claims. Gotitbro (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro, I would cite Al Jazeera for facts, but I don't think it is a good indicator of unbiased language. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think there are some indicators that this was maliciously spread, but I don't think we should try to include that in the title, because it distracts from saying that it's not real. The priority is to show it is false, disputes about the level of malice can be detailed after saying clearly and unambiguously that it's not real. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, what I meant by that source was that it mentions the topic of the article but doesn't mention 40, meaning there's no point in putting 40 in the title of this article. But an oped in The Guardian says this was the same as the "Kuwait incubator hoax". In any case can you explain what's the difference between disinformation and a hoax?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe "Hamas baby beheading allegations"? Remove the 40 altogether, the "hoax" word seems most contested by the fact that intentionality here seems far from proven. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Our article hoax says A hoax (pl.: hoaxes) is a widely publicised falsehood created to deceive its audience with false and often astonishing information, with the either malicious or humorous intent of causing shock and interest in as many people as possible. The crucial elment is intentionality: created to deceive. A false rumour or error that circulates is not a hoax because it wasn't invented with intent to trick.

  The Guardian article - an opinion piece - doesn't exactly say it was "the same as" the "Kuwait incubator hoax". It's saying it follows the same pattern: Joe Biden repeated these unverified reports, even when his staff urged him not to. He even lied about seeing pictures of these babies. It was Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction all over again. It was the Kuwait incubator hoax all over again. Our article for what she calls "the "Kuwait incubator hoax" is entitled Nayirah testimony, and currently doesn't use the word hoax except to link to this article under "See also". Our article Iraq and weapons of mass destruction also doesn't use the word hoax, and nor does Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council or Iraq Dossier, articles which describe stories that turned out to be false utilised by states to justify that war. If she's right that this incident follows the patterns of those, then our article should follow the pattern of those articles and not use hoax.

  I think Late Night Coffee's "(disproven claims)" or Iljhgtn's "allegations" work as alternatives. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you @Bobfrombrockley, I am fine also with alternatives, just "hoax" doesn't fit. Almost any other word is better. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree there is no evidence that this was "created to deceive"; this is a case of mistakes made by Israeli first-responders which were later "instrumentalized" (per LeMonde) by Israel to manipulate public opinion. But Cambridge dictionary defines hoax as simply "a plan to deceive someone", which I'd argue is indeed this case. I oppose "Allegations" (we're way beyond allegations here). I would support "disproven claims", but hoax is still my first choice for WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Vice regent I didn't add the collapsible section, but I moved your reply out of the collapsed section because yours was after I added the revised version. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Bluethricecreamman, BarrelProof, Smallangryplanet, DanielRigal, DanielRigal, Sean.hoyland, and Burrobert: Pinging previous participants. Gotitbro (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no WP:COMMONNAME here. The arguments then rest on guidelines for choosing the best title. We simply cannot obfuscate the nature of the thing here (hoax, myth, disinfo or what have you) by proferring 40 beheaded babies (as previously proposed) or pushing it away in an unnecessary disambiguation Forty beheaded babies (disproven claims) (current proposal). I would be fine with any title which satisfies the Five Ws (broadly) but not one which obfuscates the false nature of it. I also agree with above comparisons to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Love jihad conspiracy theory (among others) where there have been attempts to remove the very relevant parts of those titles. Gotitbro (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Neither "(disproven claims)" nor "allegations". Putting "(disproven claims)" in parentheses would indicate that we are disambiguating the topic from some other topic known as "Forty beheaded babies", which is not the case. Using "allegations" does not seem appropriate since no one has been identified who made such allegations. The current title is better than those. I suggest "Rumour of 40 beheaded babies". Please note that the string of words used in the opening sentence of the title does not need to be a boldfaced exact match for the article title. The phrasing of the opening sentence is a different matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Would Forty beheaded babies rumour work? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley @BarrelProof, My main objection is the current title won't clearly communicate the falseness to the people who are most likely to think it's true. The title Hamas baby beheading hoax terrible, it could even be read as Hamas beheading babies to use the heads in a cruel hoax. The title rumour of 40 beheaded babies is better than the current title, but only partly fixes it, and creates some new problems. I think "disproven" is more convincing, because rumours can be true and hoaxes can be violent. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Originally my main objection was "it's not usually called that" but after reading the responses and thinking about it more, there's a reason Le Monde isn't calling it "Hamas baby beheading hoax". Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I believe the word rumour adequately implies that the topic is not an actual fact. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  That ("rumour') does not encompass the deliberate disinfo campaign that spread it i.e. it is itself misleading along with "allegations" and similar propositions. Gotitbro (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  forty beheaded babies and related misinformation

  Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof, if it's only useable for disambiguation that doesn't work. But the goal is to detach it. The phrase "40 beheaded babies" is not the original claim, it's a paraphrasing used to condemn a collection of related claims. It's not one rumour, it's several and none of them were exactly "40 beheaded babies". The reactions indicate this phrase is less common than I thought it was, but it's still the most common exact phrase used to describe the myth. Late Night Coffee (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Since you seem to now be saying that sources don't consistently refer to "40 beheaded babies", I think we're getting kind of lost here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof, The name used to refer to a story is not the same thing as contents of a story.

  The following example is not about the credibility of the stories, only thing difference between the name of a story and the narrative of the story. The name "magic-bullet theory" is used by JFK conspiracy theorists to refer to the story told on the page single-bullet theory. The single bullet theory does not involve the bullet being magical, and the Warren Commission probably never said "magic bullet". The story is called "magic bullet theory" by its critics as a way of saying it sounds implausible.

  A simpler example: if someone says "the company motto was written on the door", the words "the company motto" were probably not what was written on that door. Does that make sense?

  The name "40 beheaded babies" is a paraphrasing of a few related Israeli stories, it is the name used in criticism of the stories. It is the name I associate with the story, I thought it was the usual name. There might be some regional variation, the sources using that name are mostly from Europe and Asia. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is a common name, more common than any other exact phrase, but possibly not widely used enough to count as "the common name". Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  So you might say that it's the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)? Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Most common", yes. "Majority", probably not. I think it's probably the most common exact phrase, but nobody here seems to be familiar with it? The relationship to the original claim might also be too confusing. I still think the title needs to change, but I'm less confident that this is a good replacement. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I requested the move based on what I remembered hearing and reading Checking sources again, it's not as far from the actual claim as magical bullets. It is best described as "the most extreme version of the claim / rumour". It probably didn't get said in that form by anyone official or any public figures from Israel. It got exaggerated to "40 babies beheaded" / "40 beheaded babies" on social media. e.g. NBC News and www.solidarity.co.nz quote a tweet from Noah Schnapp, “40 babies were beheaded and burned alive in front of their parents by Hamas”.

  "40 beheaded babies" / "40 babies beheaded" (and "forty")

  Excluding social media and blogs, the reliability of the sources using ranges from Le Monde to George Galloway. Recent sources frequently link the April 2024 article from Le Monde.

  • This George Galloway quote is somewhat typical critical use, "The forty beheaded babies has been downscaled to one dead baby, not beheaded, and killed by persons unknown..." That is true, but he then escalates to some dubious claims and inaccurate statistics in the opposite direction. undated Quote from 11 November 2023 article in Jpost
  • 11 October 2023 from Anadolu Agency (Turkey), "Israeli news channel i24 alleged on Tuesday morning that the Al-Qassam Brigades, 'beheaded many Israeli babies' during an early-Saturday attack from the Gaza Strip. The i24 reporter who first made the allegation took to the X, saying 'soldiers told me they believe 40 babies/children were killed'."
  • 13 October 2023 (updated 5 March 2024) from FactCheck.org Explains that the "Unsupported Claim of 40 Beheaded Babies" was a hybrid of two separate claims, "In one clip, she said “about 40 babies at least,” who were dead, according to a commander, “were taken out on gurneys”. In another clip, she said babies had “their heads cut off, they said” – but she never mentioned a number. The claim about “40 babies beheaded” appears to be a combination of those two separate details that Zedeck relayed during the live broadcasts. She did not make that claim herself, as the social media video wrongly asserts."
  • 13 October 2023 in Slate (magazine) saying that the claim was "Forty beheaded babies" and that "no one is quite sure if it is true".
  • 13 October 2023 from Middle East Eye (UK)
  • 13 October 2023 from NBC News (US)
  • 15 October 2023 in The Canary (UK)
  • 14 October 2023 in El País (Spain)
  • 21 October 2023 from WNYC Studios (US)
  • 28 October 2023 from Advox Global Voices (Global?)
  • 31 October (year) in solidarity.co.nz (New Zealand, far-left) Headline "40 Beheaded Babies survived the Hamas Attack" quote "Within another few hours the story had mutated into “40 babies beheaded” and flew out of the mouths of influencers on countless news channel..."
  • 21 November 2023 from PolitiFact, "PolitiFact examined the origins of reports that babies were beheaded, including how the Israeli military has discussed local reports, how political leaders in the United States and Israel addressed it, and how a more specific narrative about "40 beheaded babies" spread."
  • 7 October 2025 in TRT World (Turkey)

