Jump to content

Talk:Gaza war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Gaza War)

Requested move 17 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Gaza war. There is strong evidence of a WP:COMMONNAME presented in the nomination statement, with analysis of various sources, and the question finds a substantial majority in favour among those participating in the discussion too which, when coupled with the evidence, gives us a consensus in favour of the move. There is also a consensus that this war is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with no need to disambiguate by adding years, and that the dab page can be moved accordingly. However, as the closer I am determining that the evidenced move based on guidelines must be to the sentence case Gaza war, not to Gaza War. All evidence in sources shown below references Gaza war as the search term, and when digging down, many many uses in those sources do not present it as a proper name. The capitalisation question wasn't discussed much in the discussion, and those who do reference it, nobody really defended the notion that it should be Gaza War, those referencing the question said it should be Gaza war rather than Gaza War. So per the stipulations of MOS:CAPS it is clear to me as the closer that the bar of "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of reliable sources" is not met. Gaza War would be a redirect to Gaza war in any event. If anyone has an issue with this, please let me know, but for now I don't think it should be controversial or hold up the move.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If supporting, please indicate whether you prefer "Gaza War" or "Gaza War (2023–present)".

  • WP:COMMONNAME: Either "Gaza war" or its variant "war in Gaza" (or both) are common among every single news source below, including Israeli sources. By contrast, "Israel-Hamas war" or its variants are no longer used at BBC and Al-Jazeera; the Guardian and Haaretz are both 10x more likely to use "Gaza war" than "Israel-Hamas war". Scholarly sources somewhat prefer "Gaza war" (even after we subtract "Israel-Gaza war" from the results). (Side note, WP:NCENPOV requires us to consider names "close enough to be considered variations of the same common name")
  • WP:CONSISTENT: most major modern wars are simply named after the main location: Vietnam War, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, Tigray War etc. Where we have two names, they are both countries: Iran-Iraq War, Russo-Ukrainian War etc. "Gaza War" is consistent with these, but "Israel-Hamas war" is not as Hamas has never been a country.
  • WP:PRECISION, both "Gaza war" and "Israel-Hamas war" have previously been used to refer to other conflicts (eg, 10,000 google hits for "2014 Israel-Hamas war"). Previously there has been consensus that this current war overshadows all previous wars to be the WP:PTOPIC (see here and here). "Gaza War (2023-present)" is more WP:PRECISE, but "Gaza War" is slightly more concise.
  • WP:NPOVN. Significant POV issues were identified with "Israel-Hamas war" in the last RM, and "Gaza War" solves that. VR (Please ping on reply) 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The move request was modified to indicate the fate of the existing Gaza War page as per this discussion.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google search of term and variants in prose, over last month, in 26 news sources: 14 favor Gaza war, 7 favor Israel-Hamas war, 5 are unclear
Domain Country Top name ("the gaza war") ("the gaza war" OR "the war in gaza") ("the israel-hamas war") ("the israel-hamas war" OR "the war between israel and hamas")
theguardian.com UK Gaza war 600 789 10 76
reuters.com UK Gaza war 212 1,100 51 168
bbc.com UK Gaza war 147 182 0 4
telegraph.co.uk UK Israel-Hamas war 1 47 69 78
haaretz.com Israel Gaza war 627 669 9 40
timesofisrael.com Israel Both 190 485 218 246
jpost.com Israel Israel-Hamas war 48 208 152 162
palestinechronicle.com Palestine Gaza war 150 174 0 0
today.lorientlejour.com Lebanon Gaza war 120 160 4 40
aljazeera.com Qatar Gaza war 42 398 0 2
france24.com France Gaza war 119 189 40 45
afp.com France Neither 0 1 1 1
dw.com Germany Israel-Hamas war 6 92 55 60
cbc.ca Canada Gaza war 50 117 49 50
smh.com.au Australia Gaza war 9 118 6 31
cnn.com USA Israel-Hamas war 5 82 86 133
wsj.com USA Gaza war 3 64 2 3
nytimes.com USA Both 116 526 210 384
apnews.com USA Israel-Hamas war 3 823 2,010 2,610
pbs.org USA Israel-Hamas war 3 180 190 157
bloomberg.com USA Gaza war 2 96 4 6
theatlantic.com USA Neither 1 6 0 0
washingtonpost.com USA Gaza war 137 217 65 78
politico.com USA Both 26 82 38 40
thehill.com USA Israel-Hamas war 3 82 49 43
npr.org USA Gaza war 238 460 79 83

See also Methodology of news table

"Gaza war" and its variants appear somewhat more frequently than "Israel-Hamas war" and its variants during title searches in Google Scholar, JSTOR and Taylor and Francis
Search query Google Scholar JSTOR Taylor & Francis
Scope Titles only Titles only Anywhere Titles only Anywhere
Gaza war variants "Gaza war" only 421 36 198 7 151
"War in Gaza" only 203 26 281 4 170
"Gaza war" or "War in Gaza" 553 50 408 11 279
(subtract) "Israel-Gaza war" 69 9 23 [1] 27
Gaza war total 484 41 395 11 252
Israel-Hamas war variants "Israel-Hamas war" only 278 26 175 8 164
"Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel and Hamas at war" or "War between Israel and Hamas" 285 27 212 8 192
Israel-Hamas war total 285 27 212 8 192

