Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47

Requested move 29 May 2024

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: no consensus. The two camps are in roughly equal numbers: support and opposition number about 25, give or take a few. The burden, then, rests on supporters to make a strong argument to tip the discussion towards consensus in favor of the move.

In this case, supporters fail to meet their burden. The proposer provided evidence on consistency. But WP:COMMONNAME is still the dominant criteria for titles and departure from it requires strong evidence/argument. The commonname quantitative evidence on the proposed new title is weak. There is definitely no consensus to remove Israel from the title currently, given its commonname frequency in reliable sources referring to this war. Even many/most wanting a move, advocate having Israel in the title e.g. "Israel–Gaza war".

There is no consensus on moving to the proposed title. An alternate suggestion of "Israel–Gaza war" or similar was suggested many times, and been tried before. It may, or may not, be a successful alternative if proposed again. For now, the title remains as is. (non-admin closure) Tom B (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War (2023–present) – The previous discussion has concluded that WP:COMMONNAME does not stand as other names are also in common use. In such case, WP:COMMONNAME states that When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. I believe the proposed title is better in consistency; previous wars involving Gaza, Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War, use Gaza War in the title, so this article should also follow suit. NasssaNser 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment - Changing proposed title from 2023 Gaza War. NasssaNser 14:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    Fully support the new proposed title, now that it does not incorrectly imply that the war ended in 2023. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Those other wars took place almost entirely in Gaza, aside from rocket strikes. This war saw considerable fighting taking place within Israel; it isn't sufficiently similar for WP:CONSISTENCY to apply, and it would be an WP:NPOV violation to not include that aspect in the title. The proposed title also fails WP:PRECISE, as disambiguating with "2023" is inaccurate; the war continues to be fought in 2024.
In addition, the current title remains the WP:COMMONNAME; in the past 24 hours there have been over 300 news articles using "Israel-Hamas war" (Google limits results to 300, so it is not possible to get an exact figure), compared to 124 news articles using "Gaza war". BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current title although not perfect has some consensus and is pretty good for the time being.
Waleed (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title is generally accurate, and as the fighting is not contained to Gaza, it would be improper to exclude that part from the title. Considering it's both the public and legal justification for the continuation of the conflict, it should be appropriately reflected in the title, preferably by naming both main parties as it does now. Secondarily, there is also @BilledMammals argument regarding the frequency of use.
FortunateSons (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Neither of those are Hamas? nableezy - 13:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Yet events in the West Bank and Lebanon are included in all timelines. Plus there are Hamas cells that claim responsibility there. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hamas is claiming responsibility for Israeli attacks on the West Bank? Hwhat? nableezy - 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Not all the attacks. Have you tried checking the timelines? Borgenland (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hamas is taking responsibility for Israel attacks anywhere? Source please. nableezy - 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could tone down your sarcasm. I have had enough of being fired upon by people from both sides and your mocking response to my sincere and civil replies raises doubts as to whether you are worth working with in this encyclopedia.
Borgenland (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, Hamas isn’t taking responsibility for any Israeli strikes. If you don’t get how absurd that statement is I can’t help you. Those are Israeli attacks, not Hamas ones. Sheesh. nableezy - 13:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
To recap, I opposed a change because there have been attacks linked and sometimes claimed by Hamas outside Gaza. Yet for some reason you misinterpreted my statement as saying that Hamas claimed responsibility for Israeli attacks elsewhere. Yet even when the headlines to some of these links read Hamas Fires Rockets Into Israel from Lebanon or a stabbing/ramming attack you chose to claim it as an Israeli attack. My only mistake was that I didn’t immediately realize that you were moving goalposts because I was exasperated with your tone. If you also don’t get how your absurd your line of questioning has led to then I also cannot help you. Good day. Borgenland (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No, the recap is my very first question to you was "Hamas is claiming responsibility for Israeli attacks on the West Bank", showing the absurdity of saying that this is only a war between Israel and Hamas when Israel is attacking non-Hamas targets in the West Bank, with drones and fighter jets. This has been utterly pointless, so I’ll take my leave from this thread now. nableezy - 13:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
You're not really engaging with the thrust of the point. Your objection to the proposed title is that it fails to capture the hostilities outside of Gaza (in for instance southern Lebanon). But this objection would equally apply to the current title which fails to capture hostilities not involving Hamas. In particular, the current title also fails to capture hostilities in southern Lebanon (since the belligerent there is Hezbollah, not Hamas). Your comments are also a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. JDiala (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
New suggestion to change name into Israel-Gaza War considering this is currently used by Al Jazeera, The Guardian, BBC, UNRWA, Haaretz, Sky News, Committee to Protect Journalists, France24, to cite a few examples. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Even looking only at the sources you present in support of your proposal three prefer "Israel-Hamas war"; Haaretz, Sky News, and France24 - to the extent that France24 hasn't used "Israel-Gaza war" in over a week. BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The title badly needs to be changed. It's unbalanced and implicitly frames the war through a pro-Israel lens, it's internally inconsistent (State vs. the governing party of another territory), and inaccurate (because the war includes other Palestinian resistance factions and significant damage to civilian life and infrastructure, not to mention Hezbollah and Ansarallah). The presence of "Israel-Hamas war" in reliable sources can't be disentangled from the systemic pro-Israel bias in the Western press, especially at the beginning of the war, so this shouldn't stand as a strong justification for why that is the "right" title. The number of move requests that have apparently already taken place should serve as evidence that the "Israel-Hamas war" label is not going to be historically durable. I begrudgingly support this change because I believe 2023 Gaza war has less issues than the current title, but I prefer 2023 Israel-Gaza war because it is more accurate and, in my opinion, a balanced compromise. Unbandito (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The presence of "Israel-Hamas war" in reliable sources can't be disentangled from the systemic pro-Israel bias in the Western press WP:RGW; even if reliable sources are collectively biased we are not here to correct that bias; we can only wait until it has been corrected in the real world and then report on that correction.
I also disagree that it is internally inconsistent; Israel and Hamas both have armies, but Gaza does not - we are merely reflecting the way that Hamas has chosen to organize itself and the territory it governs. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hamas is the government of Gaza, thats like saying Likud has an army. nableezy - 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The Al-Qassam Brigades are the military of Hamas, not Gaza; in contrast, the Israeli Defense Forces are the military of Israel, not Likud.
As far as I know, there is no military of Gaza; if I am incorrect I would be interested in reading about it - could you link the article? BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
They are the armed wing of the government of Gaza. Either way, it isnt the Qassam Brigades that have been bombed and starved to death, that would be the civilian residents of Gaza. nableezy - 14:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, non-neutral sources can be and often are reliable, and the bias of reliable sources doesn't absolve us of our obligation to present a neutral point of view. There's more than enough support in the reliable sources for a change to a more neutral name, even if that name hasn't been the most popular throughout the war. This isn't about righting a great wrong, it's about using the backing we have in the reliable sources, supported by the facts and arguments editors have brought up with in this discussion and others, to enforce the NPOV policy rather than using the systemic bias of Western sources as an excuse to accept and proliferate their biased framing. Unbandito (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand NPOV; NPOV means giving positions weight proportional to their treatment in reliable sources. This means that even if reliable sources are collectively biased we need to match that bias - as if we failed to do so we would be giving positions disproportionate weight. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. I see your point per WP:NOOBJECTIVITY that our aim here is to describe debates, not take part in them. However, I believe that per WP:ASSERT, applying WP:NOOBJECTIVITY policy to this naming discussion in this way amounts effectively to asserting the dominant opinion in Western media (that the war is between Israel, a legitimate state, and Hamas, an illegitimate organization that Israel has a right to eliminate from Gaza) as fact. This is the point of view that has led Western sources to opt in many cases for the Israel-Hamas war framing, and I believe we're within the scope of our duty as editors to use reason to discern that this is an instance of biased language which makes the encyclopedia worse. Moreover, WP:NPOVFAQ addresses English Wikipedia's "Anglo-American" bias directly and says that editors should address it by "removing examples of cultural bias that they encounter," so I think that in this case, we ought to make the call to use language that no reasonable person can disagree with, even if it's not the "common name". Everyone knows the war is taking place in Israel and Gaza. The scope of the war's combatants and the combatants' aims is the subject of highly contentious debate, and using language that naturalizes a particular perspective on that debate is, in my view, an obvious problem for Wikipedia's credibility. Do you not believe that the title is an instance of biased language, or do you not think that systemic bias is a problem for an encyclopedia? Unbandito (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
we are merely reflecting the way that Hamas has chosen to organize itself and the territory it governs.
Hamas is the government of Gaza, and it is not the only faction fighting in or over Gaza. The PFLP and DFLP are in Gaza as well, and the belligerents outside of Gaza can still be said to be fighting "over" the Strip. The current title doesn't do a good job of capturing that at all. Unbandito (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War, the claim that this is a common name is bogus, if it were the common name you wouldnt see the Washington Post, The Guardian and so on all use Israel-Gaza war as the name of the conflict. As before, Gaza is what has been systematically bombed, Gaza's universities have been destroyed, Gaza's hospitals have been destroyed, Gaza's residents have been displaced and starved. This name is and has always been an attempt to push an Israeli POV that it is a war on Hamas. Gaza is what has had its water, electricity, and food cut off, Gaza and Gazans are what have been targeted throughout this campaign. Wikipedia is effectively pushing Israeli propaganda with this title, and it is non-neutral. Since this is a descriptive title, and not like people are falsely claiming the common name, it is required to abide by Wikipedia:NCENPOV: use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. The POV implications here are that Hamas is what is being attacked here, and that is and always has been POV-driven BS. nableezy - 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian does use Israel-Gaza war, but the Washington Post prefers Israel-Hamas war; in the past 24 hours they have published four articles (1, 2, 3, 4) using "Israel-Hamas war", compared to one using "Israel-Gaza war" (1).
I have not included pages that include the term outside the article, such as in templates; for example, this use of "Israel-Hamas war" and this use of "Israel-Gaza war". BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The Washington Post has its entire section on the war titled "Israel-Gaza War". Literally anybody can see that. The articles you are pretending show their viewpoint are actually AP wire articles. Every. Single. One. The Washington Post itself uses Israel-Gaza War. Please dont misrepresent the sources here. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 15:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
And yet far more articles use "Israel-Hamas war" than "Israel-Gaza war". All that matters is the term most often used by the articles that make it through their editorial process and are published, regardless of whether they came from a staff writer, a freelancer, or a wire service. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Various wikis handle the obvious NPOv problem (apart from the implicit denial of what the war is: it is not only against Hamas, as we all know) in creative ways
  • (German) Krieg in Israel und Gaza seit 2023(War in Israel and Gaza since 2023)
  • (Japanese) 2023年パレスチナ・イスラエル戦争 (2023 Palestine-Israel war, since it is also being waged on the WB)
  • (Italian) Guerra di Gaza (Gaza war)