  40 beheaded babies / 40 babies beheaded (linking to Le Monde)

  • October 2025 from Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (Spain)
  • 30 May 2024 in The Guardian
  • 29 July 2025 in Mail & Guardian (South Africa)

  40 decapitated babies (some link Le Monde)

  • 4 April 2024 from Palestine Chronicle

  ‘There were Never 40 Decapitated Babies’.

  • 31 October 2023 from Wafa (wafa.ps)
  • November 2023 campus-speech.law.duke.edu
  • 5 April 2024 in Middle East Monitor
  • 7 October 2024 britainpalestineproject.org
  • February 2025 from Mondoweiss

  Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds less like a title argument and more for content description. We do not determine titles like this. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof @Gotitbro

  Please note that the string of words used in the opening sentence of the title does not need to be a boldfaced exact match for the article title. The phrasing of the opening sentence is a different matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  If it's not mandatory then possibly the brackets aren't needed at all, but is there a right way to indicate where it can be broken? I expect people will try to reassemble it, to follow the style guide, and end up returning to the version that repeats detailed false information with an easily missed negative. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose As demonstrated by VR, not all versions of the hoax specify the number 40. Most notably, Joe Biden's fabricated claim to have seen pictures of beheaded babies did not specify a number. Regarding "hoax" I'm not particularly tied to that term but would oppose "rumour" or any other term implying the claims could be true. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree "rumour" is worse. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - I still call for keeping the original title. While the phrase "40 beheaded babies" may appear by itself in headlines and articles, it is used to describe the false allegation, not the topic of the article (i.e. that the event did not occur) itself. While the proposed title in this new version of the RM describes the disproven nature of the claim, I don't think it is an improvement on the WP:PRECISION or WP:TITLE compliance compared to the current, established title. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  But the "Hamas" in the title seems kind of dubious if we can't verify a connection to Hamas. Also, it's not clear whether it's a hoax spread by Hamas about someone else beheading babies or a hoax spread by someone else about Hamas beheading babies. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  If the current title is seen as not entirely apt, what should have been done is survey the opinion of editors and then list the most preferred options in the RM. Starting stray RMs with dubious proposed titles is not how we should be proceeding here. Gotitbro (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro, sorry, I thought it just needed a suggestion to use as a starting point. I don't know who put the second version in the banner, but I took it out when someone pointed out that I misused the brackets, so it currently displays as new title "to be discussed". Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @⁠BarrelProof, I agree, "Hamas" shouldn't be in the title. "Hamas" is not a neutral factual description of the men who attacked southern Israel, and it could be misread as being about Pallywood. When I read the current title, it didn't look like it was intended to be a neutral description. I thought the current title was intending to quote the Israeli propaganda common name, with "hoax" added. That seemed likely to spread the false story further. If it is intended to be a descriptive title, the date "October 2023" and victim identity "Israeli babies" would be much more specific and less biased. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Hamas baby beheading hoax" identifies Hamas as the entity accused of having beheaded babies, while hoax clarifies that the claim was false. A reader encountering this title immediately understands the two critical facts: what was alleged, and that it didn't happen. This phrasing, imo, is the most economical way to convey both essential pieces of information; (1) what was alleged and (2) that it's false... without awkward weasel-words or ambiguity. It also follows standard construction for debunked claims, "[Claim] hoax". Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think it seems to be about a Hamas hoax relating to baby beheading. I don't know why Hamas would perpetrate such a hoax though. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is a lack of clarity. A way to clearly communicate the falseness without saying anything about intent could be to simply use the word 'misinformation'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Sean.hoyland so then would you support Hamas baby beheading misinformation? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that seems okay to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  What about "falsity"? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not to sound dumb, but today is the first day of my life that I have heard the word "falsity".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is a great word. I am happy to have been the person to have introduced you to it. :) Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  And you're not dumb. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  The reason I like misinformation is that it is deliberately not the same disinformation, so the absence of information about intent is explicitly encoded in the prefix, it's clean...although who knows how readers actually read and interpret words. Falsity I'm not so sure about intent-wise. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I was not so clear on misinformation versus disinformation. Those terms I read as synonymous. I guess I am the dumb one now @VR Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think "falsity" is a better ore more professional and encyclopedic term that still conveys what we are all talking about. I'd love more thoughts on that. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Falsity: "the fact of being untrue, incorrect, or insincere." (OED)

