Talk:Israel–Hamas war

RfC on inclusion of Hamas sexual violence & rape in lede

Should we include the following in the lead, directly after listing casualties: Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This statement replaces a non-neutral statement by the nominator. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment widespread needs to be removed Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per arguments above and the usage of the word widespread. This could go in the body of the article, but is unnecessary in the lede. Jebiguess (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - Given that:

• Since the last discussion of this, there has been reporting in reliable news media about the commission of rape on a systemic scale during the 7 October invasion;
• There has been a UN report to support this;
• The ICC chief prosecutor has just announced that he is seeking arrest warrants for Hamas (and Israeli) leaders, with the commission of rape and sexual violence among the charges;
• Rape and sexual violence are no less significant war crimes than the others mentioned in the lead, including (relatedly) murder and abduction;
• Their non-inclusion does injustice to their significance in the context of these and other war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in this war;

I propose the following amendment:

'During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage to the Gaza Strip. Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged.'

Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There is also a UN report that Israeli soldiers have raped Palestinian women during this war. Would you want to include that in the lead too? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologise that the format of my prompt has not followed normal RFC formatting, something I have subsequently realised. Nonetheless I believe the question warrants discussion. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to include one, then we should include them all. Alternatively we can collect up RS following the warrants announcement, see which ones they focus on and include only those. Including them all would mean including these on the Israeli side.

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;

Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);

Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;

Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);

Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

and these on the Hamas side

Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;

Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);

Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;

Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;

Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;

Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and

Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier All of them should be included in the article. As it comes to murder and extermination these may be inferred by the other crimes mentioned in the lede. I believe the inclusion of sexual violence, something which isn't at all, gives further weight to the imperative for this to be included. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Also there is a dedicated child article for war crimes to consider, normally we would only want a summary of that here and then a summary of that summary in the lede of this article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a little early to jump right into another RFC although this has been discussed previously at Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 42#Lede 2, where you can see that there was already an earlier RFC about this (nocon). So need to judge whether enough things have changed since then to warrant another RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The section in the article about the attack on October 7 has a link to an article about it and there and another article devoted entirely to these rapes. In the wider context of the war I don't think it has sufficient weight to be in the lead of this article which has rather a lot of other stuff in it. People who are interested in the war will find it easily enough NadVolum (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on we've done this before, a lot Abo Yemen✉ 13:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Think this should be procedurally closed, the RFC is not neutrally worded (apart from having been set up wrong initially and still wrong now), if we consider the section Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 42#Lede 2, the prior no consensus RFC and the comments here thus far, it seems this is unlikely to go anywhere just at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as currently written, mainly because of the word "widespread", and without a quantifier I would be more likely to support. I do not think the prevalence of rape has been fully investigated or confirmed. We should not give too much to credence to unconfirmed reports. starship.paint (RUN) 04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in any form. This is the article about the war as a whole; individual blow-by-blow aspects of the October 7 attack don't belong here (it is given mention in the lead at 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, where the weight is more appropriate.) Note that it currently only has a single, brief one-sentence mention in the body (without the "widespread" qualifier); that isn't enough to justify placing it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: "widespread" has already been proven to be false and would be misleading to characterize it this way. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of the body and this would give undue weight, given that no information is provided on the horrific conditions of Palestinian prisoners taken from Gaza, who were likely tortured to death like Adnan Al-Bursh or forced to stay still in humiliating sexual and physical conditions as was reported by CNN. Very important to note that the ICC was explicit in saying the supposed sexual violence crimes were committed against captives and not on October 7. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Unnecessary in lead but should be in body. I think the tight concise lead now is good and this detail too specific to the first day to be relevant in this article lead. However, I think the mention of it should be beefed up a little in the relevant section of the body, i.e. the start of the timeline. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not convinced about this either, it's parent lead only provides one sentence "Many cases of rape and sexual assault occurred, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters" at present, suggesting that this is all that is due as part of a summary. The 7 October attack section is already an overly detailed "summary" of the main article, it should look more like the lead of the article it attempts to summarise, as a concise summary, rather than focus on unnecessary detail – even if users argue these details are essential parts of this article, they clearly aren't, as it doesn't follow basic guidelines. The only reason it looks like it could do with more detail regarding sexual/gender based violence, is because that section isn't well summarised in the first place. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point, but I think (a) that sentence from the parent lead would go well in that section of this article and (b) that lead needs to expand beyond one sentence on the topic to reflect the long section in its body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also a fair point. My issue is more with the lack of summary in that section. If it were more refined, then certainly more of an expanded summary for this would make sense. I shouldn't be conflating two separate issues though, so generally just fair point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The article in question is a child topic of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, not Israel–Hamas war. Per WP:SUMMARY it should be summarised in that article, not this one, which it is, as well as referenced in the lead. 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is otherwise summarised in this article, as well as linked in the lead, for those who want to know more. Sexual and gender-based violence is already wikilinked in the correct section summary in this article. The structure works. We can't include references to all grandchild articles in the lead, especially those that are children of single events, and not the war as a whole/overall. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support without the term widespread: I would say that this is as relevant as the amount of farmland that was destroyed. The content in the article could probably use some more numbers and another sentence (maybe two). - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  @AquilaFasciata I should've asked a broader question. It all could be summed up in one sentence: 'During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage to the Gaza Strip and reports of rape & sexual violence by Hamas-led militants emerged.' Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint I'm pinging you as the above seems like it might gain your support. @Makeandtoss I would support a broader statement in the lede about reports of sexual violence in the war, given that Palestinians have been victims of it too. My main contention is that the element of sexual violence in the war needs acknowledgement. It could be mentioned in the context of reports/allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel and Hamas. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Willthorpe: It seems fine, though from the other comments here it seems like the body doesn't have much content on it. There could be some body content taken from Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#UN report of March 2024, that in March 2024, the United Nations reported that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang-rape, in at least three locations": the Nova music festival and its vicinities of Road 232 and kibbutz Re'im. The report also found "clear and convincing information" to show that Israeli hostages in Gaza had been subject to "sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Also, yes, this article should mention sexual violence suffered by Palestinians. starship.paint (RUN) 01:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I support the above. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise. Will Thorpe (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose It should be in the relevant article, which is not this one. All that should be here in this top level article is summary to the effect that both sides are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity without any further details because those details are or should be in the relevant child articles, with a level of detail that is due for the particular child article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier This is a start if nothing else, and should be hyperlinked. I would agree to that, if nothing more specific about sexual violence is included. Will Thorpe (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support The paragraphs on Hamas' and Israel's attacks currently describe each attack's characteristics (scale of casualties, hostage-taking, aerial bombardment...). Sexual violence appears to have been a significant feature of one, but not the other. It's not critical to mention (and the wording above might not be optimal), but it's perfectly appropriate given the current lead. An alternative would be to cut down most of the above details. Ornilnas (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as before, undue weight for this article. We have an article on the October 7 attacks, it is 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. That has details of the attack in its lead. This however is a war that has spanned over 6 months, and the weight given to sources to the alleged sexual violence is significantly less than the weight given to what we do cover in the lead. nableezy - 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Nableezy There is strong weight to it now and it can hardly be called 'alleged'. It has been widely reported by reliable sources, both in the news media, and from the UN/ICC chief prosecutor ('Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity)'. (emphasis mine based on what reads to me to be correct; not the absence of a comma before 'in the context of captivity') Will Thorpe (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Per the Associated Press: 'The United Nations and other organizations have presented credible evidence that Hamas militants committed sexual assault during their rampage... However, debunked accounts like Otmazgin’s have encouraged skepticism and fueled a highly charged debate about the scope of what occurred on Oct. 7 — one that is still playing out on social media and in college campus protests.' Will Thorpe (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Alleged is the usual word used for things that have been accused but unproven as true. As far as weight, that is determined by sources. And the weight in sources given both to the allegations and in some causes refutations does not compare to the weight given to the topics we can and do reasonably cover in a lead. This is a a sub-topic of a sub-topic, that is the war (this article), is the parent article to the oct 7 attacks (that article) which itself is a parent to the article on sexual assaults, (that article). This doesnt have the weight in the wider context of the war itself that the other topics in the lead have. nableezy - 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - this kind of information belongs in child articles where it can be treated with appropriate nuance and detail. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This may meet the threshold of lead-inclusion for the 7 October attack article but not this article. It's like including Red Army Berlin rapes in the article for World War II. Furthermore many of the allegations have been discredited by reliable sources e.g., The Intercept. JDiala (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support mentioning but in a way that makes it clear that the hostages also suffered from sexual violence (see the article for the evidence from one of them). Alaexis_¿question? 20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per all arguments above Abo Yemen✉ (btw today's my birthday) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:UNDUE. The main characteristics have been hostage taking, mass displacement, indiscriminate killings and destruction, and the use of starvation as a war method. Reported instances of sexual violence have been far and between, with questions raised about reporting reliability. That said, we're yet to learn about the scale of sexual violence among the Palestinians in the Strip, since a collapse of law and order (here, deliberately brought about by Israel) always, invariably leads to a spike in sexual violence. Its scale will be much higher than the current Israeli accusations. So, once there's good, reliable material on the actual scale of sexual violence during the war, it may warrant inclusion also in the lead. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support due to sustained and significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead is long, as is the article, so UNDUE does not apply. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support and I agree with Alaexis that sexual violence toward the hostages also should be mentioned in the same context. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, as it's well-documented in RS and was no doubt a core element in the attack that led to the war. I agree with Figureofnine and other commenters that sexual violence against hostages should be mentioned too. Gawaon (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Comment While trimming 7 October attack section, I added in "including rape and sexual assault by Hamas or other Gazan militants" to the line "Hamas militants also engaged in mutilation, torture, and sexual and gender-based violence," ref, based on the first sentence of the child article lead, which appears well-referenced. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue weight. Especially when this is not an uncontested fact and rape by Israelis is not mentioned in the lede.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support without "widespread", maybe beef up the body so it has a little more weight. But seems like it meets requirement for inclusion. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Not to mention that these allegations have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, on the contrary - multiple RS have discredited them. - Ïvana (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Has been reliably reported on, and contextualizes some of the other significant aspects of the war (e.g., Israel's brutal response). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Support without "widespread" This has received significant enough coverage to justify inclusion in the lead. It's a highly notable aspect of the conflict and I agree with MaximusEditor about the body as well. Removing "widespread" seems like a reasonable compromise. Nemov (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per, among other pieces, the Times piece that has now emerged further debunking the presence of serious evidence on the matter of anything 'widespread' or 'systematic', yada yada. This topic is more notable within the context of the conflict principally due to its role in atrocity propaganda than anything else. Something along those lines would be more pertinent. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  That Times article is here "Israel says Hamas weaponised rape. Does the evidence add up? The Israeli government insists that Hamas formally sanctioned sexual assault on October 7, 2023. But investigators say the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. Catherine Philp and Gabrielle Weiniger report on eight months of claim and counter-claim."