  • (Hebrew) Milhemet Haravot Barzel (Iron Swords war) Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The Hebrew title is as biased as "Israel-Hamas war" since it's the official Israeli name and pretty much nobody besides Israeli Zionists call it that (I know several Hebrew-speaking Arabs in Israel and they don't use that name either). Arabic Wikipedia uses the term "2023 Israeli-Palestinian war" but this is obviously inaccurate as the war didn't end in 2023. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The war is not being waged by English speakers, and the pro-Israel bias of the Anglophone press is known to all. The title we have is not accurate, whatever shorthand lazy newspapers prefer to adopt. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No that’s nonsense, AP articles don’t go through their editorial process, they go through APs, and even the internal links are to the AP site. Those articles are not the Washington Posts and any claim that they are is completely false. Why one would make something like that up is rather beyond me, but maybe you can enlighten us as to why you would make that up entirely. nableezy - 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to claim that the Washington Posts editorial policies don’t apply to articles originating at wire services, and that they instead blindly mirror them, you will need to provide a source. Nothing I have seen suggests an exception applies - absent such a source I will step back from this discussion, as we will just be repeating ourselves. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to claim that a wire service article reproduced in dozens of newspapers and websites is edited by each of those places then you provide the source. The articles you provided are all clearly AP articles, and if you were to cite them you would be citing the AP. I’m not going to engage in this sophistry any longer, it has gone past being wrong to being dishonest. nableezy - 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: We've been here before. Main consensus was to wait and see in the past. We've waited and seen, and to argue that this title has consensus as anything more than a stopgap is silly. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Would make more sense to use Israel-Gaza war, as per Makeandtoss User:Sawerchessread (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BilledMammal. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War, per Nableezy. The Israeli-Hamas war title is contrafactual, given the objective realities - the massive shifting of 2 million people periodically, the continual killing of large numbers of civilians, who form the majority of the victims, and the thorough devastation of the entire civilian-use infrastructure of the Strip- all of which no one doubts. Hamas is said to have a military of 30-40,000 people, say 2% of the entire population. To suggest or imply that Israel's strategy is exclusively or predominantly directed against that 2% is patently ridiculous, and contradicts the many statements made by the very heads of the operation, whose public statements about the whole population of Gaza as targets are too familiar to need repeating here and are confirmed as reflecting a specific intent, as one can see, to cite just one more example, by a confidential memo from the Dutch Defense attaché in Tel Aviv, according to which 'the Israeli army "intends to deliberately cause massive destruction to infrastructure and civilian centers" in Gaza. This strategy explains the "high number of deaths" among the civilian population.' (13 November 2023) Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no idea what prompted you to consider the title "2023 Gaza War" when the year is 2024 and the war is still ongoing. This just makes the discussion confusing as now many editors on your side have to clarify that they want a different wording making it clear that the war is still ongoing in 2024. JDiala (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    This is actually Levivich's proposal in the last discussion. Quoting their rationale:
    There is a secondary, but also very important, aspect of the title, and that's framing. The title, if it's in "X-Y" format, tells the reader who is fighting whom: X v. Y. If we call it "Israel-Hamas," we frame the war as a fight between Israel and Hamas. If we call it "Israel-Gaza," we frame the war as a fight between Israel and Gaza. And to dispense with pleasantries: if it's Israel v. Hamas, it's Israel v. terrorists. If it's Israel v. Gaza, it's Israel v. civilians. It's very understandable that a lot of people would strongly object to one or the other (or both) of those framings. That's why there's so much controversy over whether we call it "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza." I am sensitive to that, and also aware that the sources are rather split on this issue (like the rest of the world), so I am unable to make up my mind between which of those two framings Wikipedia should adopt. My preference is not to use either framing, at all, because neither is neutral and neither is totally accurate.
    Instead of going with "X-Y" to name the parties, I would use the neutral alternative of naming the location: Gaza. Yes, it's true that not the entire war is in Gaza, but the overwhelming majority of it is in Gaza, and Gaza is the indisputable center of the conflict. Besides, insofar as "Gaza" is an incorrect location (because it's incomplete), it's less incorrect than the way in which "Israel-Hamas" and "Israel-Gaza" are incorrect descriptions of the parties to the conflict (because it's more incomplete, and because the framing is far less neutral).
    So I'm not voting on "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza." I'm voting support for "2023 Gaza war" (and I would rename all the other articles "[Date] Gaza war" for the same reasons). It's recognizable, it's concise, it's precise enough, it's natural, and it's consistent (or it could be). It avoids the problems of framing, it instantly tells the reader that this is the conflict that's going on right now in Gaza. Everyone knows what the 2023 Gaza war is. (And I don't think people will think it's over unless we call it the "2023-2024 Gaza war," but even that title would be better than either Israel-Gaza or Israel-Hamas.)
    I do support the year to be changed to 2023-present, though, seeing how this fight is continuing through. NasssaNser 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    That's a strong argument which I hadn't considered before. Changing my position to a strong support for Gaza war, with support for Israel-Gaza war as a second choice. Unbandito (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War per Nishidani and Nableezy. I also note that per WP:COMMONNAME, "when there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" and the title "Israel-Hamas war" is problematic as it implies the war is not a war against the people of Gaza, and gives credence to the narrative that Israel is only fighting Hamas and not the people of Gaza. There is ample evidence at this point that this is questionable at best (the most recent of which being the massacre in Rafah). JDiala (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BilledMammal, in particular since the first battles of the war were in Israel rather than Gaza. Also while there isn't one canonical name for the war, "Gaza War" seems particularly uncommon. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
How do you feel about Israel-Gaza war? Unbandito (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable. My understanding is "Israel-Hamas war" seems somewhat more common, but open to being corrected there.
It should probably be a separate RM though? We know it will be controversial, based on the previous RMs for that title, and interpreting consensus for names besides the original RM proposal seems particularly hard. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is mainly devoted to the events in Gaza. Related skirmishes in for example Lebanon are relevant but not the principal focus (and they have their own dedicated articles). JDiala (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The events in Gaza are linked with the events in Israel to such an extent that it would be a strained effort to present them in separate articles. Heptor (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
So why not 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza War? nableezy - 23:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I’d have to see the arguments for and against, but on the face of it I’d say “—Hamas” is more precise, sorry. Heptor (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
“—Hamas” ignores the fact that Hamas is not the sole organization fighting Israel in the Gaza theater. NasssaNser 11:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support an alternative, 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War. As a previous supporter of the current title, I think the tide in sources has clearly shifted. The proposed "2023 Gaza War" is bad for multiple reasons as pointed out above by others. Yeoutie (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Plus:
  1. From the new name it is not clear who is fighting with whom (Fatah and Hamas fought there as well, etc.)
  2. This name may be confused with the theater of war in Gaza City or Gaza strip
  3. Not the most popular name, but a thousand times less popular than another
  4. The war is not in Gaza City, but in the Gaza Strip, Israel and the North Bank so new name would mislead even if the most of the article is about Gaza strip.
With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, keep "Israel–Hamas war" — The clear WP:COMMONNAME (NYT, Reuters, WaPo, The Independent, Haaretz, and more) for the war, while also being the name that doesn't require any disambiguation, making it (in my opinion) the WP:NATURAL disambiguation of the article title, with Hamas as the primary belligerent (aside from Israel) differentiating this war from the others in the Gaza Strip. DecafPotato (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'd like to provide some follow-ups on my opinion based on what I've seen in some other comments, but to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion I'll put them all here.
    1. Gaza is not a country — obviously the nature of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict makes classifications like these difficult, but I don't agree with the premise that "we typically describe wars using the name of the countries, not the combatants" applies here. Palestine is a country, yes, but Gaza is not.
    2. Israel's target not being Hamas is simply an allegation — it seems false to me to proclaim that Israel's prosecution of the war has been targeted not at Hamas or other militants but at the civilian population of Gaza. This is something that can be argued but this is not something that can be simply asserted without evidence, especially when all public Israeli officials, as well as other countries like the U.S., have stated that the goal of the Israeli operation in Gaza is to remove Hamas from power.
    3. The existence of other belligerents does not discredit "Israel–Hamas" — in most wars titled in an "X–Y" format, there are not just two belligerents. The war is titled for its primary belligerents, and Hamas is both objectively and considered in reliable sources and common nomenclature the primary belligerent on the Palestinian side.
    DecafPotato (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. The title needs to change to square with the facts: that Israel is waging a war on Gaza, and that Gaza and its people have suffered destruction, death, etc., etc. Israel may be fighting Hamas, but that is one part of the whole. To call this an Israel-Hamas war is to frame the title from an Israeli point of view and narrative, or mix the whole with the part. Language has a remarkable effect on people's thoughts on a subject. Call it something, and one begins to think those are the facts. Better titles would be (date) Israel-Gaza war (or date) or, to a lesser extent, (date) Gaza War (or date). GeoffreyA (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    There is no war named “Israel-Gaza” war so if it were to be mentioned then a date is no need. If it were to be named “Gaza war” then (date) should be mentioned as 2 wars have been waged on Gaza in the past 15 years The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Good point. Thanks. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing has changed in the past 3 months. The war is still between Israel and Hamas per above sources per DecafPotato and others. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is correct, and no valid reason has been advanced to change it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am specifically against the suggested name. I do not see a large need of name change but I would be open to Israel-Gaza War but I don't like how it is a political state against geographic area. Another solution I would tolerate (and prefer to Israel-Gaza War) is 2023-2024 Israeli invasion in Gaza. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak support 2023–2024 Gaza war per Nishidani, Nableezy, JDiala and various other reasons from my prior vote.
  • WP:COMMONNAME — Despite being less popular than the current "Israel-Hamas war", it shouldn't matter unwaveringly. Common, but not misleading. Otherwise, no, I do not think this is the most common name for the war. Still, the rule has its exceptions.
  • WP:CONSISTENT — Could align with 2008–2009 Gaza War.
  • WP:NPOV — People use this both for and against the requested title. Some may argue that the current title is biased against Israel, not accounting for Gaza as a belligerent. I argue that the current title is, however, biased against those in Gaza. I believe that, while Israel has claimed this a war against Hamas, the conflict has caused widespread destruction to Gazan society, resulting in extreme impact -- namely, displacement. The bombings have targeted not only residential areas but also essential facilities. Also, note that it doesn't matter if the people is involuntarily participating. Albeit devastating, war isn't always an agreement.
  • WP:NCWWW — Refer to the previous note first. Now, consider the WWW naming convention. It's quite appropriate to frame such a war of this size in terms of geographical effect rather than focusing on individual characters.
    — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War. The present name is a lie: it pretends that Israel is fighting Hamas, while in reality Israel kills far more women and children than Hamas fighters (does anyone deny this?) Huldra (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support either a Gaza War or an Israel-Gaza war, it is quite inconceivable that anyone can see the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and destruction of their property, universities, mosques, hospitals and the general leveling of Gaza as anything but an attack on Gaza and its people, essentially a more intense form of prior attacks on the Strip, where the opponent was also Hamas. This is not a war against Hamas and it is also not a war that began on October 7. We should describe the situation consistently and accurately rather than in accordance with an Israeli POV, a state accused of genocide and the officials of which government will shortly be subject of ICC arrest warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If I may address the moral aspect of your vote justification. Do you think that Israel could have achieved its stated security goals with much less collateral damage, but they are purposely not doing so because they have ulterior and nefarious motives? Heptor (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There are far too many stated goals issued by numerous executive authorities in Israel for anyone to grasp what Israel's actual goals are. Whatever editors' private views might be, the reasons for a vote must emerge from assessments of the quality of arguments based on what is known, and, in this case, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the terms in a title to the realities of the war, which are those, in good part, cited by Selfstudier. Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The stated Israeli security goal is mainly to restore its security after the attacks on October 7th. See for example https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-says-idf-will-control-gaza-after-war-rejects-notion-of-international-force, it is used as a source for the article. The moral cost of security in this case is high -- it can well be argued that it is too high and that Israelis should instead accept that Hamas gets their way. Heptor (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The lead should also change. It shouldn't talk about this as a conflict between Israel and Hamas, but as a significant escalation of the already ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict triggered by the October 7 attacks, which was followed by the Israeli invasion of Gaza, itself triggering further escalations between Israel and the wider region. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support for the above because the title more accurately captures the scope of the conflict while more appropriately referring to both sides as appropriate entities and contains a date that serves to disambiguate from other past conflicts. EvilxFish (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2023, this war spread into 2024 and it might go longer Personisinsterest (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support a move but Oppose "2023 Gaza War" I was very strongly against the title "Israel-Hamas War" and I wrote extensively on why it is both inaccurate and in violation of NPOV, but the new title is factually inaccurate. The war did not end and is not contained to 2023- in fact, most of it has happened in 2024. Will support any move to Gaza War (2023–present) or the like. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:45, 1 June 2024)