See also Methodology of scholarship table

VR (Please ping on reply) 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Strong consensus has been established in favour of the move among primary sources and secondary sources with the tables provided. Gaza War reflects the main locus of the war which has seen numerous belligerents and spillovers. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per this well-formatted nom. It's about time this gets moved. Also, will the belligerents in the infobox be changed from Hamas being against Israel to all the Palestinian factions? Abo Yemen✉ 10:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The numbers speak for themselves. At this point, leaving "Gaza" out of the title would be a glaring omission relative to sources; failing the test of neutrality; and in light of Gaza being the primary location of the war. GeoffreyA (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. During the last meaningful move in August 2024, there was a general agreement for a change away from Hamas and towards Gaza based on RS coverage, but there was disagreement on which version exactly. Half a year later, sources (RS in particular, and among scholarly references as well) have clearly converged to using Gaza as demonstrated by VR’s data analysis above in a way that is compliant with WP’s policies and guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – thanks so much for this VR, as your data demonstrates Gaza War as common name and primary topic. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, as I'd like to see how it is referred to if or after the ceasefire takes effect. edit: also, y'know, the RM two weeks priorJayCubby 13:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal does not address the issue of capitalisation of war per WP:LOWERCASE, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and a review of Google news here shows that war is not consistently capitalised - ie it should not be capped. The nom's evidence consistently refers to war in lowercase but the move is to War (uppercase) and is inconsistent in that respect. This then raises the question of capitalisation at the disambiguation page and for other page titles with the phrase Gaza War as part of the title (eg 2014 Gaza War). A search of Google scholar here also shows that the Gaza war of 2014 is not consistently capitalised in sources. As for the other articles listed in the nom's rationalisation of WP:CONSISTENT, the actual title is Tigray war. We have other titles: 1948 Palestine war, Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, Wahhabi war etc. War is not consistently capped in X war when used as a title and, while it might often be done it is likely on an assumption rather than a survey of usage in sources.
On the assertion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the first link was for an RM for Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, in which the latter was a disambiguation page (now Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (disambiguation) and there is no article except the subject article that uses the phrase Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip - ie there is no actual article for which disambiguation is require. The second link resulted in the move from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Hamas war. Again, there is no other article using Israel–Hamas war in its title for which there is an actual need for disambiguation. In each case, the ostensive justification for removing the year disambiguation is WP:OVERPRECISION. While PRIMARYTOPIC was mentioned in these discussions, it was largely done in a way that shows a [mis]understanding of the matter of issue (per WP:DISCARD). This case is not comparable because there is an actual need to disambiguate from other titles using the same base name but with disambiguation by year - eg 2014 Gaza War. WP:RECENTISM becomes a significant issue/question in respect to these other titles of the same form. In referring to these other discussions as establishing PRIMARYTOPIC they are not comparing apples with apples and a conclusion it does is non sequitur.
Vice regent, the devil is in the detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RMCD Bot has notified the affected page of this move request from the start, see Talk:Gaza War#Move discussion in progress. Kenneth Kho (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support So overdue. Look at the ultimate results of the last proper consensus towards the end in which almost everyone wanted the page title to be moved, in addition to most verifiable sources using that name. The current title is no longer the common name. Ecpiandy (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the opening paragraph says "It is the **fifth** war of the Gaza–Israel conflict since 2008" (and unfortunately there will likely be many more in the decades to come), thus it doesn't make sense to call this particular wikipedia page **The** Gaza War. Plus moving this page will also necessarily force the removal of the disambiguation page that is currently at Gaza War to instead go elsewhere, which is not right because the most natural place for it is at Gaza War. Mathmo Talk 09:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer should be aware that some opposes merely oppose the title without years and silent on the title with years. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The current title isn't perfect, but it is better than this proposed change.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Elaborate please as this sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As other people have said, the current title is more specific. "Gaza War" is rather vague. The main combatants in this war are Israel and Hamas, not the people of Gaza who undoubtedly suffered.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Since the outset, the absence of an identifier for the main geography of this conflict has been conspicuous in the title, and standard usage in RS has gradually shifted to address this, as demonstrated in the evidence presented in the RFCBEFORE discussion. This is in addition to the obvious precision issues with the current title, which actively elides over the fact that various other Palestinian groups have been involved. I am fairly neutral on the use of the date to disambiguate, since there have been other Gaza wars, but this one already looks to have eclipsed the others. So this page move could either immediately occupy the base term, displacing the disambiguation term, or it could use the date for now and leave the matter of the primary topic to a subsequent discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The sources using the term "Gaza War" for the most part are using it as "the war in Gaza". Not as if "Gaza War" is the actual name of the war. As others have stated, there have been multiple wars in Gaza, and so the current title meets the most of the criteria without requiring disambiguation, which would be required for "Gaza War". I personally suspect that sources a decade from now will likely refer to this as "Hamas War" or similar, because it distinguishes it from prior Gaza wars while making clear who the war was against. But that all said, the current sources do not support "Gaza War" being so much of a COMMONNAME to merit moving. I have issues with how the methodology is being done for the numbers in the BEFORE - for example, no context is considered. Saying "the Gaza War" is a lot different from saying "the Gaza War (meaning the war in Gaza, not naming it the Gaza War)". The distinction cannot be made through searching for the term - context is important. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PAG says, regarding common name that "Slight variations on the name, such as changes in word order, count as the same common name. For example, World War II is often called the Second World War; they are close enough to be considered variations of the same common name." Even if we exclude "war in gaza", it should be easy to see in both tables that "Gaza war" is more common than "Israel-Hamas war".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    War in Gaza and "Gaza War" are not "slight variations". They are not merely a "change[] in word order", they are a completely different meaning. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All of the wars between Israel and the Palestinians in the last 2 years have been in Gaza. News sources are calling it the Gaza War because thats where its located and its a reasonable moniker for real time updates, not because its an encyclopedic name. News sources are also calling the war in Ukraine that, rather than the Russo-Ukrainian War, which is more apt and accurate. This article is about a war between Israel and Hamas, which started when Hamas invaded Israel in 2023. It did not start as a land war over Gaza, or anything else that "Gaza war" would suggest. The current name should remain. TimeEngineer (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "News sources are calling it the Gaza War because thats where its located and its a reasonable moniker" – two good reasons to move and quite literally why it is encyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing you'd support changing the page about World War Two to be called "The War" since that's what it was called by newspapers at the time? The fact that news sources have a shorthand for a current event does not make it a proper name for Wikipedia. TimeEngineer (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because unlike in the central tenants of your point about, that doesn't contain the location and isn't a reasonable monikor. You've already provided your own answer. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not a war between Israel and Hamas; Take a quick look at the infobox to know who else is fighting 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose While the war occured in Gaza, that by itself does not describe what occured. It appears from news reports from day one that this conflict was between Isreal and Hamas. As previously mentioned by others, there have been other Gaza Wars and the current title conforms with of the criteria. Finally, this war is significant and far different than previous wars or conflicts in Gaza given its length, the amount of death and destruction that has occured on both sides. For these reasons I would strongly oppose changing the title. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – When I search news for "Gaza War", I find it referred to mostly other ways, and where it uses this phrase, war is not capped. Best to leave it until things settle down. Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially support per WP:COMMONNAME as mentioned by nom. Other names like Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel-Gaza conflict, Gaza war, or similar variations are commonly used in RS and could also be used. However, at present the title is just not commonly used. Whilst the current title is distinct it just isn't used outside of Wikipedia. Some editors have made an argument that titles with the word Gaza are a misnomer, but variations of the conflict including Gaza are used more commonly in English language sources than Hamas. That argument also seems to be borderline arguing semantics. Originalcola (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are two good reasons to make the name change. For one, RS tend to prefer using the name Israel-Gaza War and variations thereof. If Wikipedia must go along with what RS’ say then this seems to be the way to do it as it has a majority. Secondly, the war was not just between Israel and Hamas. Many other organisations part of the Palestinian-Joint Operations Room (the PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, PRC, etc…) took part in October 7th and fighting in and around Gaza. As a result, I believe it makes sense to make to make the change Genabab (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing methodology used by VR is flawed, because it doesn't use the official search functionality of many websites. This causes an issue, because Google search totals aren't accurate per WP:GYNOT.
    • The Wall Street Journal's (listed as using "Gaza war") official search shows 223 mentions of "The Israel-Hamas war"[3] versus 204 for "The Gaza war".[4], putting it in the "Both" category instead of "Gaza War"