  This investigation casts doubt on the claims and I reiterate that the details on all this should be dealt with in an appropriate child article and not in the lead here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment because the descriptor "widespread" may not be appropriate. The Times UK recently published an investigative piece titled "Israel says Hamas weaponized rape. Does the evidence add up?". The response to this investigation requires sufficient time under observation - perhaps months. Breaking Points released a monologue examining the article titled "Mass Rape Claims DISMANTLED By Times Of London" that people may find useful. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

The argument that this only happened on October 7 which has been made by many editors who !voted "Oppose" should be disregarded. We have reports about the hostages suffering from sexual violence (see the article for details). The proposed text does not say that the sexual violence was committed only on October 7. If the concern is that the reader would misunderstand it, the text should be amended. Alaexis_¿question? 20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing. The title is therefore misleading, or the content misplaced, if the allegations aren't solely related to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, if they also took place outside of Israel for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There’s an allegation. That isn’t something that makes it so every vote you disagree with should be disregarded. The weight given to the accusations of sexual assault as part of the overall war is tiny compared to what we do cover in the lead. We have allegations of Israeli sexual assault on Palestinian prisoners taken from Gaza as well, should we add that to the lead too? nableezy - 01:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy Perhaps you should suggest something that incorporates both, given the severity of these claims, and the reliable sources that back them up? Will Thorpe (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This could be referenced: UN Experts Condemn Israel's 'Sexual Assault And Violence' In Gaza Will Thorpe (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I still think this is an inappropriate level of detail for this top level article. And why focus on one particular war crime when both sides are accused of many that are more grave, relatively speaking. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier There's hardly something more grave than sexual violence in war, and it more than warrants mention. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Atrocity crimes, Israel likely being guilty of all of them and if it should be that the sexual violence makes it in, then all the others are going in as well. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would I suggest something I don’t think belongs in the lead to be placed in the lead? nableezy - 11:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a disingenuous argument as the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, when discussing rape in the context of the war, refer to the events of 7 October. Subsequent rapes are far rarer. We only seem to have a single account (your linked NYT piece) of sexual assault in captivity. This account has not been verified, and even the person making the allegation failed to specify details, such as the nature of the sexual act. It is ultimately nowhere near lead worthy. There is far more evidence of Israeli sexual violence against Palestinian post-7-October e.g., this Haaretz piece.JDiala (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It warrants lede inclusion somehow, as well as sexual violence committed against Gazans, and other war crimes for which there is credible evidence and charges. Perhaps at the end of the lede. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Article title