Changing my vote to Support. My concerns over the factual inaccuracy in just having "2023" has been addressed and I believe "Gaza War" is the best and most accurate way to describe the ongoing conflict, as well as addressing the NPOV issue where Hamas fighters represent less than 10% of the dead on the Palestinian side. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support This term is far more accurate than the current "Israel-Hamas war" title. Even if we limit our focus to Gaza alone and ignore the other actors and theaters of this conflict (Hezbollah in northern Israel, the Houthis attacking Red Sea shipping, etc), it's clear that limiting the other side of the war to just Hamas when there are numerous other militias fighting in Gaza as well is extremely inaccurate. While the "Gaza War" title still does not include the Hezbollah and the northern Israel theater or the Houthi activities, it remains far more accurate and encompassing than the narrow "Israel-Hamas war" title, along with the fact that many prominent news agencies[15][16][17] have switched their dedicated sections to "Israel-Gaza War" and other Gaza-related terms instead of "Israel-Hamas war". RealKnockout (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment A few of the oppose votes & comments centered around the fact that the original move request inaccurately included "2023" as the year despite the fact that the conflict lasted through 2024. In light of this move request being edited to correct that, such comments should be re-evaluated. RealKnockout (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support As per WP:POVNAME, the current title definitely seem[s] unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later. In fact, both the Washington Post and the Guardian have first used Isreal-Hamas war (which can still be seen in the URLs (1 and 2) as a heading for their news section on the war and then changed it (after a very understandable outcry) to Israel-Gaza war. This proves that the quoted policy is already becoming applicable. Now the objection that other theaters are involved is irrelevant. The Gulf War didn't actually take place in the gulf or only between countries on the gulf either, did it? As much as descriptive titles are more encyclopedic, the use of figurative language is still pragmatically inevitable. Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The war did not start in Gaza and is not restricted to it. SigTif (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    The Crimean War started in Romania, yet that doesn't affect how it is usually called. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Similar arguments can be applied to the current title; Hamas is not the only entity fighting against Israel in this war. RealKnockout (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    @RealKnockout It looks like a war between Israel and Palestine to me? Is that what you mean? Or something else? MWQs (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    The above user was stating that the Gaza War" proposed title was inaccurate because the war has not been restricted to within Gaza, what I said was that since Hamas is not the only entity fighting Israel, the current title is even more inaccurate. RealKnockout (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    But Gaza war leaves out Israel entirely. MWQs (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, it started in Israel and continued in Gaza. Attacks from other countries and groups are in solidarity with Palestinians and/or Hamas, and I wouldn't say they're part of the war. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Personisinsterest, Who do you think is fighting this and and where? MWQs (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Israel and Hamas in Israel and Gaza Personisinsterest (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Arguably it started in Huwara and Jerusalem then escalated in the Negev. But even if we ignore everything before 7 October there's war in the West Bank now, which would be big news if not for a bizarrely intense war in Gaza. The groups in the West Bank are all the same groups as Gaza (except lions den and Israeli settlers). MWQs (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    There is no war in the West Bank. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, Gaza is the main theater of the war, and media outlets have been moving away from "Israel-Hamas war" to avoid the name's inherent bias (and inaccuracy). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and as per the reasons argued by BilledMammal. IJA (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza War (2023–present), and Israel-Gaza War would also be acceptable since sources such as [18], and [19] use it. In addition, the reference cited in the very first sentence of this article notes that three other organizations are operating as belligerents on the Palestinian side, including two secular political organizations whose only commonality with Hamas (an Islamist organization) is their shared opposition to Israel in this conflict. It's plainly misleading to use the "Israel-Hamas war" name for the same reason that it would be misleading to call the Iraq War the "Iraq-GOP war," or even the "US-Ba'ath war"; even if such terms had been popular, there would still be a good editorial reason to give preference to "Iraq War" provided that "Iraq War" was in use. For the sake of accuracy alone, there is editorial reason to give preference to "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza war," names which have common usage and aren't contradicted by the contents of this wiki article. We have more than one term in common use, we should choose to use a term which accurately reflects the conflict. "Israel-Palestine war (2023)" or a similar name would also be acceptable given the raids in the West Bank, and if that term is in common use then I would support it. Albert Mond (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support (for "Gaza War (2023–present)" or "Israel–Gaza War"): I see the main arguments against the title change are based on the fact that some fighting took place in areas not in Gaza. However, Israel is clearly not only waging war against Hamas, but against civilians residing and/or taking refuge in various areas of Gaza. This alone renders the title "Israel–Hamas War" inaccurate.
    In addition, the terms "Israel" and "Hamas" do not fall under the same category: "Israel" is a country/nation/region, while "Hamas" is a militant group (or simply an organization that engages in warfare); and a militant group fighting against a region makes no sense. Rather, it would be more suitable to place "Israel" and "Gaza", which is also a region, in the title to represent a war; if anyone insists on "Hamas" being in the title, then it should be dubbed the "IDF–Hamas War" due to IDF being an organization of a similar nature. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
    Israel, a country, is fighting Hamas, the group that controls Gaza. The Gaza Strip is not a country, and Israel can't fight it. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support changing to "Gaza War (2023–present)"
    FYI: as of today a Google search returns “Israel Hamas war 2023” – 45,700 hits, and “Gaza War 2023” – 76,700 hits.
    However, there are many other issues, including: the lede says “An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups has been taking place chiefly in the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023.”
    I would consider that the adversaries are the Israeli IDF and Hamas militant groups. While Gaza is the location of the conflict. And we have an article addressing that: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) So, rather than trying to identify the conflict based on where it is (Gulf War) or who the adversaries are (Sino-Japanese War) or some other criteria (World War II), I think we need to identify conflicts by the most commonly used term, which hopefully will coincide with the largest number of secondary sources. and which are bound to change over time. • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Bobsd, but the IDF and Hamas aren't equivalent. Hamas are the political wing, the militant wing is the Qassam Brigades, but it's not just the Qassam Brigades in the war, so it's IDF vs Palestinian Joint Operations Room or "Likud-led far right coalition" vs "Hamas-led Palestinian nationalist factions". MWQs (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    @MWQs, I agree with you from a polity standpoint ... it is a mess. Which is why I am saying that we should call it "whatever" most secondary sources call it. Or come up with a rubric for naming geopolitical conflict articles, and stick with it. Unfortunately, that would take some type of top-down authority in WP, whose culture does not seem to be willing to consider.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War per Nishidani, Nableezy, JDiala, Urro and others. The current title is inaccurate, imprecise, misrepresentative and fails to abide by WP:NCE, specifically WP:NCWWW, or maintain consistency with the various other Gaza wars that this parallels. The current title is weak descriptively as a "war" title due to its contrasting of a country/state actor with a political group/non-state actor. This is in keeping with the sort of POV that presents the event as an extension of the "war on terror", and this conflict as something precise or limited (grossly misleading at this point) against a terror group (which is POV), but it is inconsistent with what the event actually is, which is a major conflict or war – events that are usually defined by geography – against the entire civil administration, civilian infrastructure and civilian population of Gaza through a combination of direct warfare and collective punishment, including through starvation as a weapon of war. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    I am not sure if this is the correct place to reply, but sources (I believe RS too) have also started referring to as such. For example: the guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war
    however “2023-2024” is redundant, as it is the only war to hold the “Israel-Gaza” name if the move were to be successful The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and reasons mentioned by above users. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The war is not limited to Gaza and it did technically start in Israel. ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Move to 2023-2024 Israel–Gaza war. It seems that reliable sources more often describing this as a war between Israel and Gaza than between Israel and Hamas at this point in time, so WP:COMMONNAME would favour this move. It should be a descriptive title though, no capital War, and definitely worth including the year as there have been countless different confrontations between forces from Israel and forces in Gaza over the years.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Israel–Gaza war or 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza war. I don't really care if we include the date or not; this war is probably more historically significant than the previous Gaza wars due to its much higher death toll, so it will likely be the primary topic for the term "Israel–Gaza war" even in the future.
Regardless, the current title needs to go, as it implies that Israel is "just defending itself against Khamas terrorists", which we all know isn't true. Wikipedia shouldn't tell blatant lies. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 06:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Fully support the new proposed title. It's most descriptive to the reality of the current war, so far there is no proof that the war has exclusively targeted Hamas only as most of the destruction and casualties are not Hamas exclusively. Palestine48 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Israel–Gaza war or 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza war. Like others have said, this title makes it seem as though all of Gaza is fighting under Hamas when many factions are fighting for other parties. This also overlooks the death of the 30,000+ Gazan civilians as simply being Hamas civilians rather than Gazans. This war has taken place in both Israel and Gaza and is between both entities as a whole. RamHez (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose and honestly time for a moratorium on name changes. There are a lot of arguments above I'd reiterate, but I'll say that 1) it doesn't appear to be the common name, 2) the war is not restricted to Gaza, and so it is inaccurate, 3) I see now issue with the current title, which has consensus and is more accurate. — Czello (music) 11:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    In reverse order: A lack of consensus previously to move from this name is in no way equivalent to a consensus for this name. The war is not restricted to Hamas and Israel, so there is no argument that this name is more accurate than one with Israel-Gaza. This is not the common name either, all of these are descriptive titles. However, this as a name in sources is at least as common, if not more, than Israel-Hamas war. And finally, imposing a moratorium in the absence of consensus for this name is an attempt to maintain a title by inertia rather than consensus. nableezy - 14:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    In order: a consensus for this title was found here. The war is primarily between Israel and Hamas. This is the common name, to the extent that many of the sources editors have referenced as preferring a different title actually prefer "Israel-Hamas war". And finally, moratoriums are imposed to avoid wasting editor time on discussions unlikely to be productive, and to prevent proposals being repeatedly made until they finally achieve consensus by virtue of having worn down the opposition. If proposed, I would support one here. BilledMammal (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    Baloney, commonnames are bolded in the lead, this is a descriptive title, nothing more, and a pretty irrelevant one at that, inconsistent with past practice and completely unreflective of actual facts. We had one moratorium, don't need another one, everyone has had plenty time to think it over. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    A consensus was supposedly found for this as a base title after you asked the admin to change their close, and based on the fact that most of the options had this as a base title. Please don’t misrepresent the past move requests. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    If you felt the close was incorrect you should have taken it to WP:MRV. In the absense of that close being overturned, it's false to claim that there was not a consensus for this title. BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    You didn’t do that either, now did you. You just lobbied the admin to endorse your preference. An admin that I’ll note has voted for this change. Shrug. nableezy - 01:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War -- the name became more common as the events progressed into 2024. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME and per the reasons provided above. –Davey2010Talk 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