    • Likewise, VR's Google methodology says Al-Jazeera has used "the Israel-Hamas war" 0 times, but using their official search results shows "Israel-Hamas war" being used 100 times.[5] It doesn't provide detailed breakdowns on usage, but this invalidates Google here.
    • Reuters, listed as heavily favouring Gaza war in VR's table, according to their official search used "Gaza war" 8030 times[6] versus 8958 times for "Israel-Hamas war".[7] This would put it in "both" category
    • CBC, listed as heavily favouring the term "Gaza war", only used it 289 times [8] versus 1865 for "Israel-Hamas war".[9]
    On another note, Palestine Chronicle is not a reliable source based on previous RSN discussions.[10] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded in section below.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add onto the COMMONNAME argument, here are Google Trends showing that "Israel war" is by far the most popular search term over "Gaza war" or "Israel Hamas war". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your above link shows "Gaza war" is more popular than "Israel-Hamas war". "Israel war" lumps up the results from this war, and 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon or Israel-Hezbollah conflict and 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria and October 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran and 20 July 2024 Israeli attack on Yemen etc.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Specifically, I'm not convinced "Gaza war" is the unambiguous WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the war that began in October 2023. It is undoubtedly the most significant of the Gaza wars, but I don't think "Gaza war" alone can unambiguously refer to the most recent conflict. That leads "Gaza war (2023–present)," which fails WP:CONCISE to "Israel–Hamas war." Because of this, and the fact that both names are very prevalent in reliable sources and can both be argued to be the WP:COMMONNAME — though I do concede that "Gaza war" is more common than "Israel–Hamas war," even if I disagree that "war in Gaza" is equivalent for the purposes of COMMONNAME arguments — I think the current title's slight COMMONNAME deficit does not overpower its advantages in CONCISEness and WP:PRECISION. DecafPotato (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Israel-Hamas war" = 15 chars, "Gaza war (2023–present)" = 21 chars, and eventually we'll have "Gaza war (2023–2025)" = 18 chars. 15 vs 18 characters is not a big difference. There are also NPOV concerns with "Israel-Hamas war" mentioned above.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The war is not just between Israel and Hamas. Palestinian allies as listed per the infobox partook in the October 7 attack and furthermore there has been considerable military (and financial) support behind the war effort in the support (USA, UK, Germany and others) of Israel. I would also favor "Gaza War (2023–present)" over the "Gaza War" Lf8u2 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the war has exceeded beyond the boundaries of Gaza. I don't see any point in linking the name of a region to this war. Of course, it's a war between Israel & the allies of Hamas, that's why the current name makes sense. Many names are being used for this war, most of them fell in the category of WP:COMMONNAME. Similar discussion had occurred multiple times here in the talk page, every times, the proposal was dropped. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per OP, there is mounting evidence that the COMMONNAME for this war has shifted align with Gaza War. I prefer Gaza War (2023–present) because this is not the only Gaza War and we may want to avoid recentism convincing us that it is the top choice for the title until some time has passed. The current title is clearly biased to advance the narrative of the Zionist entity which seeks to delegitimize the overwhelming support Hamas enjoys in Gaza by separating the organization as not representative of the people of Gaza when it clearly is. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The war wasn't between Israel and Gaza. It was a war between Israel and Hamas (also Hamas led allies). The current title is more suitable and factual. IJA (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the tens of thousands of civilians that Israel has killed in revenge campaigns, discriminate bombardment intended to kill civilians before being posthumously labelled “militants” by the idf, the numerous hospitals besieged and raided, and all the thousands of Palestinians kidnapped and tortured to death in Israeli camps near the border all “Hamas?” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not Hamas 🙄 they are Khamas 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the war was between Israel and Gaza or Israel and Hamas is very much up for debate (as is the involvement of other parties). Gaza War is more neutral because it describes the primary location of the war, which is undisputed, without expressing a POV on who the combatants are. ElasticSnake (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose as the current title is more descriptive. I'm not sure I'd buy the WP:COMMONNAME argument - both the AP and the NYT refer to it as the Israel-Hamas War. The only source I found that called it the Israel-Gaza War was the BBC. However, if we do rename the article, I prefer the title Gaza War (2023-present). ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's close, but I think Gaza War hits WP:COMMONNAME here (and I think the WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NPOVN issues raised by VR are salient). Yes, there has been other conflicts in Gaza, but there has also been other conflicts between Israel and Hamas, so either way the title will be slightly ambiguous. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gaza War without disambiguation, that would be way too vague. Neutral on both the current title and Gaza war (2023-present), I am fine with either. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hamas is not a country, and other wars between state and non-state actors aren't named this way (e.g. the 2006 Lebanon War, which was primarily between Israel and Hezbollah, or the Iraq War, which after May 2003 was between the US and Iraq on one side, and various insurgent groups on the other). ElasticSnake (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Important to note that this move request, as have previous ones, is being subject to mass campaigning [11]. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice_regent, probably you'd want to add "Gaza-Israel war" (3 Google scholar hits) and "Hamas-Israel war" (36 hits) to the totals in your table. Also, note that the last pages of Google Scholar results shows mostly newspapers and think tanks. For example, page 36 of allintitle:("gaza war" OR "war in gaza") has the Guardian, Haaretz, Foreign Affairs, etc. Hopefully it affects both options similarly. Alaexis¿question? 08:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call, I'll likely do that for google scholar first and its easy to do. If I get time, I'll do it for the news searches too, but its more work.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Chess's comment above. For the news source prose search I specifically limited to the last 1 month in google search options. It is true that Al-Jazeera used "the Israel-Hamas war" back in 2023, but now it seems to almost never use it; that shift is significant. Likewise, even if we use WSJ's own search engine, we get 39 hits for "the Gaza war" (and variants) vs 3 hits for "the Israel-Hamas war" (and variants). So the result that WSJ favors Gaza war would remain the same. Regarding Reuters' search, I'm not finding it to be accurate (many of the results it gives for "the Israel-Hamas war"[12] don't have that term in the prose). Regarding CBC, there is no option for either OR operator or to limit the search results to last month, but we can sort by date. So for Dec 2024 and Jan 2025, the Gaza war total is 18 (17 + 1) vs Israel-Hamas war total 12 (12 + 0). The problem here is that CBC search is an undercount as doing a google search shows more hits over the same time period (verified by clicking the link and doing ctrl+f). So while google search has its issues, I think its better than the search engine of most websites.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: I would say that's a significant limitation, because the war took place in Israel during the first part and is currently taking place in Gaza now. I'd like to see something more long-term than "here's some recent news articles from the past month". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess given that many RS have shifted away from "Israel-Hamas war" term, the best way of measuring that is by limiting results to the past month (or 2). Also, google search itself says it might get unreliable when results are >400[13], not to mention, it becomes near impossible to manually verify when results get that large; hence quoting results in the thousands becomes less meaningful. Also, even the Oct 7 attacks mostly took place inside what is known in Israel as the "Gaza envelope" so the "Gaza" terminology seems much more accurate than "Israel-Hamas".VR (Please ping on reply) 03:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: What you're proposing is, essentially, WP:RECENTISM. I would weight far less on primary sources (of which contemporaneous news articles are) and far more on secondary sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't the meaning of that guideline. The conflict as a whole is not breaking news at this stage. It is an understood thing with common terms. His methodology is simply accurately depicting where the language has shifted to long-term. Current news language usage reflects where the common terms for the conflict have shifted. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not WP:RECENTISM but WP:NAMECHANGES, which provides "extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change." Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: A good example here is the article on the Kursk offensive. Its original title, August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion, was based on the initial sources on the event. Over the next couple of months, sources shifted to use "offensive" rather than "incursion" as the conflict changed in scope. This article is similar. During and directly after October 7, sources (even very pro-Palestinian sources like Al Jazeera) predominantly used Israel–Hamas war. However, as the conflict changed from symmetric warfare in Israel to the fighting in Gaza, sources switched to using Gaza War over time. With that in mind, we should be looking at recent sources because it helps determine what exactly is more used at this moment. In the Kursk case, a move might have failed because the initial body of sources referred to it as an incursion rather than an offensive. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to the argument that this is a war between Israel and Hamas, I think if one looks deeper, it is not so simple. We've got two different categories being put on the same level: a country on one side, and a group on the other. Fair enough. However, why not call it the "IDF-Hamas war" or "Likud-Hamas war" for increased precision? (Of course, I'm not suggesting that.) There seems to be a mismatch where, on one side, the government and army are being abstracted as Israel, but on the other side, the territory's government and military wing, Hamas, is being used instead of Gaza or Palestine. This is illogical and inconsistent. There is probably a term for this fallacy but I can't remember it. What's more, Hamas was not the only group fighting. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources overwhelmingly focus on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, instead of fighting capabilities of either side. This is why Gaza War aligns with NPOV, the same goes with Napoleonic Wars as sources overwhelmingly focus on the strategy of Napoleon. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in favour of using Gaza War, which was also my preference in the last RM. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the United States be added as a belligerent to the infobox?