It seems that supporters of a move entangled themselves over whether it should be Gaza War or Israel Gaza War (and I suppose whether or not there should be dates appended). This discussion is opened to resolve this issue before proposing a new RM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Ranked choice voting is the solution here. The RM question should be something like this:

Please indicate your first, second, and third choice as to title:

1. Israel–Hamas war
2. Israel–Gaza war
3. Gaza war

Please indicate your first, second, and third choice as to dates:

1. No dates
2. 2023–2024 [title]
3. [title] (2023–2024)

Example vote: 3 2 1, A B C. If we all vote like this, it'll get decided. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a smart approach to me. Unbandito (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

2A or 3B given that it is still being discussed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

lol... not only is this not an RM, but your vote didn't even follow the instructions. This is why we get nowhere. Levivich (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaza war has already failed, so lets keep this simple - just ask Israel-Gaza war, with whatever form of disambiguation you prefer. If there is a dispute over the form of disambiguation, it can be resolved with WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and a second RM.

Unless, of course, the RM fails, in which case we should implement a six month moratorium so we can stop wasting time on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

2,3. I'm not sure why it says 2023-2024 for the dates, shouldn't it be (2023-present)? RealKnockout (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy, Nishidani, Yeoutie, Urropean, Huldra, Iskandar323, Amakuru, Trilletrollet, RamHez, and K.e.coffman: Pinging editors who voted for "2023-2024" in the previous RM: would you support "2023-present" instead of "2023-2024"? Levivich (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

2A or 2B in that order as this name is being increasingly used by RS and due to involvement of many other combatants other than Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am good with 2A. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

2A, 3B, or even something else. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence failure

I wrote 'alleged' for the section header because it is more than clear that Israeli intelligence had gained very precise information regarding Hamas's attack plans, and that these were shown to the Gaza division. Both the ES and Egypt had passed on information on the imminacy of the attack three datys earlier.

What the section then states is that this wasn't acted on, for whatever reasons. So rather than an intelligence failure, it was a failure to act on intelligence, on the part of the IDF that had an executive role. So the title without 'alleged' is a misnomer. Soviet intelligence via Sorge provided excellent intelligence on the invasion by Germany. The decision not to act on it, distrust or whatever, was political. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon: courtesy ping. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like most plausible explanations still fall into the general category of intelligence failures, e.g.

• if the intelligence wasn't accurately conveyed to the right leaders due to some communication breakdown
• if the intelligence wasn't perceived as credible
• if the intelligence wasn't specific about timing, and the threat wasn't perceived as immanent

Are you arguing that failures like the above are not in fact intelligence failures, or are you arguing that this could have been more of an intentional failure, where leaders didn't act on what they understood to be a credible and immanent threat? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

First things first. Where did you get your trifold classification or category of intelligence failures from?Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

How do sources describe this?

As far as I can tell, they describe it as an intelligence failure, similar to 9/11. BilledMammal (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(a) the attack engendered a lot of immediate commentary, or rather speculation. Since it was a surprise, it was immediately assumed that a massive intelligence failure was responsible, and the term sticks. But (b) drop by drop, it has emerged over time that in terms of intelligence, Israel's 8200 unit, together with border guard monitoring officials, had gathered almost all of the elements needed to make a detailed profile of the invasion that was to take place. It was even written up in a report, and given limited circulation. So the humint and sigint specialists had done their work. (c) their work's assessment that an invasion was imminent was independenly confirmed by both US and Egyptian intelligence, duly passed on to Israel.The Sept 19th document shows that the intelligence estimate for the number of hostages Hamas aspired to take was uncannily precise. (e) What then ensued was that no prophylactic action was taken, even when in the early morning hours of 7 Oct. further sigint signaled unusual signs of preparation.

There is a blame game between the political and intelligence wings, as to where to assign the responsibility for the failure to (i) properly assess the intelligence and (ii) act on it. The evidence now in suggests that the intelligence has been properly assessed but that (ii) it had not been acted on (probably because of incredulity and over-confidence in the defensive structure already in place). So it is a failure by military heads to correctly assess the intelligence. They are not in the business of intelligence gathering, Israeli intelligence by all accounts did its job. All that remains obscure is to what extent did the military leaders inform the political heads about the impressive analysis undertaken by specialists. As it stands, therefore, the initial story of an intelligence failure bruited about on 7 Oct when nothing was publicly known of what happened behind the scenes is false. It was a political/military assessment executive failure, which is a completely different matter. Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We can’t base the article on our own speculation about the events; we have to base it on how reliable sources interpret them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the above is speculation. Everything comes from sources, and the point made over a single word 'alleged' doesn't mean that we rewrite the whole article 'based on our own speculation about the events'. Frivolous remarks like that throw sand in the eyes. In any case, the best paper on the so-called 'intelligence failure' I know of is, James Rosen-Birch, How Changes in the Israeli Military Led to the Failure of October 7 New Lines Magazine 20 May 2024