"surprise attack" in the intro

The prominent use of the word "surprise" seems like revisionist spin? "…when Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel on 7 October". Aspects of the attack were surprising, e.g. Gaza and not West Bank, and not even Hamas' political wing knew the date in advance, but using the word in the name of the event "surprise attack" makes it seem like it came out of nowhere. It was an expected escalation in a series of exponentially increasing escalations. And even the details weren't surprising to the girls at Nahal Oz lookout base,[20] who had been unsuccessfully trying to warn their bosses in the IDF for a year while watching the allied militant groups practice beach landings, hostage taking, destroying watch towers with drones, and fence demolition. MWQs (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

What's "prominent" about the use of the word "surprise"? Levivich (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
It's frequently described as a surprise attack in reliable sources, e.g. NYT, NPR, CNN, AP, etc, so I think it's reasonable to use similar language.
I think the specifics of an attack (time, place, magnitude, etc) can be surprising even if there's some general expectation of future escalation. The Nahal Oz article you linked certainly raises questions, but we don't know how far up these warnings went, how specific they were, how their credibility was interpreted, etc. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

70,000 - mention?

This article surfaced recently, but whether it suggests 70,000 casualties in this war on Gaza’s front or all fronts isn’t clear to me because of the language barrier. Is it worth mentioning?

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/391720 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not in this war, it's the total number of rehab patients that receive services from the Rehabilitation Division of the Ministry of Defense - from all wars, all time, and also non-combat-related injuries. The number from this war is given as 8,663, many of them suffering from mental issues- e.g PTSD.
THe 70k figure doesn't belong in the article. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for clarifying. I brought up this news headline on the talk page instead of the article itself because I genuinely wasn’t able to deduce what they were saying The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

INSS as a reliable source

Wikipedia: "The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) is an independent think tank affiliated with Tel Aviv University in Israel that conducts research and analysis of national security matters such as military and strategic affairs, terrorism and low intensity conflict, military balance in the Middle East, and cyber warfare.".

Can I use them as a reliable source when I write or mention information or stats in this article? Eitan Drutman (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Check WP:RSP and search WP:RSN and its archives.
If in doubt, use WP:BOLD and if someone reverts, we can do bold, revert, discuss. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
INSS has a definite bias re AI/IP conflict but it is nowhere near as bad as some other Israeli sources. I would use it with attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Eitan Drutman (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Editorializing

There is some editorializing happening in the 7 October section, namely "in what has been described as the bloodiest day in Israel's history and the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust."

This claim, which is somewhat common and strictly speaking true, strikes me as unencyclopedic, editorializing and propagandistic in nature. It is a thinly-veiled way to suggest Hamas is a Nazi-like organization. It is also factually misleading as it suggests Hamas deliberately targeted Jews for being Jews, when in reality they appeared to have targeted Israeli Arabs and Asian foreign workers as well (there was no ethnic discrimination once Hamas entered Israel).