The infobox shows there are a 100 US troops deployed in combat in Israel. The two cited sources for the 100 number have this to say:

"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed in combat in Israel during the current crisis."[1]

"The United States is sending an advanced missile defense system to Israel, along with about 100 American troops to operate it, the Pentagon announced on Sunday."[2]

I was going to add the US as a belligerent to the infobox as a bold edit, but since this is a very contentious topic I figured I'd ask here first for thoughts/input from other editors. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since the troops -if I’m not mistaken- were sent to operate interceptors targeting Iranian missiles, which are a different conflict from the one here relating to Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the infobox, it lists 100 US troops on the side of Israel. I just think it's weird to have US troops on the side of Israel in the conflict's infobox but not have them as belligerents. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these US forces fight against Hamas in Gaza. Otherwise, one would need to include all US battleships in this area, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If those 100 troops are part of a different conflict, should they be removed from the infobox? (Or should the area warships be added?) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say they're part of a different conflict, but they aren't a belligerent in the conflict. It's possible to be involved in a conflict without being a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like WP:OR, as the cited source says US troops are deployed "in combat". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Belligerent has a very specific definition. Combat troops only operating in a supportive role are not belligerents. As another example, if the US sent medics to the border of Ukraine (or even into Ukraine) to help bolster their healthcare system (ex: due to losses of doctors who were conscripted into combat), that does not make the US a belligerent in that war. Similarly here, the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems. They are not making the ultimate decisions on how they are used. They are acting in a supporting role, not a belligerent role. I will end by saying thank you to TurboSuperA+ for recognizing this will be contentious and bringing it here rather than just making the edit - we all do better when we communicate rather than just making changes that we know will be contested :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems."
The WP:RS is quite clear that US troops are there to operate the missile defense system.
"about 100 American troops to operate it" and "The move will put American troops operating the ground-based interceptor," [nytimes]
"Components for a terminal high-altitude area defence (Thaad) missile system, alongside a crew to operate it," and "Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system" [telegraph]
Therefore the troops aren't sent there to train and maintain, but to actively "operate" the system. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Operating a missile defense system is not a belligerent. Helping an ally defend themselves from missiles while not actually engaging the enemy yourselves is the opposite of a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez "Combatants are persons who are authorized to use force in situations of armed conflict"[14] It would appear the US soldiers are authorized to use force. The only thing is that the 'enemy' they are authorized to use force against is most likely Iran or Hezbollah, not the Palestinians. This is why I suggest not conflating the Iran-Israel conflict with the war here.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html
The US troops were deployed in the context of the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict, not the Israel–Hamas war. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 05:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS say the THAAD battery was sent after the 7 October attack by Hamas, tying the deployment directly to Hamas' actions.
"The US sent a Thaad battery to the Middle East after Hamas attacked southern Israel on 7 October last year."[1] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trim Review

TRIM ENDORSED
There are no opposition to the trim as a whole, only some opposition to the specifics. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@AirshipJungleman29 performed a trim, from 14500 words (480K bytes) in 18 January 23:00 to 11000 words (350K bytes) in 19 January 04:00. I took a cursory look at all their edits for an hour, I think it is reasonably carefully done.

I picked one of their edit that removed 4.5K bytes, which I see as representative of how the trim was carried out. [15] Please explain your approval or disapproval with that edit.

Edit summary: merge paragraph to enforce WP:TOOBIG size guidelines; again, this top-level article, per WP:SS, is not the place to detail minutiae of individual attacks unless notable themselves.

Before edit: An Israeli airstrike on a UNRWA-run school-turned-shelter in Nuseirat refugee camp killed at least 18 people.[2][3][4] In September, an Israeli strike on a home in Nuseirat refugee camp killed 10 Palestinians.[5][6] An Israeli air strike on Zeitoun school in Gaza City killed at least 21 Palestinians.[7][8][9] Israel returned 88 bodies to Gaza in a container truck, providing no personal or location information where the victims had been killed. Nasser Hospital health officials refused to bury the bodies until they were identified.[10] An Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter in Jabalia killed at least 15 Palestinians.[11][12] Israeli forces bombed two houses on the Nuseirat camp, killing at least 13 people.[13][14]

After edit: An Israeli airstrike on Nuseirat refugee camp on 11 September killed at least 18 people.[15][3][16] Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