Read that judicious, meticulous overview, and one can quickly grasp that the leaks, bickering, and reticence characteristic of RS coverage of this so far are simplistic blame games slowly fed to the press by competitive careerists all caught up in a far deeper cognitive blindspot. Probably we need an article on the failure to act on the abundant intelligence, which will generate eventually as much analysis as the Pearl Harbour fiasco has. Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s an opinion article from someone who isn’t an expert on intelligence - it is far from sufficient to outweigh all the sources we have calling this an intelligence failure. BilledMammal (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Congratulations. The article's reading time is 27 minutes, which you managed to do in 5 minutes, i.e. you didn't read it.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC) If you want me to do more than skim the article then provide an article that is actually a suitable source. BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Another silly comment. What is RS is debatable, always, and one cannot evaluate any potential article by reflexely limiting the scope of sources to the anally narrow band of RS. You can't intelligently 'skim' a detailed, complex article in 4 or 5 minutes. You judged its suitability by the unfamiliarity of the journal and its author. And I didn't suggest it be used. I simply said people who edit articles like this should know more than what a general technical reading of wiki policies on RS state.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also kinda ironical that the article has the word "failure" right in the title, so nevermind it's reliability, claiming that article as an argument against failure doesn't sound like a promising move. Gawaon (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

So you've read as far as the title. And 'it's' is not how the possessive 'its' is written. It means 'it is' and as you spell it, it produces an ungrammatical sentence:'it is reliability'. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I see you have excellent arguments to make your case. Gawaon (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor doesn't have a "u" in it either. But either way it seems like the sort of synth most "truthers" advocate for when it comes to disasters and attacks. XeCyranium (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Israeli army knew of Hamas plot to take hostages three weeks before 7 October Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This information has come round and round again. From an broad buffet of sources, the narrative recurs that senior commanders simply ignored the diligently gathered intelligence – with contributing factors being arrogance, complacency, incompetence and quite probably more than a little dash of misogyny (that led to the early warning intelligence from the female signals unit to be dismissed). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Haaretz as well Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"Hamas-run"

I don't understand the necessity of saying "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", as if implying the Health Ministry's numbers aren't trustworthy or reliable, despite the fact Wikipedia itself acknowledges (at the Health Ministry's Wikipedia article) that several supranational organizations and world-renown human rights advocates consider the organization to provide reliable data and have found no proof that could compromise it.

Furthermore, we don't say "according to Likud-run Bituah Leumi ". We don't even acknowledge numbers come from Bituah Leumi (only that they're form "Israeli social security data"), because what is the point of mentioning that? It doesn't show the reader hard proof (only "perhaps-es") of any potential unreliability of the numbers (which, in case they truly were unreliable, why bother in including them in the first place?), but merely makes them distrust the number without a real reason to do so. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Me either. If GHM is reliable, what difference does it make who runs it; for that matter Idk where the idea comes from that Hamas runs it anyway, seems like an assumption. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We mention the nationality of the information if it is run or from the government of a country. For example, on the Israeli-casualty side, we do specify “From Israel” and “From Hamas”. Even in the Gaza-Strip side of the causalities for “Militants inside Israel:”, we specify “from Israel”. There is precedent for doing that for official numbers from involved parties. When numbers from from the Ukrainian government in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties, we say “Ukrainian government” is the source. GHM is a branch of the Hamas-run government in the Gaza Strip, so per precedent, “Hamas-run” is listed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry, wikilink and all, is self explanatory. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Except this is not a proper comparison. Major outlets don't use Putin's political party, All-Russia People's Front, to attribute Russian official statements or stats. The only comparable instance to "Hamas-run" is "Chinese Communist Party/CCP-run" when Western officials and media try to politicize Chinese affairs or cast doubt on Chinese official figures. Since there is no sufficient evidence to prove that Hamas has unduly influenced the Gaza Health Ministry to exaggerate the death toll, there is little to no reason to attribute Gaza Health Ministry to Hamas. The UN doesn't attribute Hamas when citing Gaza MoH figures either while acknowledging Hamas' attacks on Israel are acts of terror.[1][2][3] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, per how everything else is labeled, I would be ok removing “Hamas-run” and replacing it just with “Per Hamas”, since it is official numbers from the Hamas-government. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with that option as well, but I would disagree with anything that removes the affiliation of the source providing the numbers with Hamas. FortunateSons (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I support that. BilledMammal (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When we start saying "Per Likud" for IDF/Israeli claims, I will support that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I support removing "Hamas-run" per your arguments Abo Yemen✉ 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I support removing it too as propaganda. It's like saying these figures are provided by the Trump led or Biden led Treasury. NadVolum (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda? Do you have a source for that? Lol. I think there are too many RS sources saying it is a branch of the Hamas government for you to even consider it propaganda. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to include this, GHM (cf State Dept where one needs to specify which but here you have Gaza already) is a reliable source by plentiful sourcing and the qualifier is just unnecessary. I would imagine but can't say for certain that the Hamas run stuff originated with Israeli propaganda somewhere along the line, I don't even know if it is true, what evidence there is would suggest not. If it were Hamas inspired rubbish being produced by it, there would be lots of evidence for that but there isn't, the contrary in fact. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a lot of evidence to support it is Hamas-run. I still want to see a source for the "propaganda" reasoning though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If there is a consensus among editors that this is WP:VNOT, it's academic. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That still, yet again, does not answer my question. Stop dodging the question. Either provide a source that says Hamas doesn't run the GHM or strike comments regarding it. I did not respond to the fact of including or excluding it. I responded over the (what I know to be false) statement that the "Hamas-run" for GHM is propaganda. So I say again, provide source or strike statements. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I found this AP article and under the heading "Who works in the ministry" it says

"Hamas, as Gaza’s ruling authority, exerts control over the Health Ministry. But it’s different than political and security agencies that Hamas runs. The Palestinian Authority, which controlled Gaza before Hamas overran the area in 2007, retains power over health and education services in Gaza, though it’s based in the occupied West Bank. The ministry is a mix of recent Hamas hires and older civil servants affiliated with the secular nationalist Fatah party, officials say.

The Fatah-dominated authority that administers Palestinian cities in the Israeli-occupied West Bank has its own health ministry in Ramallah, which still provides medical equipment to Gaza, pays Health Ministry salaries and handles patient transfers from the blockaded enclave to Israeli hospitals.

Health Minister Mai al-Kaila in Ramallah oversees the parallel ministries, which receive the same data from hospitals. Her deputy is based in Gaza.

The Ramallah ministry said it trusts casualty figures from partners in Gaza, and it takes longer to publish figures because it tries to confirm numbers with its own Gaza staff.

Hamas tightly controls access to information and runs the government media office that offers details on Israeli airstrikes. But employees of the Health Ministry insist Hamas doesn’t dictate casualty figures. “Hamas is one of the factions. Some of us are aligned with Fatah, some are independent,” said Ahmed al-Kahlot, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza. “More than anything, we are medical professionals.”