I propose it be removed in light of WP:NPOV. What does everyone think? JDiala (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Bloodiest day may be a bit too tabloidy, still undecided on the Holocaust thing. Borgenland (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It's true, as you say yourself, and simply pointing out a fact is not "editorializing" nor POV. Gawaon (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Stating a fact can be editorializing if said fact is there only to promote a particular disingenuous framing of an issue. A comparison to the Holocaust is not obviously necessary for the article and only exists to appeal to the reader's emotions. It also unfairly demonizes Hamas. JDiala (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That's true in some cases, but doesn't apply to this one. Certainly one could use a shamefully veiled expression such as "since 1945" instead, but that would be a clear euphemism since everyone knows what ended then. No, let's stay honest. Plus, "since" is not a comparison, it's simply context. Gawaon (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is quite notable that when we want to add something like the "#deadliest" to the article, let's stay honest falls by the wayside. Hum. Perhaps we can find an equally picturesque quote in the other direction and see what happens with that. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
We should probably get rid of "bloodiest", but I don't think worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust is equivalent; it contains the context needed for it to be accurate and for readers to understand the claim, while #deadliest lacks that context - for deadliest to be accurate we would need to say something along the lines of deadliest conflict on a per capita per day basis in the 21st century. BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It in fact does not contain the context needed to be accurate or easily understood. Even putting aside the Nazi issue, the word "massacre" is quite vague in this context. Is every killing of a Jew that day counting among "massacre"? But many Jews killed were in fact soldiers. Surely they should not be counted as "massacre" victims; they were KIA in legitimate warfare. This distinction is not made in the sentence. Furthermore, is the entire day one big "massacre" or a collection of individual massacres (Be'eri, Re'im, Kfar Aza, etc.)? This is not clear from the surrounding context. Should the word "massacre" even be used in reference to the entire 7 October attack and in wikivoice? We do this for the individual smaller-scale massacres in Be'eri, Re'im etc. but we don't call the entire day a massacre in wikivoice, we usually prefer "attack", rightfully so since the 7 October attack taken in totality was a military operation ("armed incursion") with concrete objectives, not a massacre per se. There's far too many NPOV and vagueness issues here, much worse than the "deadliest" thing which is frankly just tendentious. JDiala (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
But many Jews killed were in fact soldiers. Surely they should not be counted as "massacre" victims; they were KIA in legitimate warfare.
Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that the soldiers who were killed include demobilized reservists (who under international law are considered civilians), as well as unarmed soldiers. Neither of these were "KIA in legitimate warfare". BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Tban so can't reply. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is a valid point that we do not refer to the entire events as a massacre, though, probably because some elements were military in nature and/or at least involved armed personnel or military installations. Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Plus, we use "has been described", so it's not even wikivoice. That it has been described as such is true without any reasonable doubt. Gawaon (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That's worse...undue. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
You would have to show that. Gawaon (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Shall I tag it with "who?" and let you explain instead? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It has been described by the Economist as such. Have other outlets published articles describing Oct. 7th in this fashion? If yes, those need to be cited. If no, the language of the claim needs to specify the single source that is cited. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that this edit was originally suggested by JDiala who is now topic banned. Personally, I see a lot of potential issues with this article overall, but not with this specific statement as outlined above. It's sourced and not in Wikivoice. The point that this unfairly demonizes Hamas sounds like a biased argument to me.
We could argue about changing "massacre" to "massacres", since the overall operation is indeed called an attack, while we have several individual massacres that took place during it. But imo that is nitpicking and the single additional "s" won't change the sentence in any meaningful way.
That it's the "bloodiest" might sound tabloid at first, but is actually echoed by rather non-tabloid outlets such as Foreign Policy here. It is also used – albeit not in the specific context discussed here, but more generally – as one of the bloodiest attacks here by Reuters, which definitely is not tabloid.
OP even admitted that the claim is strictly speaking true, so I don't really see this specific discussion going anywhere. Let's focus on more important parts of the article.
(A side note: Better avoid words like surely, unfairly and rightfully even when presenting your arguments on talk pages. That reads POV since it implies your suggested phrasing is "obvious".) –LordPeterII (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The adjective "bloodiest" does indeed appear in the two articles you reference. However, neither claim that Oct. 7th was the "bloodiest day in Israel's history". Therefore, they cannot be used to support the assertion that Oct 7 "has been described as the bloodiest day in Israel's history", even though Oct 7th was likely the "bloodiest day in Israel's history" with respect to Israeli deaths. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
So Economist says "bloodiest in Israel’s history", Reuters says "one of the bloodiest attacks in its history" (granted, a slightly weaker claim), NPR and Haaretz both say "the single deadliest day" which seems quite similar.
I guess we could change "bloodiest" to "deadliest" or "bloodiest or deadliest", but I think "bloodiest" also works, since one source uses that exact language and several use very similar language. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx
The problem with "bloodiest" as a descriptor is that it cannot be quantified precisely without further clarification of definition. The descriptor "deadliest" is precisely quantifiable by number of deaths. However, JDiala took issue with the claim "...has been described as..." which does not require quantification so long as more than one source has described it as such. Does there exist at least one other WP:RS that describes Oct 7th as both the "bloodiest day in Israel's history" and "worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust"? If not, the claim should be modified to specify the single source that likely generated it - the Economist. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Yachad (NGO) also says bloodiest although that might not be a good source to cite. I think one source is technically enough for "has been described as" to work, while the sources with similar statements help corroborate the reasonableness of the claim. But no objection to "deadliest" if you think it's better for verifiability. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx
The Yachad source may hold up for a time, or not, as someone may claim it is biased. You're right, a single source is technically sufficient to state "has been described as". Now consider an edit that terminates the beginning of the sentence at " Netiv HaAsara massacre". The remainder of the sentence begins a new one with, "An analysis published by the Economist described the attack as..." The edit summary would state, "precision, neutrality, readability". What would be a reasonable cause for reversion? Chino-Catane (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Yachad is a crap source for anything to do with IP conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a technical problem with the claim you highlight independent of your perception that it constitutes "editorializing." The claim is supported by only one reference. The fragment "has been described" without qualification implies "more than one". The claim requires at least one more citation, though in my opinion, two more. If these citations cannot be generated, the claim should be modified to "...in what the Economist has described as..." Chino-Catane (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I think something similar to this should be kept, since it's important context about the casus belli from an Israeli perspective.
The language could be tweaked to be slightly more dispassionate, such as changing the last "massacre" to "attack" (since several specific massacres are mentioned in the same sentence). — xDanielx T/C\R 16:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
since it's important context about the casus belli from an Israeli perspective Got a source saying that this quote is context for the casus belli? Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Not the quote, the fact. Gawaon (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Also it's worth pointing out that we seem to be in WP:BLUESKY territory here. Everybody in this thread seems to agree that these statements are factually and undisputably true. But if that's so, a reference isn't even needed. Gawaon (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Not the quote, the fact That's a no, then. Didn't think so.
we seem to be in WP:BLUESKY territory here. It may seem like that to you, I can assure you it isn't, else I have a slew of things I can add unreferenced. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what are your candidates for the bloodiest day in Israel's history and the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust then? Gawaon (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
WP goes by sources not personal opinions (nor quote shopping, punditry, shock value, etcetera) Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Gawaon
The claim "...has been described as the bloodiest day in Israel's history and the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust" can be interpreted by readers to imply that many have described it as such. If many such descriptions exist, at least two additional should be cited. If other such descriptions do not exist, the claim should be modified to specify the single source that likely generated it - the Economist. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
And if it were only a single source, then WP:DUE might be an issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting adding content about the casus belli, so we're not in territory where content policies like WP:V would apply, it's just a matter of editorial discretion where we follow consensus. Do you not agree that this is useful context to help explain what led to the war? — xDanielx T/C\R 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether I agree, it only matters whether RS agree. I think I already said this once. Selfstudier (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Fine. Go and find an RS that says another day in Israel's history was deadlier then. Gawaon (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's clarify things , I have reverted out bloodiest based on the discussion here, now by WP:ONUS, it is required that you obtain consensus for the material retention. Right now you don't have that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure WP:ONUS is a good reason for deleting stable text in the middle of a discussion where we're ascertaining what the consensus is. Your deletion goes against WP:NOCONSENSUS, which favors keeping the prior text. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
To reiterate, I'm contending that these facts are significant enough to warrant inclusion. I'm not suggesting including any content about the significance of these facts. Content policies like WP:V only apply to the facts themselves, not to arguments about the facts' significance. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Bloodiest (what I removed) is not a fact, it's hyperbole and contested by the majority of editors above. Selfstudier (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
At least the current version with "has been described" is a fact. I suspect it would be a fact without that, though perhaps "bloodiest" leave a bit of ambiguity. Would you agree with "deadliest", which is perhaps less ambiguous and has at least a few RSs? — xDanielx T/C\R 15:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Please provide the quote (I assume it is not the headline, else WP:HEADLINES). And if single sourced, needs attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Tagged as unverified and undue as per above discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
That the surprise attack that started this war was the worst attack on Israel in Israel's history, most civilian casualties, deadliest, deadliest per-capita terrorist attack in the world in 50 years... basically a huge f'ing deal... seems to me to be a key aspect of the war. "Bloodiest" seems both vague and sensationalist. But I'd support content in the body and the lead conveying the magnitude or severity of the Oct 7 attack.
Same for the Palestinian side. Deadliest, most displacement, extremely high proportion of civilians, of women and children, one of the most destructive wars in history... again, big f'ing deal... this should be in the body and the lead.
For all involved this has been a big f'ing deal. For the world, from a historical standpoint, it's a big f'ing deal. I'm not sure what the best formulation is but "bloodiest" and even "deadliest," like "big f'ing deal," isn't specific enough. I'd support something with more specifics and sources putting both Oct 7 and the ensuing war in context for Israel, Palestine, and world history.
I'm not sure, however, about the Jews/Holocaust link. Portraying Oct 7 as an attack on Jews (as opposed to an attack on Israel) seems POVish, contrary to sources and fact (many non-Jews were attacked). If the consensus of sources made that connection, then I'd support it, but absent that being demonstrated, leave it out. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Right now the third lede paragraph goes into elaborate detail on the historic proportion of the war for Gazans, right down to claims of "scholasticide". It's definitely NPOV to have nothing in the second paragraph conveying the historic proportion of October 7 for Israeli Jews. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Although I would support some form of emphasis on the Oct 7 attacks, the phrase above does seem very POV and I would support removing it or at least changing it to something more neutral. I would prefer reverting to the previous wording of this which seems much more neutral or something like in what has been described as the deadliest day in Israel's history.
I would also support removing the Jews/Holocaust link since multiple RSes indicate Jews were not the only one who were attacked. User3749 (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Nevertheless it's simply factually true that never since the Holocaust were so many Jews murdered in a single day (let alone in a coordinated attack). Jews weren't the only people murdered by the Nazis either. Gawaon (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Knowing a thing to be "factually true" does not change the requirement for such facts to be sourced. Most of our readers will not know that such a thing is true. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
We can't put something on here in Wikipedia even if they are factually correct - we need a reliable source for it. Unless if you have a source that proves this, it can't go on this page. User3749 (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hiding such facts would itself be POV. Being honest and describing things as they were isn't. Gawaon (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Still waiting on the exact quote for "bloodiest", do you have it? Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Why do you ask me? I didn't add it, and I don't have access to the cited article, which seems to be paywalled. Gawaon (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The archived version here https://web.archive.org/web/20231014231955/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/10/12/hamass-attack-was-the-bloodiest-in-israels-history
does not say "the bloodiest day in Israel's history" nor does it say "the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust" So we have failed verification for both things currently in the article.
The headlines say "Hamas’s attack was the bloodiest in Israel’s history More Jews were killed on October 7th than on any day since the Holocaust" but WP:HEADLINES are not RS.
The last para of the article says "The most searing historical comparison predates Israel’s founding. Not all of Hamas’s victims were Israeli, and not all of the Israeli dead were Jewish. But under reasonable assumptions about the ethnic make-up of those killed in this and previous attacks, the last time before October 7th that this many Jews were murdered on a single day was during the Holocaust." which is not quite the same thing as claimed.
It seems to me both claims should be removed as things stand right now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The claim appears technically correct to me, but I can also see how it is misleading. The "Worst single-day massacre of civilians" claim is so specific because it's contoured to exclude other significant calamities in modern Jewish history, like the killing and disappearance of Jews by Argentina's military regime or the several wars and conflicts in Israel's history which have been more deadly for its (conscripted) soldiers than this current one. No doubt 10/7 was profoundly impactful on Israeli society, but I question whether this misleadingly specific statistic is the best way to present that. Unbandito (talk) 13:41, 15 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.[21][22][23] -- 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.
NadVolum (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] 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: [31] [32]. 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)

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)

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,[1][2][3] 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

  1. ^ Monitor, Euro-Med Human Rights. "200 days of military attack on Gaza: A horrific death toll amid intl. failure to stop Israel's genocide of Palestinians". Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. Retrieved 2024-06-15.
  2. ^ "Amount of Israeli bombs dropped on Gaza surpasses that of World War II". www.aa.com.tr. Retrieved 2024-06-15.
  3. ^ Pape, Robert A. (2024-06-21). "Hamas Is Winning". Foreign Affairs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2024-06-21.