References

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20jye8v5dro
  2. ^ "Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff". BBC News. 13 September 2024. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
  3. ^ a b "Six Unrwa workers among estimated 18 killed in Israeli strike on Gaza school sheltering displaced". The Guardian. 12 September 2024. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
  4. ^ Mccready, Alastair; Rasheed, Zaheena; Marsi, Federica; Siddiqui, Usaid; Varshalomidze, Tamila; Jamal, Urooba (11 September 2024). "Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
  5. ^ Rowlands, Lyndal; Rasheed, Zaheena; Siddiqui, Usaid; Motamedi, Maziar; Najjar, Farah (16 September 2024). "The Wafa news agency is reporting that several children and women were among the 10 Palestinians killed in the Israel's attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  6. ^ Rowlands, Lyndal; Rasheed, Zaheena; Siddiqui, Usaid; Motamedi, Maziar; Najjar, Farah (16 September 2024). "At least 10 Palestinians killed and 15 wounded in another Israeli attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  7. ^ Rowlands, Lyndal; Rasheed, Zaheena; Jamal, Urooba; Siddiqui, Usaid (23 September 2024). "Most victims of Saturday's school attack were women and children: Rights group". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 23 September 2024.
  8. ^ "Israeli attack on Gaza school sheltering displaced Palestinians kills 22". Al Jazeera. 21 September 2024. Retrieved 21 September 2024.
  9. ^ "IDF says airstrike targeted Hamas command room in a Gaza school; Palestinians say 10 killed". The Times of Israel. 21 September 2024. Retrieved 21 September 2024.
  10. ^ "Israel sends unidentified bodies to Gaza as Palestinian officials demand answers". NBC News. 25 September 2024. Retrieved 28 September 2024.
  11. ^ "Death toll from Israeli airstrike on Jabalia school surges to 15". Wafa. 26 September 2024. Retrieved 26 September 2024.
  12. ^ Mohamed, Edna (26 September 2024). "Israel's military confirms attack on Jabalia school". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 26 September 2024.
  13. ^ Mccready, Alastair; Jamal, Urooba; Mohamed, Edna; Siddiqui, Usaid; Varshalomidze, Tamila; Najjar, Farah (30 September 2024). "At least 11 killed in Israeli attack on central Gaza". Al Jazeera.
  14. ^ Mccready, Alastair (1 October 2024). "Death toll rises following Israeli attack in central Gaza". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
  15. ^ "Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff". BBC News. 13 September 2024. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
  16. ^ Mccready, Alastair; Rasheed, Zaheena; Marsi, Federica; Siddiqui, Usaid; Varshalomidze, Tamila; Jamal, Urooba (11 September 2024). "Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
As noted in the edit summary, this trim was done to enforce WP:TOOBIG size guidelines per WP:Summary Style. As this topic has a huge number of child articles, I chose to retain only mentions of events that have dedicated child articles of their own, showing their comparative notability, or when they were directly relevant to high-level topics. In the case of the above paragraph, the September 2024 Al-Jawni School attack is the only incident, as far as I am aware, to have its own article, and thus mention of it was retained in this top-level article. The article-wide trim has received positive review from users CommunityNotesContributor and Pachu Kannan on my talk page; further comments or constructive criticism are of course welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a good trim. I count 165 victims of Israeli attacks in the top paragraph. That number has been reduced to "at least 18". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. The number hasn't been reduced to "at least 18", that's a complete misrepresentation of the content. The summary of the child article remains "at least 18". It bares no reflection on the remainder of September's undue details. If you want to summarise that there were 165 victims in September, then go ahead, create a note with your calculations using the references provided. However, given it's been months and nobody bothered to do this, despite issues with the page size for months, and a maintenance template to boot, these overly specific details were better off removed entirely to uphold WP:SUMMARY style guidelines. Apart from the reference to the child article, none of the other details are relevant to the summary of the child article in question, this is why there is an entire article dedicated to the specifics, that includes a detailed breakdown of September 2024. Expecting editors to be making over-complicated summaries due to the laziness of others is completely unreasonable. The issue is that the paragraph breached editing guidelines that are not negotiable, if editors want to add summaries they are more than welcome. Thanks. CNC (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone watching, I styled this review to solicit approval or disapproval on the general methodology used to trim, but of course feel free to comment on anything related to the trim. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse trim per comments above. TLDR is that it is not the responsibility of the editor trimming content to child article summaries to summarise every single detail included when upholding said guidelines, that are not negotiable. It is instead the responsibility of editors contributing content to adhere to editing guidelines, failure to do so and others should act accordingly. IAR does not apply here. CNC (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a first glance, this is a good faith effort to improve the page. But the lead is missing the stated goals by Israel for the war, i.e. to destroy Hamas and return their hostages. They apparently failed to accomplish their first goal (the Hamas remains in charge in Gaza) and are partially completing their second goal right now. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is there. I missed it. The lead is written in a such manner that an occasional reader (who does not edit this page) would immediately focus on the alleged atrocities committed by Israeli forces, rather than anything else. One of tricks here: we do not know how many Palestinians were actually combatants, and of course a lot of civilians will be killed during any urban warfare. But the presentation implies that the Israeli forces were targeting civilians just as much (or a lot more) as Hamas when it was killing their people during the October 7. This is because the lead dedicate a lot more space to the Israeli "atrocities". The Israel is looking 1000 times worse than the terrorists from Hamas. This is not true, but a reader will definitely get such impression after reading the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, the lead will use more space to describe the Gaza war, which occupied about 470 days, and indeed, more used to be said about the events of Oct. 7, 2023, but was trimmed in the recent summarising. As for the Palestinians that were killed, it is already known that a lot more than half were women and children, and therefore civilians, and surely, all the remaining men of that number couldn't have been fighters. To a large extent, the Gaza Strip has been reduced to WW2-style rubble, so the army that did this destruction, along with the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, intentional or not, will certainly have image problems at this point. GeoffreyA (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't about making one side or the other look worse, we go by what WP:RS say. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hannibal directive in the lead

I'm not seeing what's WP:FRINGE about the material removed in this edit; the sourcing looks high-quality at a glance. If there are other sources that contradict them, present them and we can discuss how to resolve the discrepancy, but unless there's a significant difference in weight and reliability we don't usually resolve those discrepancies via complete omission. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lisa got their revert rationale wrong, but Airship got their revert rationale right, essentially the sentence as written is improper, see here [16]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it should be reworded. Alaexis¿question? 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think after the end of the "On 7 October 2023" sentence, a brief sentence on Hannibal directive can be created. It can't be in the same sentence with the "On 7 October 2023" sentence because we don't have the numbers. But it merits its own sentence as high ranking Israeli witnesses in ABC article said it was a "mass Hannibal". Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being the author who added it to the lead, I wanna make clear why I worded it that way:

  1. On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 815 civilians, and taking 251 captive. implies they all got killed by Hamas, completely ignoring the factual Hannibal Directive;
  2. On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive. Israel responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 815 civilians. or On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive. Israel responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive, resulting in the death of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 815 civilians. would have both implied they all got killed by Israel because of the Hannibal Directive;
  3. On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive, against which Israelis responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive,[1][2][3] resulting in the death of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, among which 815 civilians. doesn't imply they got all killed by Israel (as someone falsely said) nor Hamas, as both parties concurred in the massacre. That's why I'm going to restore this version as long as you can't find a better one. There's no way we're omitting the Hannibal Directive and incorreclty implying Hamas killed them all without any proof besides Israeli reports.

As a side note, I want it to be known that right now I'm also reporting to the Noticeboard that right after that addition I got stalked and harassed on my user talk page by an extremist Zionist user, who even tracked my real name and posted it on X for his extremist Zionist friends to threaten me. (I provided links too). Telling this here too just to let them know I'm not afraid of them; we contributors are not afraid of them; we will keep choosing truth over their lies and threats. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the phrasing. It's ambiguous whether "resulting in the deaths" refers to the parenthetical Hannibal Directive or the clauses preceding that. Being so close, "resulting" seems to refer to the HD clause. In my opinion, that's the natural way of reading it. If the HD clause should be included, it would be better to break off the trailing part with a semicolon and a noun (the attack, etc.). GeoffreyA (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoffreyA: the attack would blame it only on the attacker, implying they were all killed by Hamas, without victims caused by Israel. I would suggest the clash, the battle or something like that, as both parties concurred. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About 14 deaths were due to the directive, as far as I'm aware. The reading must reflect the maths, rather than placing all on a equal footing, implying 50-50. Also, Aquillion raises another point below. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least 14. Other sources say it is "mass Hannibal" [17]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrm. We do need to be cautious to avoid WP:SYNTH, but I have a bigger problem now that I look more closely. There are two groups of sources here (one for the Hannibal directive, and ones at the end of the sentence.) The sources at the end of the sentence, as far as I can tell, not only don't mention the Hannibal Directive, they also don't mention death totals. What are they being used for? Where is that number from? In the article it's cited to Human Rights Watch, which only says Agence France-Presse cross-referenced numerous data sources to determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians. The AFP number is also mentioned in [18] as The war started with Hamas's October 7 attack on southern Israel that resulted in the deaths of 1,195 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli figures. Note that both of these use slightly more passive voice than the old version (we previously said that they were killed by Hamas; whereas AFP more cautiously says that the attack resulted in the deaths) - it's the sort of wording that people sometimes find frustrating but it probably reflects genuine uncertainty surrounding the fog of war, so we should likely reflect that language and say that the deaths resulted from the attack. The Hannibal Directive stuff would have to be broken off into a separate sentence or somesuch because we don't have a source directly connecting it to the death total or indicating how many deaths (if any) it was responsible for. --Aquillion (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, there was some debate on this point a couple of months ago. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The version you chose to reinstate in an article viewed once every three seconds included four basic grammar mistakes—did you not bother to read it over once? You are right that it doesn't imply the deaths were because of Israel—that is because there is no implication, it is merely what the text naturally says, according to the rules of English grammar. It is not even a case of an uncertain antecedent. I have corrected these issues and applied what was discussed above concerning breaking up the sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Well, I did not find any grammar mistakes, but I'm glad you speak English better than a foreigner and you felt so proud to announce it instead of just correcting it. Thanks for correcting it tho (despite your basic punctuation mistake around refs). I started something useful, at least. Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has a bee in their bonnet... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Yaniv, Kubovich (7 July 2024). "IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 9 July 2024.
  2. ^ "Israel accused of killing its own civilians under the 'Hannibal Directive' to avoid them being taken hostage". ABC News. 6 September 2024. Archived from the original on 9 September 2024. Retrieved 8 September 2024.
  3. ^ "Why did Israel deploy Hannibal Directive, allowing killing of own citizens?". Al Jazeera. 9 July 2024. Retrieved 21 January 2025. It allows the Israeli military to use any force necessary to prevent Israeli soldiers from being captured and taken into enemy territory [...]. Some officers [...] understand the order to mean that soldiers ought to deliberately kill their comrade in order to stop him from being taken prisoner [...]. However, the orders failed to distinguish between soldiers being captured and civilians.