The entire article, a lengthy article about the GHM doesn't use the expression Hamas run to describe it at all, it only uses that expression to describe the GMO.

So yeah, that confirms my opinion that it's quite different from the simple "Hamas run" moniker you want to tag GHM with and in fact it even tends to confirm that that tag is propaganda. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, you just provided a direct source which directly stated "Hamas, as Gaza’s ruling authority, exerts control over the Health Ministry". As stated below by PrimaPrime, the average reader doesn't know that Hamas does control the GHM. Even though it is its own entity, they still control it. A distinction and listing should still be made. Thank you for providing a source proving it is not propaganda that Hamas controls/runs the GHM. That helps confirm and counter the entire statement/!vote reasoning by NadVolum above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And here's another, which confirms what I and AP, said "Israeli and U.S. attempts to change the conversation have largely succeeded. Before the current war, and even before the Ahli hospital bombing, descriptions like “Hamas-run,” “Hamas-controlled,” or “Hamas-affiliated” for the Palestinian health ministry were virtually non-existent, according to the News on the Web Corpus, a database of newspapers and magazines from 21 countries."

Propaganda, absolutely is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why reliable sources started saying "Hamas-run" after the GHM falsely claimed that 400 people had been killed in an Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital? Perhaps they had good reason to trust it less than they had in the past? BilledMammal (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Might a had somethin to with Biden openin his mouth wide and then havin to walk that back, which funnily enough ties right in with what one of those sources I just put up says. Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And more "In addition to the semi-official AP guidance, the pro-Israel lobby also tends to hound anyone who cites Palestinian casualty reports without implying that they’re Hamas fabrications. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, a pro-Israel pressure group, brags about its ability to water down reports on Palestinian casualties, including with the Hamas label." Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The obvious distinction is Hamas is not clearly understood as a state like Israel. Everyone knows Israeli claims come from one of the parties to the war. That's not immediately obvious for "Gaza ministry" claims, especially given the existence of rival ministries with actual international recognition that aren't involved in the fighting.

Those of us who are subject-matter experts shouldn't assume the casual reader intuitively knows all this. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing the "Hamas-run" label. Wikipedia should not treat Hamas any differently from the governing party of any other polity. The background section can include some material clarifying that Hamas is the government of Gaza, but there is no evidence that Hamas exerts influence over the GHM any more than any other governing political party does over its health ministry, which is to say, it doesn't. @Selfstudier brought forth some strong material showing how the relationship between Hamas as a political party and Gazan civil society is very nuanced. The "Hamas-run" label relies on the prejudiced assumption that Hamas is unlike other governing parties to call the reliability of information coming from Gazan civil society into question. There isn't any evidence that Hamas's governance of Gaza makes reports from Gazan civil society orgs unreliable, because that claim is based in prejudicial and chauvinistic assumptions about Palestinian political organizations, not in reality. Unbandito (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s technically true, but inaccurate. We should treat the GHM the same way that RS treat it, and that is regularly with attributing their opinions directly or indirectly to Hamas. If RS use the label, we should too. FortunateSons (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless WP:VNOT, and this is oh so definitely not. Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

But only if exclusion is in alignment with our other polices like WP:DUE, and it is oh so definitely not. BilledMammal (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not due either, propaganda is never due. Selfstudier (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's a prominent viewpoint in reliable sources on the topic - and it is - then it is WP:DUE, regardless of whether you think it is propaganda. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! Selfstudier, I am sorry to tell you, but that one reliable source (the 2nd one you listed above is self-published and not reliable) does not trump the dozens of RS that state Hamas-controlled/Hamas-run. This is turning somewhat into what feels like a WP:1AM situation. Most of the arguments for removal are "propaganda" (irrelevant/opinionated; not Wikipedia policy-based argument) and DUE (valid argument). The arguments for keep is shear amount of RS supporting it. Actually, the source above that you listed (the reliable one) helps show that as well, since majority of sources are saying it is Hamas-run/Hamas-controlled. Honestly, you have helped basically prove why it should be listed per Wikipedia policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am quite comfortable in my arguments nevertheless and I will be happy to make them again in any RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing the "Hamas-run" qualifier, which, as shown above, is simplifying, to the point of being misleading, a nuanced situation. Certainly, sources are using this term widely, but is it accurate? And it has the effect of casting doubt on how many Palestinians were killed. The Intercept had an interesting piece last year on the Health Ministry's numbers:

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/31/gaza-death-palestine-health-ministry/ GeoffreyA (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA: Accuracy is entirely not relevant on Wikipedia. That is one of Wikipedia's core things. It needs to be verifiable. That is why WP:VNT exists (Verifiability, not truth). Right now, the Tornadoes of 2022 article has a known factual inaccuracy. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, that inaccuracy cannot be changed (WP:VNTIA). So unless you can prove with sources GHM isn't Hamas-run, then "accuracy" has 0 bearing in the discussion. That said, someone arguing against including it showed a source earlier directly stating it is controlled by Hamas. So, in short, any accuracy concerns have already been proven to be true and are irrelevant for Wikipedia discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNOT, yawn. Selfstudier (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier commenting an AP News article and Selfstudier quoting the article saying, "Hamas, as Gaza’s ruling authority, exerts control over the Health Ministry." Yawn + stretch while waking up.

Ya forgot to sign, jus like ya forgot to read the rest of what AP said. Doncha jus love cherrypickin.Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. In this case, the "Hamas-run" attribute is demonstrably contested. Additionally, the AP is far from the only organization to use "Hamas-run" very sparingly. The UN, a much more neutral source, consistently avoids this attribution in its reports. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I put '"Hamas-run" press bias' into Google and there's a fair bit of media analysis which I think shows it is propaganda. It was not used in previous conflicts. I've put the first results here and included two openly biased ones at the end, Mondoweiss which has an full article on the topic and newarab showing it was not used previously. Sorry it is the responsible statecraft one that shows "Hamas-run" wasn't pushed before.