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)

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)

Lead section creep

I'm not saying the most recent lead insertion is the only example, but I have recently been reminded that information presented in an article lead must reflect notable content discussed in the article body. Indirect casualties are not discussed at all in the body of this article. I propose removing this insertion until indirect casualties have been presented, in a significant way, in the body of the article itself. Furthermore, the cited Khatib source is the fourth instantiation of the same exact Lancet "correspondence". This has the characteristics of a "drive-by" insertion designed to skew article bias towards a particular belligerent. If anyone else has noticed lead insertions not reflecting notable article body content, those insertions should be removed as well. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Indirect casualties were discussed in the Casualties section of the body (which is transcluded from a template). I expanded it in the body and the lead. Levivich (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree of course that the lead should summarize the body. However, If the only reason material added to the lead doesn't belong there is because it isn't in the body yet, and it would belong in the lead if it were in the body, I think the thing to do would be to add an exposition of that info to the body, rather than removing it from the lead. Although it's not how things are supposed to be done, it seems natural to me that editors will want to give groundbreaking new information like this Lancet study a prominent position in the article, even if that info isn't fleshed out in the body yet. It probably makes more sense to work with that tendency than try to fight against it. Unbandito (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The point of not doing it backwards is so that there is a proper assessment of due weight as it may be that when examined in the overall scheme of things, the groundbreaking new information is not actually all that groundbreaking. OK, it is sometimes permissible to add to lead directly but it will definitely get picked up on well traveled articles and while some editors might have a go at the add to body part on seeing something in the lead, that's not a requirement, so removal can be justified in that case. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Levivich pointed out my oversight with respect to this particular instance of lead creep. As a matter of general practice, I appreciate Selfstudier's observation regarding "proper assessment of due weight". The problem with "not fighting the tendency" is that it invites "drive-by" insertions of lead content designed to skew article bias towards a particular belligerent. Per WP:LEAD, "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people read ... and may be the only portion of the article that they read." Doing things backwards allows propagandists to broadcast propaganda very inexpensively. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede Hamas motives

This is using too many words for a summary, any objections to trimming it this way?

From

"Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, as well as alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinian refugees and prisoners"

To

"Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's continued occupation, blockade of Gaza, settlements expansion, as well as threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinians"? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep "alleged threats", but otherwise looks good to me. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Summarized accordingly then. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree with BilledMammal, overall a nice trim which more or less retains the meaning. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Liked billed mammal said, keep the threats alleged. Also recommend you include “international silence and Israel’s disregard for international law” as it was one of the factors Hamas cited as a reason for October 7 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Not really into politics or conflict, but I think the status quo is better and should be kept. Wretchskull (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The original certainly reads easier for me, the replacement sounds a bit garbled like it was being timed. NadVolum (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Redundant?

This article is, fundamentally, an article about the invasion of Gaza but with an extra-layer covering minor developments of the Arab-Israeli and Iran-Israel conflicts, none of which are really meaningful in the overall topic of the article; and discussing the October 7 attacks, not as the trigger of the war (as say, 9/11 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), but as a part of the war itself (as if it was comparable to, say, the invasion of Poland in WW2).

The lack of consensus on what the article should even be named (as evidenced by the three-month long 'wiki-ceasefire' earlier this year), let alone the fact that the article itself is basically a replica of the article «Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)» with a bunch of bloating of minor, distantly related topics (aside from the over-emphasis on October 7 discussed above), make me question about if we should even have this entry in the first place, since, as it stands, the only battlefront of the war is Gaza. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 02:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Indirect casualties from the Lancet study

Hello.

Given that it was clearly stated that the 4x number of casualties was a conservative estimate, whereas the maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 deaths in sum total, should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like a fairly clear statement of what is meant by 'indirect casualty' first. It dounds as uncertain as saying 'injured' without a reasonably clear definition. I do't expect some boilerplated definition, just something where one can know within 50% each way at a very minimum. NadVolum (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It sounds a bit like Excess mortality, going by the linked https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/gaza_projections_report.pdf but that also says "To our knowledge, no such detailed projections have been issued during an ongoing humanitarian response, and the methods employed for this project are mostly novel" so I'd treat the estimates somewhat cautiously. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
https://www.newarab.com/news/lancet-experts-put-harrowing-gaza-death-toll-186000 A secondary.
And there is https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q509 from February on projected excess deaths as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There are at least two other discussions talking place about this, and it was suggested by editor @Levivich: that they be consolidated here for ongoing discussion so I am just going to copy paste them. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The following part of this discussion started at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation § Estimate of future deaths and was moved here to centralize discussion on this topic onto a single talk page.

@Genabab: re the estimate you added, I'm not necessarily against including this, but we should be cautious for a few reasons

  • Lancet lists this as "Correspondence", are essentially letters from readers. See here (emphasis theirs). Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed. The authors do have some credentials, so this isn't a dealbreaker, just more like a WP:SPS.
  • It's a projection of future deaths, so we should make that clear.
  • I feel "statistical estimate" is making this sound more rigorous than it is - they just picked a round-number multiple (four) that they felt would be not implausible for this conflict.
  • To corroborate the plausibility of the multiple, they seem to cite an article titled Global burden of armed conflict, which I can't find. They provide a URL which points to a report titled World Drug Report, so maybe it's that? That report seems to discuss some related ideas of extrapolation based on multiples, but in the context of heroin addicts.

Again not necessarily against including it, but I think it should be framed pretty differently if we do. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the line and the cite, and did the same at a few other articles (check my contribs). Feel free to massage it further. Levivich (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I might make some additional changes but will hold off a bit to see other input. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I also think that this information should be included, given that only the identifiable bodies directly killed by assaults from Israeli forces have been included in the listed statistics here thus far, not the ones hidden under the rubble of collapsed buildings or killed by starvation or diseases as a result from this conflict. David A (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, it was clearly stated that the 4x number was a conservative estimate. The maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 total deaths of mainly innocent women and children. Should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
In terms of what the source says directly, they do say conservative but also say not implausible, which I think reflects the high uncertainty with such difficult projections. Maybe we should include both?
My take (which is admittedly less relevant) is that something close to 15x probably isn't plausible here, since that would be at least 25% of the population, maybe 50%+ if direct deaths rise. The cases with high multiples, like DRC (~10x), seem to involve smaller proportions of the population, and also parts of the world that are more ignored by the West. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but given the systematic prevention of food deliveries caused by the Israeli military and settler groups, combined with complete destruction of sanitation, systematic targeting of medical personel and rescue workers, and so onwards, wouldn't the situation rationally be considerably worse than usual in terms of indirect deaths? David A (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you have some valid points and it's probably fine to say conservative. Not sure about a number like 570k since we wouldn't have a source for it (maybe stil admissible based on WP:CALC but feels iffy to me), but we could mention the 3-15x range if that works?
I think for balance it would also be good to somehow highlight that these are very rough projections, with a lot of assumptions (that Gaza is comparable to other conflicts, that GHM isn't already counting indirect deaths, etc) and uncertainty. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that mentioning the 3x to 15x range seems reasonable, as long as we also mention that the 4x multiple was used for the currently listed estimate. David A (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I still think that we should mention the 3x minimum and 15x maximum as well. David A (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I found what the authors meant to cite to back the multiples they mention: The Global Burden of Armed Violence, chapter 2. It says In the majority of conflicts since the early 1990s for which good data is available, the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number of direct deaths, and A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
What if we cited this report as the main source discussing indirect deaths, and briefly mentioned the Lancet correspondence just for the 186k figure? This report just seems much more authoritative and rigorous. I think this could lead to a stronger, more verifiable statement, otherwise readers who check the Lancet source might get the impression that numbers were pulled out of a hat. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that we should use both sources in combination for stronger verification purposes. Mainly using the main source that the Lancet study used for its total casualties estimations does not directly mention the current situation in Palestine as far as I am aware. Meaning, please do not remove any current information, but feel free to add a reference and the 570,000 upper maximum number, in my personal view. David A (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx: I think we should mainly cite the Lancet article, and point out that this is where they got the multiples from, for extra clarity that it's not just a random made-up number. Citing primarily this report for a figure like this makes it feel like WP:OR. It needs to be clear that the idea to use this figure in this way comes from the Lancet source. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 21:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I might have missed the part which implies that it is predictive. Though, when I first read it I interpreted it as indirect deaths up to that point (which would make sense given they're using a figure of how many people died up until recently).
That's not to say there's no grounds for interpreting it in that way, and I think there is good reason to think about including the "future" part Genabab (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Genabab: You missed it because at no point does the report say that the 186k figure is a projection.
Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. A report from Feb 7, 2024, at the time when the direct death toll was 28 000, estimated that without a ceasefire there would be between 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024.
This is simple enough to interpret. For the current conflict in Gaza, a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death is applied (which gives us the 186k figure). These are not future projections but rather an estimate of the impact to date. The future projections mentioned are from a February report and are based on a different context and point in time. - Ïvana (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
That paragraph is a bit ambiguous, but I think the context from the two preceding sentences make it clear they're talking about a projection of future indirect deaths (or maybe both, past + future): Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given [...]
Besides, interpreting it as 186k past deaths would make the claim quite extraordinary. GHM must have a reasonable estimate of total excess (direct + indirect) deaths, which is simply total deaths minus expected deaths (based on pre-conflict data). If that number was anything close to 186k, surely GHM would have reported it and it would be all over the news. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
What he's saying is that if the war stopped today and there were only 38k deaths and nobody was killed tomorrow (like by a bomb or a gun), then there would be some multiple in indirect deaths (author goes with 186k), but that doesn't mean 186k people have already died. People will die tomorrow from disease they have today that they got from yesterday's war. So these are sort of future deaths but they're caused by past events.
I think the "answer" is to hew even closer to the original text, like maybe go straight with "186k deaths may be attributable to the current conflict." This may be one of those instances where plagiarism is required for accuracy. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement about how to interpret the 186k figure; an author also somewhat clarified here (see the whole thread). I.e. it's a projection of future deaths caused by past conflict-related events.
I'm not sure about including attributable to the current conflict though. Normally I'm all for staying close to the source's language, but we should make exceptions for language that's ambiguous or likely to be misinterpreted, which the confusion here and on Twitter suggests this is. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not a projection of future deaths, which the author said in that twitter thread ("some already happened and some of which it is not implausible to expect in the future"). In that twitter thread, McKee says "The letter is clear," so he doesn't think it's ambiguous. To reproduce it in full:

To be clear, we are arguing that the count of direct deaths is, from the evidence we have, as accurate as it can be in the circumstances but almost certainly the indirect deaths are or will be much higher. We offer a conservative estimate but make clear it is just that.

and

The letter is clear. It is an illustrative example of possible scale of direct and indirect deaths resulting from conflict so far, some already happened and some of which it is not implausible to expect in the future. The point (as in the title) is need for better data

I think we should track that, meaning we should say there are 38k direct deaths, plus more indirect deaths, which a conservative (and reliable) estimate put at 186k but it could be higher. We should be clear that this is an estimate of indirect deaths that already happened and are expected in the future.
Like everyone, I am partial to my own writing, but I don't really understand what is incorrect or ambiguous about this: 186,000 Palestinians or more may have died as a result of the conflict according to a July 2024 conservative estimate by Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf published in The Lancet. Except that may have died might be better said as may have died or may die in the future or, as I suggested above, could be attributable to the current conflict (which is their writing, not mine). Levivich (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
My wording could have been better, I mean that the 186k figure includes future deaths (in addition to past ones). In other words, it's a projection of what the cumulative total of all excess deaths will end up being. Right?
(I suspect that the MoH data already includes at least some indirect deaths, as that other Lancet letter they cite seems to suggest: MoH data did not differentiate [...] whether deaths were caused directly. But yes this essay appears to have an implicit assumption that the MoH figure is direct deaths only.) — xDanielx T/C\R 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a projection of the cumulative total of all indirect (I don't know if that word means the same as "excess" or not) deaths based on the current best available data of the total direct deaths to date. In other words, if there are more direct deaths tomorrow, there would be more than 186k indirect deaths.
BTW, I think Mk17b's recent edit (thanks) improves the clarity of the sentence (and maybe should be made at Palestinian genocide accusation as well). Levivich (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That is my strong impression as well. David A (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Quoting that and citing would not be plagiarism Genabab (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This may be one of those instances where plagiarism is required for accuracy.

Surely what you meant to say here was "direct quotation", not "plagiarism"? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I suppose we could quote it, but I don't think it's necessary, we can just use the same words; "could be attributable to the current conflict" is common phrasing. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The following part of this discussion started at Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 3 § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024 (2) and was moved here to centralize discussion on this topic onto a single talk page.

One of the authors of the "Lancet" article mentioned at the end of the "Victims" section issued the following clarification:

"And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative" https://x.com/martinmckee/status/1810251590520950808

Given this clarification, it's best to remove the reference to this estimate entirely, as the author himself describes it as "purely illustrative". Zlmark (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what this request is, are you requesting that all reference to the Lancet piece be removed?
Also see Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Indirect casualties from the Lancet study Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I request to remove the reference to the Lancet, because its only added value was the specific estimate, but now one of the authors clarified that it's "purely illustrative", as far as he's concerned.
This, along with the facts mentioned by other contributors - lack of peer-review, future projections mistakenly framed as current estimates and questionable methodology based on comparison to other conflicts with different dynamics - justifies a removal of this reference, in my view. Zlmark (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Very well, EC editors will discuss that and decide what to do. Thanks for your input. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
And Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Estimate of future deaths Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
These various discussions should probably be consolidated in one place? Maybe the main war article talk page? Levivich (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan, what to do, copy paste? Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The Tweet has been deleted; glad you copy/pasted it so others can still follow. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleting a tweet often means taking back a statement due to that it has been misunderstood. David A (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the paper can be put into the Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war article but is just not definite enough to say anything much about in this article at the moment. In response to a query about the GHM not estimating higher figure - its figures are just for direct deaths, it does not count indirect deaths due to things like not having medical facilities or starvation as casualties of the war. This follows the standards of the OCHR reporting. NadVolum (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The only assertion in this Lancet "correspondence" worth inclusion in an encyclopedia is, "almost certainly the indirect deaths are or will be much higher." The number of escape hatches the authors provide themselves with is remarkable. "not implausible to estimate", "up to ... or even more" → (this is the most useless qualifier), "could be", "purely illustrative". I don't see how a claim employing this kind of language should be presented as something reliable. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet study is not a peer-reviewed article, it's a correspondence. One of the three authors has now outright admitted that the estimate is "purely illustrative meant to show how high the death toll could plausibly be in the authors' view. We shouldn't use it as an official source. Let's wait for a proper estimate on the death toll.--RM (Be my friend) 20:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Or it could be used to ... illustrate. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
A guess to try to illustrate a point has no place on Wikipedia RM (Be my friend) 11:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Good thing it's not a guess. Levivich (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
One of the authors openly admitted the 186k figure was purely illustrative. It's not a credible source. RM (Be my friend) 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
All estimates are illustrative? What do you think a projection or forecast is? It's just a pretty line on a chart backed by a methodology whose veracity lies somewhere on the spectrum between half-baked and crystal ball. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think "illustrative" means what you think it means. It does not mean "guess." Levivich (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
How would you interpret it? To me "purely illustrative" indicates that the figure was intended as an example of a conceivable number, rather than a rigorous estimate. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The 186k figure illustrates a conservative estimate in between the range of 3x-15x direct deaths (37,396 reported), i.e. 112,188-560,940. He could have picked some other figure in that range, but he chose a conservative estimate of 4x indirect deaths per direct death. It could be lower, but more likely, it will be much higher, that's what makes it "conservative." It's not a guess, it's an estimate. Whether it's a "rigorous" estimate, like as that term is defined in the field of statistics, I don't know, I'm not qualified to answer that. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey all, just so no one's confused, and to explain myself in a bit more detail than I did in the edit summary, I just prettified Selfstudier's opening and closing indicators for the parts of this section that were originally copied and pasted from other pages. I added explanations in a way that should be less discouraging towards continuing the discussions in-place (I feel like calling it a "copy" makes it feel like adding anything inside of it is messing it up, but there's no reason it has to just remain a "copy" and it'd actually be best for readability if any new comments in response to something in one of the copied sections is placed right after what it's responding to, indented one level further, like normal) while still communicating the context that they started on a different talk page. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 02:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Haven't read the discussion fully but I assume it is mainly about how to describe the Lancet points in the lede? I think a good middle ground solution would be just to change the current phrasing into "at least three magnitudes higher". I wouldn't personally be inclined to go beyond that because I think it is too early, we could elaborate more when it gains more coverage and responses in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
"Three magnitudes higher" is imprecise and hard to understand. "Between three to fiteen times higher" would be accurate going by the source. David A (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor David A: Why are you going on about "precision" when most of the language employed in the "correspondence" is wildly imprecise, laced with the same kind of linguistic hedging that economists often use to escape being held accountable for making irresponsible projections? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am "going on" about accurately citing the source in question and that it only used a conservative estimation of 4 times the officially listed casualty numbers. David A (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you going on about "precision" when most of the language employed in the "correspondence" is wildly imprecise ...

I think you're equivocating here. These are two separate points. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I propose modifying or completely removing the sentence, "Some have speculated that the total death toll in Gaza might be higher than reported, with roughly 10,000 Gazans believed still buried under the rubble."
  • I propose completely removing the clause, "186,000 Palestinians or more may die as a result of the conflict according to a July 2024 estimate by Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf published in The Lancet's correspondence section."
  • Reason: WP:CRYSTAL states, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate."
Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Myself and likely several other editors here would strongly object to such an extreme attempt to remove highly valid information, yes. David A (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
"extreme attempt": How is it extreme to cite Wikipedia policy as a rationale for a proposed edit? The assertion that the aforementioned speculative statements are "highly valid information" is not consistent with WP:CRYSTAL. Please explain how the aforementioned sentences do not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Chino-Catane (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Your reasoning is completely invalid here because this is not a case of original research. If WP:CRYSTAL is the basis for your argument, you're gonna need to pull a different passage than this one. (It's also worth noting that WP:CRYSTAL goes on to state: Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research [emphasis in original] that embody predictions.) Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 02:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As an open question for clarification to other editors here, for the sake of academic accuracy, given that there seem to be contradictory interpretations of the Lancet source, does it refer to sum total current deaths, when including all indirect causes, such as starvation and diseases, or is it a projection for the sum total future deaths as a result of this ongoing humanitarian catastrophe? What does the source of the methodology that the Lancet article writers used state regarding the topic? David A (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is basically saying what would be the difference in population in a cople of year time between what one would have expected without the war and what the population turns out to be. But that is a valid point okay - the Gaza Health Ministry does not include deaths due to disease, starvation or lack of medical care in its figures for casualties of the war. Probably many thousands have already died due to those factors, particularly children and the elderly, but not as many as the direct casualties yet. NadVolum (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There is now an analysis of the letter to The Lancet on Action on Armed Violence's Web site: Mike Spagat (2024-07-10). "A critical analysis of The Lancet's letter "Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult but Essential". Professor Mike Spagat reviews the claim the total Gaza death toll may reach upwards of 186,000". Looks like an expert to me and overall reliable organization, and we already actively cite both in other articles. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kinsio Here are the key points in the above-mentioned critical analysis of the Lancet "correspondence":
  • "these figures come from a small, non-representative sample of conflicts"
  • "each number ... is presented with unwarranted certainty. These figures are, in fact, surrounded by considerable uncertainty"
  • "a four to one ratio does not even rise to the status of rule of thumb"
  • "Historical data from other conflicts should be used cautiously, recognizing the unique factors at play in Gaza"
  • "While the letter in The Lancet draws attention to the severe human cost in Gaza, its methodology for estimating indirect deaths lacks rigour"
The WP:CRYSTAL allowance for speculative "credible research" does not clearly apply to this contentious Lancet "correspondence". Acceptance of the speculative estimate is a matter of opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Editors of this article are generally doing a good job. However, I think some people are forgetting that Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNP). People overreacted to a remarkable claim and decided to report it here in this article immediately. I propose striking the 186,000 figure from the article pending further supporting analysis. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
And what makes this charity particularly reliable? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
At the very least, I support removing the figure from the infobox. Significant concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of the source and I think its inclusion in the main infobox gives the source far more weight than is warranted. EDIT: to elaborate a bit further, it does not appear that this source was subjected to extensive peer review. Also, their sole justification for using the 1:4 death ration was a citation to the entirety of a 2008 UN report on armed conflict (no page number was provided for the over 170 page document). The figure provided seems to be a rough guesstimate rather than a specific number reached through rigorous analysis. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential as there are significant problems with this source's reliability and it is cited in many articles. Suggest people participate there as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Should this discussion be closed and editors directed to the RSN discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why, is reliability actually in question, this discussion is more how/what to include in articles. Selfstudier (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-lancet sources on 4x indirect casualties