Scope of article

The lead of the article would state: An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups has been taking place in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the fifth war of the Gaza–Israel conflict since 2008, and the most significant military engagement in the region since the Yom Kippur War in 1973. This would clearly define the scope of the war (the article) to be within Gaza and without (eg within Israel) as directly related to Palastinian Gazans and Israelis.

The article has a section Other confrontations - ie these confrontations are related (somehow) but fall outside the scope of the article. They are primarily about other Islamic groups engaging Israel, sometimes purporting sympathy for the Gazan Palestinians but also because of ongoing hostilities with Israel. These are covered in Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). The sectioning and title indicate these are quite peripheral to the scope of this article. I am not suggesting content under Other confrontations should be removed from the article but in line with the scope defined in the lead, content should reflect that these events are peripheral.

What does this mean? Firstly, subsections under Other confrontations should be confined to a high-level summary with limited detail, where appropriate detail is given in related articles. This has occurred to some extent but there is scope for further improvement. Secondly, this relates to the infobox and the drop-down Allies in other theaters. Simply put, if they are not a belligerent in this war (as defined by the cope of the article) they don't belong in the infobox. Thirdly (and similarly) for Palestinian allies. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the previous discussion that I recently closed, which I assume you have seen here, I completely agree with your assessment. I've expressed this elsewhere, so to say it in the right place, the Iran section is highly problematic; there is only one sentence in relation to Hamas (the assassination), while the rest has no relevant context to the subject and scope. This should be cleaned up given the consensus, ie complete the merge to MEC article, ideally by a competent editor who is familiar this this article and the other, leaving only a summary of the child article in it's place per editing guidelines, similar to nearly every other section here. The Iran conflict is also already summarised as a child in MEC, so there is no need to do so here, only a sentence or two with wikilink is required. The other issue is the lead of MEC is of poor quality, as it fails to summarise the body and main child articles with an undue focus on Israel–Hamas at present, so a summary would realistically need to be written from scratch, ideally with additional context to the subject (that's the main obstacle here imo). If there were a decent lead summary over there, it would be relatively straightforward otherwise. As for the American involvement section, this just seems misplaced as it is directly about the Israel–Hamas war, not other confrontations, so would be better moved elsewhere. CNC (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an update have expanded the Other confrontations section with summary from child article,[21] and reduced Iran section to the notable events for MEC child summary.[22] This summary could no doubt do with improvement and further expansion, but for now I think it's good enough and covers the main points as intended. Will double check if there is nothing missing in 2024 Iran–Israel conflict that was removed here, though is highly unlikely, unless there is updated information to add (based on maintenance template there). For anyone here from Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) after the notification to talkpage, this is the version to use to cross-reference with your child article summary if needed, but looks like you've got a pretty solid summary there already. Think I'm done here. CNC (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's done here, this is all consistent with prior consensus. On the American involvement, I treated it as part of Biden's stated "red line" diplomatic strategy. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave this topic open for a bit longer for others to comment or critique. Your close of #Trim Review was arguably premature as well as unnecessary. It's best to wait a week for discussion to die down. CNC (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox talk page

Generally the infobox should not be a separate sub-article but if it is, all discussions about the article (including the infobox) should be centralised - ie at the article TP here. This is done by making the template TP a redirect to this page as done for Template:Syrian civil war infobox and Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. There is presently an RfC occurring at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox that makes actioning this problematic at this immediate point; however, I would be proposing to implement this once the RfC has been closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

As opening paragraph should be kept objective and factual, comparisons to historical events are subjective, as the Hamas attack has also been compared to 9/11 and even Pearl Harbor, so I introduced a middle ground solution of "deadliest day for Israel." Note that this addition was discussed multiple times on talk page before, and was removed a long time ago until it was recently reinstated.

As for war crimes, "accusations" is not an appropriate term, because it implies they are unsubstantiated, which is untrue, as HRW, a RS, has found that both sides have committed/amounting to war crimes. [23] [24] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would make it easier if you linked the diffs that you are opposing and proposing.
On the first point: What you want to remove is deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust? That is a phrase that is extremely common in the reporting.[25][26][27][28][29][30]
Deadliest day for Israel is also fairly common, but less so.[31][32] If we do go for that, though, maybe we should add a citation, as currently the citation is about the war being the deadliest for Palestinians since the Nakba.
This edit doesn't seem like an improvement to me as it means the first day was the deadliest of the war for Israelis, whereas the point being made was that it was the deadliest in Israel's history.
On the second point: I tend to think "characterised" is better than "accused" or "claimed" from an NPOV perspective. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be in the body, in the lede it won't be a major point since there are other comparisons, and in the opening paragraph in particular it doesn't belong there since it is subjective. As for the second point, I don't mind changing to "in Israel's history." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"characterised" is a good term here, to avoid MOS:ACCUSED or MOS:CLAIM. CNC (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Start of second lede paragraph

Sure, the 2023 Hamas attack was the abstract starting point to the war, but it was not for the Gaza conflict. Second lede paragraph should summarize some of the points mentioned in the background section, such as how this war gradually developed from the four wars and the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests that had preceded it. True that this is briefly mentioned in the opening paragraph, but there should be at least a sentence elaborating on this background in the second lede paragraph before it mentions the Hamas attack. Not sure how this was summarized in RS so open to proposals. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shortest I could come up with at present, adding a little bit of context:
"After Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip and Israel imposed a blockade on it in 2007, Israel, Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups have engaged in conflict. On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 815 civilians, and taking 251 captive." GeoffreyA (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who needs to hear this, but if you're linking to a live page, a live blog, an update page, such as Al Jazeera's live update page, e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/ or https://www.bbc.com/live YOU NEED TO ARCHIVE THE LINK!

What happens after a while is that the page gets closed/moved/archived and the link dies. You're doing yourself a disservice and your edit is liable to be removed, WP:VERIFIABILITY.

Use https://www.archive.is, https://www.archive.ph, https://www.archive.md and add the title of the article to the citation.