• https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20231121-how-does-the-media-impact-public-perception-about-war.cfm How Does the Media Impact Public Perception about War?
• https://cfmm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CfMM-Report-Final-MEDIA-BIAS-GAZA-2023-24-ePDF.pdf Media Bias Gaza 2023-24
• https://unbiasthenews.org/why-journalists-are-speaking-out-against-western-media-bias-in-reporting-on-israel-palestine/#:~:text=When%20the%20media%20emphasises%20that,%E2%80%9CNetanyahu%2Drun.%E2%80%9D%20US Why journalists are speaking out against Western media bias in reporting on Israel-Palestine
• https://www.voanews.com/a/why-news-outlets-are-avoiding-terrorist-labels-in-israel-hamas-war-/7344135.html Why News Outlets Are Avoiding 'Terrorist' Labels in Israel-Hamas War
• https://www.codastory.com/newsletters/newsletter-israel-disinformation-gaza/ Gaza’s journalists, caught between bombs and disinformation
• https://responsiblestatecraft.org/media-hamas-gaza/ Media amplified US, Israeli narrative on Palestinian deaths
• https://researchcentre.trtworld.com/perspectives/israeli-propaganda-is-unconvincing-and-failing/ Israeli propaganda is unconvincing and failing
• https://www.counterfire.org/article/gaza-why-the-western-mainstream-media-fails-the-palestinians/ Gaza: Why the Western mainstream media fails the Palestinians
• https://mondoweiss.net/2023/12/western-medias-reference-to-the-hamas-run-health-ministry-is-another-dehumanizing-tactic-enabling-israels-genocide/ Western media’s reference to the ‘Hamas-run’ Health Ministry is another dehumanizing tactic enabling Israel’s genocide
• https://www.newarab.com/analysis/numbers-uk-medias-pro-israel-bias-gaza-war-coverage In numbers: How UK right-wing media's pro-Israel Gaza war coverage dehumanises Palestinians

NadVolum (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede structure

Reopening this discussion which had reached a stalemate. The recent change to the structure of the lede has made its third paragraph, its most relevant and important one, too long and intimidating to read. I propose restoring the previous more readable version in which the sentence "After clearing militants....releasing the hostages." is brought back to the end of the second paragraph instead of the beginning of the third paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support the older structure's being restored, as I noted in the last discussion. Additionally, the last three sentences of the third paragraph could, perhaps, be moved upwards or even condensed, being part of the "events" so to speak. The third paragraph is more about the "results" of what happened in Gaza, with an admixture of "events." Or perhaps this perception will change in the future when everything is recast into the past tense. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA: Seems we have consensus for the earlier version regarding the third paragraph's starting point. As for the last three sentences of the third paragraph, indeed, they do not add anything of value. Only the last sentence there could be combined and inserted in the fourth paragraph: "...before the International Court of Justice that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, which ordered Israel to immediately halt its Rafah offensive." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I agree with restoring the third paragraph's old starting point. Concerning the last three sentences, yes, the ICJ order should be kept, perhaps with that version you offered or on its own, as well as the seven-day truce. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Implemented accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much more readable now. As for the ICJ's Rafah order, I tried separating it a little from the previous sentence. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Killing of journalists

This bit seems missing from article other than a casual mention in the casualties section. We do have a standalone article Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war, but that shouldn't mean we don't mention it in this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Child summaries

Also detailed sections on Israel's bombing of schools, universities and hospitals seems to have been removed from the body, but I can't pinpoint when that happened exactly. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This grandchild article should indeed be referenced in the child section summary of Casualties, in the same way it should also ideally be linked and referenced in the lead summary of the main Casualties article (but isn't). I've added it to see also for now, but it could be with a sentence summary. Detailed sections on bombings were probably removed when child section summaries were converted in summaries, given Bombing of the Gaza Strip exists, per WP:SUMMARY guidelines and WP:TOOBIG concerns. CNC (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning, but there seems to be no mention left at all of the removed sections in the body now? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In the lead "one of the most destructive bombing campaigns in modern history" links to Bombing of the Gaza Strip and "including a collapse of the healthcare collapse and an impending famine", which is also referenced again in Casualties section. Also in Casualties section :"As of 22 June 2024, over 38,000 people (37,396 Palestinian and 1,478 Israeli have been reported as killed in the Israel–Hamas war, including 108 journalists (103 Palestinian, 2 Israeli and 3 Lebanese)" (emphasis added). Granted the summaries are short and could be expanded upon in the relevant sections to a fuller sentence, but otherwise these grandchild articles do appear referenced and linked within this article. Based on the number of articles related to this war, I don't believe all these articles are due a full paragraph summary however. That is what their parent articles are for, not this one which is more of a "sign post" to specific articles, and predominantly a summary of child articles.

I'm not suggesting the trimming of content was done particularly well either, only that it was done out of necessity once the article had reached an atrocious size of 23,000 words. Since I've provided you the diffs that occurred (in updates section of archived discussion), maybe you could work on expanding certain summaries within reason? Unfortunately very few editors contributed to the summarising of content, so it was more of a "hack job" than done with any precision or expertise. I don't doubt there are further improvements to be made, especially when you see the section Rafah offensive begins (6 May 2024 – present) becoming a mockery of a child summary section, leading to an article imbalance in comparison to other summarised sections. CNC (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

But lede is a summary of the body, and shouldn't mention things that are not mentioned in the body. For example, the lede should mention "one of the most destructive bombing campaigns in modern history", and the body should have at least a paragraph or a few sentences on it, rather than no mention at all. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a few summarised sentences, or a paragraph, for the most notable sub-topics; specifically those referenced in the lead that aren't expanded on in the body per your rationale. The bombing is a good example of this.

I'm also of the opinion that grandchild articles, that originate from this topic, can be referenced in the lead without requiring a summary in the body (if there is limited space, which is the case). For example these topics: "By early 2024, Israeli forces had damaged or destroyed more than half of Gaza's houses, at least a third of its tree cover and farmland, most of its schools and universities, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and dozens of cemeteries."