  That takes away the deliberate efforts to spread this, so no entirely inapt. Gotitbro (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro, The word for malicious misinformation is "disinformation", but I don't think it is can be used. I tried to find sources to support calling it that and they are distinctly one-sided. The title would need to be "alleged disinformation" or "accusations of disinformation". That is weaker and more confusing than calling it "misinformation". Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Vice regent, I think "misinformation" is the best word, but it would be better at the start "Misinformation about..." where it is less easily missed. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  But maybe that's more ambiguous? It could be misread as misinformation saying it didn't happen, when it actually did happen. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Misinformation" is more consistent with the most similar pages, such as "Misinformation in the Gaza war". That word also works better because it's not singular. It wasn't one "hoax" or one "rumour", it was a collection of related false stories. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Suggested descriptive title:

  Misinformation about beheaded babies in October 2023

  The current title doesn't work well as a non-judgemental descriptive title. "Hamas baby beheading" could be an event from earlier conflicts, and is too close to the wording of the Israeli propaganda story. The date is more specific and less biased. The common name is "October 7" but "October 2023" more accurately describes the date, because the violence in southern Israel lasted more than one day. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Israeli babies" might be useful to add: Misinformation about beheaded Israeli babies in October 2023, to distinguish from conspiracy theories about fake dead babies in Gaza. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof, or do you think removing "Hamas" is enough to fix that? Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Misinformation about beheaded Israeli babies in October 2023 seems OK to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support "Misinformation about beheaded babies in October 2023" - Of all the options proposed so far, I believe this title is the most appropriate, accurately describing the article's scope without using any potentially loaded terminology. I also oppose the use of either "rumor" or "allegations" in the title as that wording reads as too vague & potentially soft-peddling to the point of being non-representative. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Instead of "October 2023", its better to directly mention either Hamas and Israel in the title. So something like Misinformation about Hamas baby beheadings.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Would that title imply that Hamas baby beheadings are a thing that people can be misinformed about? As far as I know, Hamas baby beheadings are not a thing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment - only "Disinformation" could be OK, because an important distinction between "Disinformation" and "Misinformation" is in the intent to deceive; "Misinformation" can be shared accidently or mistakenly but without malicious intent, while "Disinformation" is manufactured deliberately and shared to mislead.

  ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose RS, including Le Monde, The Intercept and others explicitly state it is a false claim that was deliberately fabricated, instrumentalized and spread for propaganda purposes by Israeli state actors. This makes hoax an accurate description of the event.

Le Monde repeatedly characterizes it as false information: How did this false information come about? and the story about the beheaded babies has turned out to be false information, so saying they only refer to it as a "rumour" is false.

On deliberate fabrication of the hoax and its instrumentalization by Israel for propaganda purposes: Israel has done nothing to fight it and has more often tried to instrumentalize it than deny it, fueling accusations of media manipulation

On October 17, Colonel Golan Vach explained to French MPs visiting Kfar Aza that he himself had transported the bodies of mutilated newborns – although there were none on the kibbutz. This is a "cynical use of tragedies in Israel to promote hasbara [Israel's communication to the outside world]," said sociologist Nitzan Perelman. For the government, "focusing solely on the horrors and terrorist crimes of Hamas means focusing on Israel's image in the world rather than repairing the mistakes made" by the Israeli authorities, said the political sociology engineer at the National Center for Scientific Research, who studies Israeli society.