I just fixed two links that I came across by accident. I shudder to think how many dead links litter the article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also link to the specific post without needing to archive usually. However all these WP:NEWSBLOG sources should be replaced with more reliable static articles anyway. I noticed a few while trimming and wasn't impressed. CNC (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone here please review pending edit requests

Would some of the regulars here please periodically reivew WP:RFED about this article and do what is needed to close them? The requests appear to be well-formed and well-reasoned, and should have been on this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed all three, if anybody want to act upon my finding at #Fifth edit request from WP:RFED, feel free to do so. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding quickly. Sometimes those edit requests on RFED hang around for days. Once in a while one comes along that is simple and obvious, but usually I'm not familiar enough with this and related subject to be comfortable answering them. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth edit request from WP:RFED

Currently, the lede states "On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive, against which Israelis responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive, resulting in the death of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, among which 815 civilians.". This implies that the majority of the casualties were caused by Israel applying the Hannibal Directive, and despite some cases of casualties due to this, no credible source has made the claim that the majority of casualties originate from it. I suggest changing the lede back to what it was before it was randomly edited to the current lede without any discussion on the talk page about it, to "On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals and taking 251 captive." Aradkipod (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done 40 minutes after the edit request [33]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth edit request from WP:RFED

In the section labeled "Initial Israeli counter-operation (October 2023)" it states the following: "A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the Hannibal Directive to be used, killing many Israeli civilians and soldiers.[181][182] An ABC News (Australia) investigation reported that at least 13 civilians were killed in a 'Hannibal' incident in Beeri."

These sentences are incorrect and not supported by the sourced references. First off, the word "many" in the first sentence is gratuitous, misleading, and, perhaps most importantly, not supported by the Haaretz article it references, which never concludes that any citizens were killed as a direct result of a so-called "Hannibal" directive. Nowhere in the article does it state that the Hannibal directive can be tied to *any* deaths, let alone "many" deaths. Any reference in the article to potential deaths caused by a Hannibal directive are stated as questions, or that investigations are forthcoming. (e.g., "Haaretz does not know whether or how many civilians and soldiers were hit due to these procedures, but the cumulative data indicates that many of the kidnapped people were at risk, exposed to Israeli gunfire, even if they were not the target.") Either way, it certainly does not conclude that "many" deaths were tied to the use of the "Hannibal directive" which is highly misleading.

Similarly, as to the second sentence, the ABC News (Australia) does not conclude that " at least 13 civilians were killed in a 'Hannibal' incident in Beeri". It discusses a tank shooting at a house in Kibbutz Berri , but never states that there is evidence that the IDF tank fire resulted in the death of 13 civilians -- as opposed to the 40 Hamas gunmen who were holding them captive and engaged in a "firefight" with the IDF at the time of the tank fire. The 40 Hamas gunmen could just as easily have killed them as opposed to tank fire. Indeed, an eyewitness stated "Mr Shifroni's aunt Ayala and her grand-niece Liel and grand-nephew Yanai were all killed at Pessi's house — he believes by terrorists", not by the IDF and ""There are a few others that we still don't know and we may never know what exactly killed them." Later on in the article, it states "The team determined that most of the hostages were likely murdered by the terrorists, and further inquiries and reviews of additional findings are necessary.".

I propose that the sentences be re-worded as follows: "A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the Hannibal Directive to be used at three locations, putting the lives of some Israeli civilians being held by Hamas at those locations at risk.[181][182]. An ABC News (Australia) investigation reported that after a prolonged firefight in Kibbutz Be'eri with around 40 Hamas gunmen who had been holding 15 hostages inside and outside, 13 of the hostages may have been killed by either the Hamas captors or IDF tank fire." Apndrew (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done 4 hours 37 minutes after the edit request, UN report which substantiates both claims were added [34], although I am unable to open the paywalled Haaretz article and not think ABC article is the correct reference for this. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth edit request from WP:RFED

Since I cannot reply to my original request on this, I am starting a new request with a different source for the request and a revised sentence:

In the fourth paragraph of the entry, it states."A case accusing Israel of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,...."

This should be changed to "Cases accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing genocide have been lodged with or are being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,..."

This change is supported by multiple references: https://www.timesofisrael.com/9-bereaved-israeli-families-bring-icc-war-crime-genocide-complaint-against-hamas/ "The families of nine Israeli victims of the October 7 Hamas massacre have lodged a complaint at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for suspected war crimes." https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231103-israeli-families-bring-war-crime-complaint-to-icc-lawyer

The change is necessary for accuracy, balance, and neutral point of view. Apndrew (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This sentence is about International Court of Justice (ICJ), not International Criminal Court (ICC). Only Israel is respondent before ICJ, as it is a UN member state. ICC indictments are a separate matter where both sides have received it. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"destructive bombing campaign" redundancy

Is not "destructive bombing campaign", which appears in the lede, redundant? I can't think of a case where bombing is anything other than destructive. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. I think the intention was to show the scale and degree of the bombing, which was set down more explicitly in the previous version ("the most destructive bombing campaign in modern history," if I remember correctly). GeoffreyA (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas combat photos and videos

I hope this is the correct place to ask. Photos and screenshots from Hamas videos often show close quarters combat and tense strategies (like running up to tanks and getting very close to them), and definitely have a place on this and similar articles to show the ground situation and battles. How would I go about the copyright and what license would I need to upload their combat photos? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about uploading their videos on wikipedia but I think that the only way for us to do that is to contact them and tell them to upload the videos on commons or let them go thru the c:COM:VRT 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It'll depend on a case by case basis, but I wouldn't hold your breath for it being possible. Copyright lies with the video author, meaning in most cases it's the (possibly dead or incarcerated) cameraman who has the rights to the video and is thus generally the only one who can license it for use. Often these videos are reshared and used without attribution or permission by unscrupulous media sources; or they're used under non-free licenses or conditions that may be difficult or impossible to justify here. Would strongly suggest reviewing WP:NFCC for guidance on when that might be possible. But generally speaking, it's going to be extremely difficult to get free licenses for this footage. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about CCTV footage of battles uploaded by Hamas? Would that be considered possible? It has the added benefit of showing aftermath, such as recently the CCTV footage of the eviscerated tank in Beit Hanoun The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CCTV videos are public domain btw just use {{PD-CCTV}} when uploading the videos 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that, hopefully the files stay up. Thank you for the tip
hopefully something will be figured out for the GoPro or third person shoots of combat footage, there are many good shots and “intimidating” photos (like militants staring down tanks), fit for this and other articles The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names in lead

Before the current RM closed with consensus for "Gaza war," the article didn't have any bolded name in the lead. Since it does now, should we add the alternate names as well? Something like this:

The Gaza war, also called the Israel–Hamas war or Israel–Gaza war, is an armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups which has been taking place in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023.