Bare with me, going to a "test" edit and return the scale of destruction section as a standalone section, and see if there is much pushback, or if it get's reverted. CNC (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Have given it a go with this edit to see how it goes down. CNC (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. Honestly, all of the previous elaborations, or at least summarizations of them, should be restored, as they are quite literally central to this article. If anything, it is the background section that should be massively trimmed, with undue focus on the history and also on 7 October only. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Which child summaries did you have in mind? Apart from the "Scale of destruction" section, none of the other sections were summaries, but instead detailed timelines, which was part of the issue. Also for example famine and healthcare collapse are child articles of humanitarian crisis, not of this article, and thus are summarised there with a brief reference here (even if could do with expanding a bit). I 100% agree that the background should be summarised, given the article is almost too big again at 14,000. Ideally it would be split off to Background to the Israel–Hamas war with only a summary of that child article here. Then at least there would be more room for child summaries in this main article. I did otherwise trim the 7 October section recently of non-summary content, but think it grew again. Resumption of hostilities should also be split and summarised here, as that's become undue. CNC (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I have thought of the exact same article title as well, so this would be a good solution. Yes, I agree, the detailed timelines are troublesome, but slightly understandable considering the ongoing nature of the war. The summaries I had in mind are the ideas now covered in the lede, namely the destruction of urban areas, schools, universities, cultural heritage, environment, etc.. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

These are child articles of "Scale of destruction", hence they are summarised there. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but these would be better referenced in that section rather than the lead imo. Excuse the lingo, but this comes back to my point about having child article summary sections here, but avoiding grandchildren summarised sections that are already summarised in their parent articles (ie this articles children). This is merely following the structure of WP:SUMMARY to be honest. CNC (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I lost track of what you were trying to say. What I am trying to say is: yes, most of the content on each child topic should be in a child article (if we have seven paragraphs on scale of destruction, they all should be there in that child article); but a paragraph at least about the scale of destruction should be kept in this main article; and then a very brief summarizing sentence/bits of that paragraph should be in lede (i.e. "one of most destructive and deadly bombing campaigns in history... + destroyed a third of Gaza's houses...). This seems like a natural flow to me. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Palestinian families

I would say this topic would deserve a standalone article as it fulfills the notability guideline of widespread coverage: Israeli killing of Palestinian families during the Israel-Hamas war. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] to name a few. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Has this article been worked on? It seems very noteworthy, for example in the first document of the Gaza Strip casualties the Gaza health ministry names 88 members of the Al-Najjar family being killed. Not to mention Israel’s systemic extermination of ismael haniye’s family and bloodline in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it has been from a quick search.. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Although you probably found them, a couple more AP articles: [11] [12]. It could fit as a sub-section of Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#Death toll, as that article isn't too big yet at 5,500 words. CNC (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant no WP articles.. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes am aware that's what you meant. My point was that it could fit into that article, as being notable as a standalone article isn't inherently a reason to have such an article, if there is an article that already exists with a broad enough scope to include it. To me, the wiping out of Palestinian families, certainly comes under the death toll of the war. CNC (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally would prefer a standalone article as this topic fulfills WP's notability guideline, namely significant coverage that discusses the topic directly and in details, alongside being discussed under the death toll of the war and the war itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's notability. I just wouldn't be surprised if other editors propose merging it into the aforementioned article, based on a context-based WP:MERGEREASON. But you do you. CNC (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I did add something in somewhere but I can't recall where. Anyway, The killing of families across generations is a key part of the genocide case against Israel, now before the International Court of Justice from the second AP source is of interest. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, wanted to add this to the ICJ case article, but thought to ask first if there is a standalone article about it already. Could be discussed here as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I remembered, here, just short, at Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war, but that really does rather understate the significance. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Scale of bombing campaign

Bold red content was inserted into the lead section by someone not me, then removed by a different person here. I am staging it in Talk to see if anyone is interested in inserting it somewhere else in the article:

After clearing militants from its territory, Israel responded by launching one of the most destructive bombing campaigns in modern history,

surpassing the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II, Chino-Catane (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of its being added to the "Scale of destruction" section, following the sentence, "The scale, extent, and pace of destruction of buildings in the Gaza Strip ranks among the most severe in modern history"? GeoffreyA (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Having removed it from the lede, I think it does indeed belong to scale of destruction section. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. GeoffreyA (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Background to the Israel-Hamas war

I agree with @CommunityNotesContributor: on the need for a new article titled Background to the Israel-Hamas war. This would help us move the late 1980s - late 2010s background there, and keep the most immediate background, around 2018 till 6 October 2023, here as a summary (of course the most immediate background would also be covered in this new article). Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the basis of making more room for child article summaries in this already large article, per previous discussion. Based on WP:SIZERULE, this shouldn't be a controversial split given the article is back to 14,000 words. CNC (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Also agree with this content being merged to other pages as suggested below by others. CNC (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

But we already have articles like Israel-Gaza conflict, History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Gaza blockade, etc. etc. Why can't we trim the background section while making sure that those articles contain the info that is now in the background section? Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

- We should not move the entire background to new page. We still need the background info on this page. Gsgdd (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a notable war whose background has been extensively discussed in RS and fulfills WP's guidelines regarding WP:notability, so it deserves its own standalone article. Also, of course we still need the background info on this page, albeit in a condensed manner that only summarizes the immediate 2018-6 October 2023 background. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

How would the background article not be a fork of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza-Israel conflict, Nakba, etc.? Perhaps what's needed is an Israeli-Hamas relations article to provide the background on the relationship between these two entities. Other than that aspect, it seems we already have background articles about Israel and Gaza. I agree though that the background in this article should be significantly trimmed. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure a pure "background" article can justify its existence. An Israeli-Hamas relations relations page would be very justified; other than that, the "background" here is just the entire rest of the conflict, as already covered by other, more general pages about the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The existence is justified by the many RS reporting on the background exclusively. Also, not entirely out of the box, there are numerous similar articles: Causes of World War I, Origins of the Six-Day War, and Rationale for the Iraq War, etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Rationale for the Iraq War" is different -- in that case, the reasons for going to war is a specific topic, given that there was a pre-war PR campaign advocating for that war; that's not just a background article, that's about a PR campaign. "Causes of World War I" I think is also not analogous because that conflict wasn't the culmination of like a larger century-long self-contained conflict like the IP conflict--it was the culmination of centuries of global geopolitical relations, but it's not like the IP conflict. "Origins of the Six-Day War," though, that one makes me think a little differently about this. I could see "Origins of" or "Causes of October 7" as a stand-alone sub-article. It seems rather obvious that the causes of or origins of Israel's attack on Gaza is the October 7 attacks, and the background for that really is the whole IP conflict. In some senses, the background for the October 7 attacks is also the whole IP conflict, but I could see a sub-article that talks about the portion of the IP conflict that specifically led to that specific attack. Such an article would go into more detail about certain aspects of IP than would be covered in the overall IP conflict article. Separate and apart from that, I can still see "Israel-Hamas relations" as a standalone (and its scope would be narrower than the IP conflict article, but broader than the "Origins of October 7" article. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Including the much understated political co-dependence of Hamas and, collectively, Netanyahu, Smotrich and their ilk, and Netanyahu's historic exhortations to parties such as Qatar to keep funding Hamas. Least appreciated critical background notes. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a subset content of the wider article which would be Origins of the Israel-Hamas war. Although obviously the immediate spark to the war were the attacks on October 7, Israel's response cannot be decontextualized from its far-right government, settlements expansion and its decades-long murderous "mowing the lawn" doctrine. This would be like creating an article about the Origins of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. Do you see a significant difference between Origins of the Israel-Hamas war vs Causes of the Israel-Hamas war? I think the latter has a clearer and narrower scope, hence I prefer that. Technically "origins" can go all the way back to the 1948-49 creation of the Gaza Strip as a geographic entity.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, so I would also support causes or background, no preference for either; although background may be less POV considering it doesn't give approval to justifications by either side. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm very unclear how the segue about Hamas' designation in various countries and the UN vote is particularly relevant background information. It seems entirely tangential to the real meat. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Hamas' adversaries labeling them as The Bad Guys isn't particularly informative. A terrorism designation is relevant insofar as it materially impacts things, and it's not clear that the designation did materially impact anything discussed in that section. There might be a place for it elsewhere in the article. Unbandito (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the background section is too bad. It is better than the background section of the Iranian Revolution, which is humongous! Wafflefrites (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So are we all in agreement over creating Background of the Israel-Hamas war? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No im opposed to the idea - the total word count approx 15000 to 15200 ( excluding infobox and references, notes etc.. )