With no real public denial from the Israeli authorities, this ambiguous communication helped to muddy the waters

Marc Owen Jones (2025), 'Evidencing alethocide: Israel's war on truth in Gaza', characterizes it as an Israeli disinformation campaign and atrocity propaganda that was promoted by media and political figures to advance the Israeli justification for war on Gaza: This paper examines Israel’s systematic deployment of disinformation during its war on Gaza since October 2023, introducing the concept of ‘alethocide’ – the systemic destruction of truth. Using a mixed-methods approach combining cross-media ethnography and open-source intelligence, this study analyzes key disinformation campaigns across digital platforms, including the widely circulated “40 beheaded babies” narrative, state-sponsored influence operations targeting African Americans, and coordinated attacks on UNRWA. The research proposes a novel framework for assessing disinformation campaigns based on dimensions including intensity, reach, depth, penetration, recidivism, hierarchy, harm, and longevity. Findings reveal Israel’s production of atrocity propaganda, systematic efforts to dehumanize Palestinians, and organized campaigns to undermine humanitarian organizations.

Atrocity disinformation: worthy and unworthy babies: One of the most important and formative examples of disinformation during Israel’s genocidal campaign was the viral claim that Hamas militants beheaded 40 babies on 7 October. Disinformation involving babies and women plays a crucial role in wartime propaganda both conceptually and temporally. It is designed to mobilise public sentiment to justify violence against an alleged perpetrator. Harm towards children exploits a universal moral boundary likely to evoke empathy and disgust from almost all audiences. Morrow (2018) defines ‘atrocity propaganda’ as reports of shocking acts often circulated to provoke an inappropriate martial response – such as unjustified military actions – or to manipulate public opinion towards specific political objectives. For example, tales of cruelty – such as the Belgian baby whose hands were severed by German soldiers during WWI – generated strong emotions among Americans long before the United States officially entered the war (Ponsonby 2010). Similarly, false stories about Iraqi soldiers killing babies during Operation Desert Storm, concocted by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton, exploited these same emotional triggers (Regan 2002). The ‘beheaded babies narrative’, which quickly spread across social media, was harmful and demonstrated high levels of reach, depth, penetration, intensity, hierarchy, and longevity.

The ‘beheaded babies narrative’, which quickly spread across social media, was harmful and demonstrated high levels of reach, depth, penetration, intensity, hierarchy, and longevity. The claim originated from an i24NEWS report on 10 October, which mentioned that Israeli soldiers found decapitated babies, without specifying numbers or context. Within hours, the narrative garnered over 44 million impressions on X (formerly Twitter), illustrating significant virality across political and cultural domains. Social media accounts run by the Israeli government and military and diplomatic entities amplified the story, with the Israel Embassy in France repeating the claim that babies were decapitated (Maad, Audureau, and Forey 2024).

British newspapers also featured the story prominently, further entrenching the narrative into global media discourse (Yusuf 2024). Many mainstream news organisations, such as CNN, CBS, and LBC, uncritically gave voices to such claims without sufficient verification. Chronologically, this disinformation emerged at the very onset of the war on Gaza during a time of epistemic vulnerability, a time when the emotive aftermath of the Hamas massacre was leveraged to provoke outrage, helping to legitimise a severe military response...

These overlapping narratives amplified and reinforced each other, demonstrating the recursive nature of disinformation campaigns involving babies and infants. In terms of systemic-ness and longevity, the US President Joe Biden repeated the false claim of decapitated babies long after it had been debunked (Scahill 2023). The longevity of this disinformation was emphasised when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated the debunked information in a speech to the US Congress in July 2024. In his speech, Netanyahu falsely claiming that Hamas had burned babies alive and killed two babies in an attic. Netanyahu’s speech was met with widespread applause by the predominantly Republican audience, which itself indicated an uncritical embrace of the falsehoods (Haaretz 2024). The cumulative disinformation surrounding the killing of babies reflects not just media reach but also penetration into public consciousness and high-level political discourse. Biden’s repetition (Scahill 2023) of these unverified stories underscores the geopolitical modulation of disinformation, in which key actors – particularly political leaders – exploit their epistemic privilege to intensify the spread and impact of falsehoods. These dynamics illustrate how disinformation can be modulated through the hierarchical reach of political and media structures, producing long-term harmful effects.

The Intercept on the Israeli fabrication and instrumentalization of the hoax: Biden said. “I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children.” It was a jarring statement. And it was false. He made those comments after Nicole Zedeck, a journalist for Israel's i24 News, reported that 40 babies had been decapitated, citing Israeli soldiers at the scene of the attacks at Kfar Aza. A spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently stated that babies and toddlers had been found with their "heads decapitated."