There's a lot of other names but Israel–Hamas and Israel–Gaza wars are the ones common enough to include in the lead. Other options include putting alternate names at the end of the lead's first paragraph, at the end of the lead itself, not including them at all, or not including any bolded names in the lead. DecafPotato (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kenneth Kho, who added the name to the lead. DecafPotato (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of "The Gaza war, also called the Israel–Hamas war or Israel–Gaza war, " per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, the two additions are sufficiently significant and NPOV, and consistent with our previous articles such as Gaza War (2008–2009). Contrary to comments below, I think this one is sufficiently supported by policy and precedent. I am also against removing the title or titles from the lead, they sufficiently work to orient the readers for me. It is also quite interesting to see the various names if someone in the future were to encounter this topic for the first time. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my BRD edit. [35] Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "called" to "known as" in the edit immediately after that. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've gone full circle back to my original edit then. Based on DecafPotato's rationale below (BOLDALTNAMES and LEADALT), I'm inclined to think this makes the most sense again. I will however reiterate that Israel–Gaza war shouldn't technically be in bold yet as is not an incoming redirect. But I think we should let this slide for now given there is currently consensus for retargeting to this topic, so opposition/removal would imo would now be wikilawyering. I'm mainly just referencing this here (again) incase another editor recognises this and removes it in good faith, without realising why it's been included already, hence adding the discuss inline template to this section as well until the redirect is re-targeted. CNC (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per WP:BOLDFACE, as it's standard MOS. Have added with "also known as", given BRD applies. CNC (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had to remove Israel–Gaza war as is not BOLDFACE. Have raised discussion at RFD. CNC (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before this revert, I had the various names presented in a footnote with a link to the names section. إيان (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With boldface per boldface I think this note is better, am restoring now per 1RR. CNC (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of doing them per WP:DUE; secondary sources have practically zero mention of "Swords of Iron War" and "Battle of al-Aqsa Flood" (which I think should) be included in a note and so it feels weird to place them on the same level of Israel–Hamas war and Israel–Gaza war, which are both very widely used. "Gaza war" as a name is very much derived from the modern Western convention of "Place war," and other examples of this with prominent alternate names (see Iraq War) do put that alternate name in the lead itself. DecafPotato (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm backing out of this discussion now as I don't believe it's worthwhile to argue whether to include one description, or two, or a handful to the lead, or as a note. I'm not really bothered basically. I understand your argument, especially given there has been a recent page move as well as more notable titles than others. But I also understand the counter argument that there is a subsection for names, and keeping the lead concise has value. CNC (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine there is an application of MOS:REDUNDANCY here: "...Gaza war is an armed conflict..." is certainly redundant. Additionally, before the name change it was argued that Israel–Hamas war was a descriptive title, which MOS:FIRST tells us does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. One could argue the same for Gaza war, which is not necessarily an official or established proper name of the conflict. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue "Gaza war" is also a descriptive title, and so I'd be fine just removing a name from the infobox altogether and return to the status quo for the lead before the undiscussed addition of "Gaza war" post-RM, which would also sidestep the messy MOS issue outlined by SwatJester and CNC below. DecafPotato (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition to status quo, it's a good fall back option until consensus is established. CNC (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is an example of an area where we need to update our MOS with explicit guidance for scenarios when there are a wider variety of alternative names but not all of those are of equal prominence, AND for when this happens in a "names" section that is not part of the lead sentence of the article. We may actually have MOS guidelines that cover this, but after 30 minutes of trying to parse it across several different sections of multiple MOS pages, I couldn't tell you for certain if that's the case and I don't think anyone else can with certainty either. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh probably, as to me there are two clear examples of common names; the current title and the previous title, noting that others weren't included per status quo. It's not really clear whether we should include the previous title that was used, or just create a note to bundle it with others. Hopefully you can see why I'm not willing to argue about this, as there is effectively no policy or guidelines that I'm aware to determine the specifics as what is due for inclusion or not... and I don't want to argue based on thin air. CNC (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLDALTNAMES and WP:LEADALT both use the standard of "significant alternative names" which I think is the best we have in terms of direct MOS guidance. DecafPotato (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:LEADCLUTTER covers adding too many alt name. The most common alts are various "descriptive" names - who is involved or where. Adding them to a note is one way of dealing with this but is redundant where there is a section in the TOC on names. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE touches on this indirectly. The bolding of alt names from redirects is for the lead (see MOS:BOLD) to conform to the principle of least astonishment when the article (the target) is significantly different from the redirect. However, none of these names (the ones bolded) would be a surprise upon reading the first sentence. Per MOS:CAPS, some of the names in bold are capped but these are not consistenly capped in sources (eg war in Gaza) In short, delete the footnote, remove the bolding of names in the name section and remove unnecessary uppercase. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
For my part, I think that "War of Iron Swords" and "Battle of al-Aqsa Flood" should not be included in the lead, either in text or in a note, but are at home in the Names section. They are obscure terms used, to varying degrees, by the parties themselves and not the international community. If alternatives must needs be used, either in text or in a note, it seems straightforward to stick to the common ones in the media---Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Gaza war, etc. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence (or in a footnote to avoid clutter), it is standard to provide how the relevant parties refer to the matter themselves, in their own languages. Perfectly appropriate in the footnote. Nothing should be in bold though, except for the article title. إيان (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I would accept it in a note so as not to clutter the lead. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان: It's standard practice to bold significant alternate names if they appear in the lead. See WP:BOLDALTNAMES, also linked above. DecafPotato (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not for footnotes. إيان (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel arresting about the number it releases

Al Jazeera has this story Israel arrests almost as many Palestinians as it has released during truce, it doesn't sound like there will be any great change in the number in jail. Is this sort of thing relevant to the war and ceasefire? NadVolum (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move pages, templates, and categories related this page per this page move? --Family27390 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should to prevent confusion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the WP:CONSISTENT approach, but not sure how it should be best handled. Practically speaking a multi-page RM with all the child articles (dozens of them), but I can also see how this could fail. For example topics based on past events 2023/2024, prior to the newly established consensus, could arguably still be more accurate at their current titles per COMMONNAME. However, all those based in the present (Outline, Timeline, etc) shouldn't be an issue. It might be worth requesting in batches to avoid opposition based on certain past events that could be considered more accurate at current title still. Like for example 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire could trip up a multi-page RM, as arguably the title remains the commonname, even if I wouldn't say so myself. I'll create a list of these articles below though to move things forward. Ideally it would all just go to WP:RMTR without being contested, but seems unlikely that would work. Maybe those where the new title isn't a redirect could be boldly moved to test the water here. Ideally there's a precedent for these sort of cases already? CNC (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles

List of "Israel–Hamas war" titled articles from Template:Israel–Hamas war.

 Not done

Active RM
 Done list of moved articles. Might be worth cross-referencing with body for see also section. CNC (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked update prose, hatnotes, wikilinks, and defaultsort; fix archiving, move editnotices, update sidebars and navboxes.

information Note: Please feel free to update, correct, re-organise, or copy this list for the intended purpose of page moves. If anyone could add the targets it'd be appreciated (→ Timeline of the Gaza war). This could help with some bold moving. Likewise with articles moved please put under done list. CNC (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added targets @CommunityNotesContributor. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch! I hadn't noticed bold moves have already been occurring and sticking, so with lack of opposition here or elsewhere, I'm gonna start moving these. I'll reference this topic so someone can shout at me if they are turning at RMTR for reversion. Once that's done, and if there isn't an issue, I think the rest can go through RMTR (or be moved at the discretion of a page mover). Hopefully the templates and categories can follow suit thereafter without controversy then. That's my plan anyway. CNC (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CommunityNotesContributor: and thanks for overseeing this process... For the categories, i.e. Category:Israel–Hamas war and subcategories, we'll need to list them as a speedy move request, since we can't just move categories directly, there's a process around it. Please see WP:CFDS. You'll probably want to do this sooner rather than later, as there's a wait period around it in case there are objections to the renaming. I can look at this myself later today if you don't get to it first, but you may wish to do it now.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info, as well as moving the timeline articles. I was only going to take on articles, as last time I tried to speedy move categories I made a mess of it. So if you'd be willing to take this challenge on it's be much appreciated :) CNC (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Templates now moved, just the categories left to go. CNC (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the categories for speedy deletion renaming just now - [36] - fingers crossed I did it correctly. There will be a 48-hour hold period in case there are objections, then it should go ahead by a bot.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to refer to it as speedy renaming instead of deletion @Amakuru, as that's the purpose of that board. Had me concerned you were just deleting them until I clicked on the link lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, apologies that was just a snafu on my part. I'm so used to saying "speedy deletion" that I forgot this was something else! tHANKS.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_war&oldid=1272876465"