As pointed out above, the 4x number of comes from: Geneva Declaration Secretariat. (2008, September). Global Burden of Armed Violence. The Lancet letter merely applies this to the Gaza war. Before this letter, two other sources did the same without attracting much attention:

  • Adam Gaffney (assistant professor at Harvard Medical School) writing in The Nation: "For instance, the Geneva Declaration Secretariat’s review of prior conflicts found that indirect deaths have, for most conflicts since the 1990s, been three to fifteen-fold higher than direct deaths, and suggest a ratio of four to one as a “conservative” estimate. There are reasons to think this ratio could be on the low end in Gaza given, among other things, the protracted and brutal siege."
  • Dima Nazzal, director of the Center for Health and Humanitarian Systems at Georgia Tech writing in a couple of different places[33][34]: "The report places a conservative estimate that for every person directly killed by war, four more are killed by its indirect consequences – things such as waterborne diseases due to the lack of safe, clean water and destruction of water sanitation facilities, or deaths due to birth complications because of health services being disrupted. Given the scale and scope of destruction of six months of bombing, the consequential impact of war in Gaza may be even worse. And whereas there is usually a lag before these effects are felt, in Gaza they are already occurring."

VR (Please ping on reply) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's less and less an extraordinary claim then, and more a common sense, practical application of a widely regarded conservative rule of thumb. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this research. We can write a line about indirect deaths that summarizes all three now. Levivich (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you greatly for your investigation. I also think that this seems like a common sense practical application and conservative estimation then. David A (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
VR thanks for these sources—I just want to note that Gaffney is a pulmonologist without formal qualifications in public health. He has written at least twice previously on this subject, including If, as the Trump administration has urged, it entirely overturns the Affordable Care Act, 19.9 million individuals could lose health coverage. Based on the same approach as outlined above, we estimate that this coverage loss would lead to 22,892 – 68,345 excess deaths among nonelderly adults annually. The life and health ramifications of this case — and of November’s election — are enormous. (link) and 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade. (source). So there's a consistent political activism to his statistical analyses.
Dima Nazzal is a professor of industrial engineering with an administrative role at CHHS. She is sometimes accorded a courtesy credit as final author on CHHS publications, but she is not a scholar of public health.
Ultimately the question is whether these three opinion pieces are enough to overcome WP:SYNTH issues with using the Small Arms Survey report's general conclusions. To me they don't move the needle. This claim requires attribution and clarity to readers re the underlying logic. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence in the war crimes section

Seems there's a bit of a content dispute over the following sentence, at the start of the "War crimes" section: Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of attempted or imminent genocide, and several other war crimes, including sexual violence. I felt that putting this sentence upfront unduly promotes a fringe view which equivocates the 7 October attacks with Israel's subsequent invasion. Based on the sources in the rest of the paragraph, I would say that it's reasonable to open this section by saying that both Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes - they have, and both by equally credible, numerous and important sources. However,

The Genocide Watch source says the following in the cited article: The massacres by Hamas constituted acts of genocide. The attacks were also crimes against humanity and war crimes... Both Israel and Hamas are committing war crimes... Genocide Watch considers the war in Israel and Gaza to be at Stage 3: Discrimination, Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 5: Organization, Stage 6: Polarization, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 9: Extermination. The article does not accuse Israel of acts of genocide. This article was written before the ground invasion of Gaza had begun, so to be more charitable to the source it's worth including that in a more recent article Genocide Watch also says We note Israel’s asymmetrical warfare in Gaza. Israel has committed multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. Its warfare has also included many acts of genocide. If the content stays in, it would be worth updating the source.

Beyond that, I think that the assertion by Genocide Watch that the 7 October attacks constitute acts of genocide is not supported by the bulk of RS, the international proceedings that have taken place during the war, scholarly/expert opinion etc. The sentence is therefore undue to lead the section. If it remains in the article, I think it should come attributed and be moved beneath any official proceedings by the UN and other international bodies.

I'm interested to hear what other editors think; tagging @BilledMammal @Catleeball @GordonGlottal as you each were involved. Unbandito (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be generalized. The "including sexual violence" is unnecessary, that is only one of many war crimes, it should mention crimes against humanity, which includes genocide among others. Picking out specific crimes is not the right thing for the opening sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the "including sexual violence" should be removed, or all the war crimes included. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree the sentence should likely be revised for clarity regarding the claims and reduced to summarize better as a lede be removed.
I also think you're right that the source should probably be updated. On an initial look, here's some sources we could explore as an alternative to the current Genocide Watch link regarding the claim that Israel is committing genocide in this conflict:~~
Sorry for my restore edit earlier! I only saw the claim that Genocide Watch was not a reliable source in the edit summary; I reverted without checking the edit history for context and didn't see the earlier revert/restores.
If I have a minute later tonight I might workshop a new lead and post it here, but don't wait for me if anyone else has time to do so first. :)
Catleeball (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading the War Crimes section, given that there is already several "see also" links including the gaza genocide article and pages for war crimes from each side, as well as discussion of the UNHRC investigation, I think I agree the lede here can just be deleted entirely. Catleeball (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This page is historically a bit reliant on "NGOs" that are basically bloggers based in Western countries. I include Genocide Watch and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. These are not RS in the sense that they have neither institutional processes to guarantee reliability nor unique expertise. It makes no sense to me that we should disregard our usual RSP in favor of these sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Muhammed Bhar

@BilledMammal can you explain in greater detail why you reverted my edit mentioning the killing of Muhammed Bhar, and propose an alternative presentation?

I also invite other editors to weigh in as to whether and to what degree the event is deserving of a mention in this article. Unbandito (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s too detailed for this article. Plus, most of the details you added weren’t supported by the provided source, and one was even contradicted by it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's clearly worthy of a one sentence mention at a minimum, and I would be surprised if a significant number of other editors disagree. Which details in particular do you think were unsupported or contradicted by the source? Unbandito (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Why? A single death is rarely significant enough for inclusion in this article, as adding one on every death that had relieved as much coverage as this one would make the article impossibly long.
Pretty much all of them; take a look over your source again and you’ll see. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Why? This was a particularly egregious and torturous killing of a vulnerable civilian that was picked up by reliable sources and has led to significant public outrage. Imo, the Killing of Hind Rajab and of Refaat Alareer deserve a mention in this article for the same reason. We already mention the killing of two journalists and a handful of World Central Kitchen workers in the article, as these are clearly significant incidents for reasons other than their death toll.
After re-reading the BBC article. I was able to find one mistake: The IDF dog attacked Muhammed during a raid of his family's house, and the family was ordered to evacuate without him only hours later. I will correct that. If you have other criticisms of the story or my summary of it, please substantiate them. Unbandito (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I personally don't see any issues with your summary of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Clearly a notable incident; I have created the relevant article Killing of Mohammad Bhar. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
There’s a lot of problems with that article, including that some of the claims are unsupported by the sources, and that one of the major sources, MEE, contains false information. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I am yet to see details of these “problems.” I have wrote the article myself and all the claims are in the sources. Either way this is irrelevant to notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I expect there'll be more coverage coming, and a killing of this nature certainly warrants a sentence in this article. GeoffreyA (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Last lede paragraph

Any objections to trimming this part?

From:

"The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large protests have occurred across the world, primarily pro-Palestinian ones. Israel's conduct have been denounced in the Muslim world and much of the Global South. In December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza; with the court later ordering Israel to immediately halt its ongoing Rafah offensive."

To

"The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large, primarily pro-Palestinian protests have been occurring across the world to call for a ceasefire. In late 2023, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice to look into allegations of Israel committing genocide in Gaza; with the court having ordered Israel to immediately halt its ongoing Rafah offensive accordingly." Makeandtoss (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this as a tentative cross between the two: "The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large, primarily pro-Palestinian protests have taken place across the world, calling for a ceasefire. In late 2023, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, and in 2024, the court ordered Israel to halt its Rafah offensive." GeoffreyA (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Works with me. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The remaining sentences, being bulky and not running too well, could also be tackled next. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
How about a further summary? From "In late 2023, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, and in 2024, the court ordered Israel to halt its Rafah offensive"
To "The International Court of Justice is currently reviewing a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza." Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I like this proposal. The comma placement in previous is still wonky in previous. We should at least say "South Africa brought a case" if this isn't accepted. And I think we can strike "currently" as redundant, also because it might condition the reader to expect a ruling soon, which is not going to be the case. Finally I think "calling for a ceasefire" should be struck. I, an informed July 2024 reader, know that it means "primarily pro-Palestinian protests, which primarily call for a ceasefire" but I don't the sentence itself is clear to a less-informed or future reader. It doesn't make clear that the pro-ceasefire protests are themselves a subset of pro-Palestinian protests and when understood the double-limitation still makes it impossible to guess what percentage of the total number of protests is pro-Palestinian-pro-ceasefire. I suggest The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large, primarily pro-Palestinian protests have taken place around the world. The International Court of Justice is reviewing a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Works with me. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
You're right. It's not clear what subset is calling for a cease-fire. We could cut it, as you've suggested, use a qualifier before "calling," or even recast the sentence, putting "primarily pro-Palestinian" in comma parenthesis. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Makeandtoss, I agree with your improved summary: it abstracts the details better. Concerning the "bulky sentences not running well," I was actually referring to the next section, from "Israel has received significant support" to the end of the paragraph. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I realize; let's take it a step at a time. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_44&oldid=1238631552"