The background should be in this article - if it is moved - less people will read it.

I will be ok to reconsider this at a later time. At this time, im opposed to this idea Gsgdd (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't propose to move it, I propose to move the bulk of it and keep the summaries here. The background is currently taking more space than the actual war, which is very unbalanced. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the takeaway from the discussion. I'm no fan of hyper-specific spin-offs: they are clutter. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you necessarily strongly opposed and can you elaborate? And regarding the similar background articles presented above? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's my take on it, going through the current Israel–Hamas war#Background section, subsection by subsection:

• The opening six paragraphs -- everything above Israel–Hamas war#Hamas motives -- seems like it's belongs at (and is probably already at) Israeli–Palestinian conflict; we shouldn't fork that article by moving this content to a new article
• Israel–Hamas war#Hamas motives belongs at Hamas or some sub-article like Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, but I don't see anything here that isn't already covered somewhere else, it's basically just background about Hamas. Like, Hamas's justifications of 7 October are no different than Hamas's justifications for anything else Hamas does.
• Israel–Hamas war#Israeli policy is the Israeli version of the Hamas motives section; we already have articles about that, like Israel, Gaza Strip, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and the many already-existing sub-articles.
• The remaining sections--Israel–Hamas war#2023 Israeli-Palestinian escalation, Israel–Hamas war#Israeli intelligence failure, and Israel–Hamas war#Israel–Saudi normalization talks--seem like they are specific enough to Israel–Hamas war to fill a spin-off article about the "background," "origin," or "causes" of the Israel–Hamas war.

So I'd support a background/origin/causes article that is very focused on the precursors leading up to this particular iteration of the conflict. Not decades of history, just the stuff in like 2023. And then I'd support, in the main Israel–Hamas war article, the entire Background section being condensed to like 3 paragraphs, with appropriate links to all these other articles. And to anyone who ends up doing this split/condensing, thank you for volunteering the time to do it :-) Levivich (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, I would support this.

However this can't be used to justify this edit as it selectively removed only the part about the recognition of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Alaexis_¿question? 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That was unrelated. I removed that because it is irrelevant trivia about Hamas, not background. I mentioned this above. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is a lot of information that is only tangentially related to the war in that section (e.g., Hamas's victory in 2006 elections). I'm okay with removing the first 6 paragraphs entirely as Levivich has suggested but if it's too radical, we can trim everything down. This particular paragraph can be summarised in one sentence "Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by most Western countries". Alaexis_¿question? 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

How is Hamas being considered blue, white, pink, orange, or anything else in the West relevant as background to this conflict? The election is rather more relevant in that it resulted in the blockade, which created the concentration camp pressure cooker scenario. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So guys there's an algorithm for deciding these sorts of things: "terrorist" should be included in this article if and only if it's a significant WP:ASPECT or WP:DUE viewpoint of the Israel–Hamas war, which we determine by looking at sources about the Israel–Hamas war and seeing if they say "terrorist." I just went to bbc.com and apnews.com and looked at whatever article is on their front page about the Israel–Hamas war (BBC, AP), and neither of them say "terrorist" in their own voice (but they both say "Hamas-run"!). This is not a thorough source analysis of course, but you get the idea. (And I just remembered, BBC was a poor choice because they don't use the word "terrorism" as a matter of policy... but you get the idea.) Levivich (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

[13] “ Hamas, or in some cases its armed wing alone, is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the US, the EU, and the UK, among others.” -BBC Wafflefrites (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I support the attempted removal of the two sentences presenting the labeling of Hamas in the Background section. Deletion improves the article. I don't see how it pertains materially to the causes of this war. Moreover, it preferences a view maintained by one of the belligerents and its supporters that collectively comprise 35 / 193 UN member states. Even the 2018 labeling initiative was supported by a minority of UN member states. It may be appropriate to include these two sentences in a related article as a "background to the background." Chino-Catane (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

motivations vs response

word motivation seems aspirational. it should be response. if you read the content - it is about the official response from hammas about why attack is done. @Unbandito@Chino-Catane I think response is more neutral Gsgdd (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't associate the phrase "Hamas motivations" with "aspirational goals", it simply expresses the notion of "reasons why". The term "response" would not be appropriate here because this article concerns itself primarily with an episode in time beginning Oct. 7, 2023. With that defined start date, it would not be correct to say that Hamas responded to anything. Hamas initiated the episode of armed conflict we are labeling "Israel-Hamas war". Chino-Catane (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

response here means a verbal or written answer. not a reaction to something. I guess words has many meaning - hard to come up with something Gsgdd (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If Hamas "motivations" sounds too "aspirational", Hamas "motives" can be considered instead. Chino-Catane (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

yes- this is the right word. generally - A motive is a reason for doing something. Motivation is having the enthusiasm to do something Gsgdd (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)