An anchor at the network defended the reporter and said that three separate Israel Defense Forces officials had told i24 News "that around 40 babies & small children were murdered in Kfar Aza, some burned, some beheaded." CBS News and CNN also spread Israeli assertions that babies and toddlers had been decapitated.

Eventually, the Israeli government was forced to admit it had no evidence to support the claim, though it continued to imply that it might be true. A military spokesperson said that the IDF would not further investigate the beheading charges because it would be "disrespectful for the dead."

Politifact also corroborates the deliberate fabrication and instrumentalization of the hoax by Israeli officials: On Oct. 11, a spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CNN that babies and toddlers were found in Kfar Aza with their "heads decapitated."

The allegation that Hamas beheaded babies continues to spread across the internet and social media. The State of Israel's official X account, with a following of 1.5 million, posted Oct. 15, "Lots of sick people fighting about whether or not Hamas beheaded 40 babies or whether they were just burned alive or just butchered. Shame on you". It featured a video of Israeli Col. Golan Vach purporting to describe what he witnessed. On November 26, an Israeli journalist posted an interview with an IDF soldier who claimed that babies had been hung from clotheslines. The reporter later apologized to his readers and said the story was false. “Why would an army officer invent such a horrifying story?” he wrote. “I was wrong.”

ABC News reported that the footage its reporters viewed did not show beheaded babies. An unnamed Israeli military official told ABC that such images existed, but would not be shown to journalists or the public

Lf8u2 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lf8u2: Did you use an AI chatbot to generate that wall of text? Nobody is disagreeing with you by saying it's not a false story. The conversation has moved on to focus on other considerations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: No, I did not use AI. I compiled these citations directly from sources to support a specific argument about terminology. I read your responses, but it does not address my substantive point. You say no one disagrees it is false, but my argument is that multiple reliable sources explicitly characterize this as deliberate fabrication instrumentalized for propaganda purposes by Israeli state actors. That's qualitatively different from "misinformation," which denotes unintentional error or rumor. "Disinformation" is better since it includes intentionality, but remains inadequate given what these sources describe: a claim intentionally created and spread by Israeli state actors (military and political) for propaganda purposes to justify military action. Jones explicitly terms this "atrocity propaganda," which accurately captures this. I support either retaining "hoax" or using "atrocity propaganda." Lf8u2 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and clarification. I don't seem to be very good at spotting chatbot output; sorry about that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Few are good at spotting AI, and while AI gets better and better, we can expect it to be more and more difficult to spot. It's still pretty easy with spoken discourse, eg YouTube mispronunciations; however, the written word, well, let's just say the written word is the easiest for AI to master. You're not alone. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Sidenote: If you truly wish to see how hard its getting try out Wikipedia:AI or not quiz. I myself only got 6/10. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There was no reason to even think it's an AI since editor was quite obviously quoting media outlets all with external links given pointing to text sources in his post. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - thinking more on this, agree with VR. Reader would not know what the 40 beheaded babies claim refers to. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - A "claim", "allegation", etc., are one thing, but a deliberate, purposeful, premeditated lie (evident per RS) is quite another.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment - since I noticed that "Misinformation" is also circulating in the discussion as an option, I have to disagree, per User:Lf8u2, who observed that "Misinformation" can also be interpreted as an unintentional mistake, and that only acceptable option could be "Disinformation", which is more an intentional attempt to mislead the public. So "Misinformation" no, "Disinformation" maybe.

  ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, it wasn't a "claim", or a "rumour"; it was stated as a fact. Huldra (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment This thread got press: Wikipedia mulling whether to rename entry on ‘Hamas beheading babies hoax’. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ugh! I suspect that we are going to get some very confused people turning up who, through no fault of their own other than making a poor choice of reading material, will have a deeply inaccurate understanding of what is going on here. This will be annoying but we need to handle them carefully otherwise they are likely to misinterpret our actions as corroborating the false claims of terrorist apologia that they have been fed. What a needless waste of everybody's time. DanielRigal (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well, it's a month old and not counting us there hasn't been a comment for several days. Someone could close it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Jns has an obvious conservative culture war pro israel editorial slant. Not surprising User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)