Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split

PARTIALLY MERGED
After initial split discussions, convincing consensus to merge Other confrontations to Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) was established. Multiple editors also recommended that the West Bank and Israel section remain, and a partial oppose was made for this reason alone. There was additionally a parallel discussion to eliminate this standalone article, however this proposal failed to gain traction alongside the merge proposal. This is an involved close, so any strong opposition to this summary should be reverted; however it's worth noting the overwhelming consensus that was established making this close far from controversial, as well as the partial execution of a merge occurring on 6 January 2025 of the sections Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. Thus I believe this close is more procedural than consensus determining, given the bold merge that has already occurred and become the status quo, while noting that the section on Iran still remains against the established consensus. CNC (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

The article now has over 520,000 bytes and my computer is lagging a bit because of that. Should we split to prevent bugs from showing up? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it lagging when loading or scrolling? On my computer, 4-core 2200G and 16 GB of RAM, the article loads in about a second or so in both Firefox and Chrome. On my budget, 2 GB Samsung phone, it loads in about two to three seconds. Scrolling is solid on both. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My core i7 10th gen and 32 gigs of ram just die when i press the edit button Abo Yemen✉ 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing, it does take a bit longer to load, but still solid and responsive. Honestly, I'm surprised: the 10th gen was, I think, the last iteration of Skylake and quite fast. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lil update: Found out the my cpu was missing the fucking cooling fan. Moral of the story: dont get prebuilts Abo Yemen✉ 11:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the events section needs another mass trim. Page has grown considerably in recent weeks. CNC (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What really matters here is WP:SIZERULE, and according to the prosesize tool, the article is currently at 17,933 words, which is well over the 15,000 at which splitting is recommended. My browser is also noticeably slow at loading this page, which is why splitting/trimming at >15,000 words is usually recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second (third?) having issues with this page loading. It typically takes 20-25 seconds to become scrollable. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what is there left to split? CNC (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I joke about splitting off Events section, but according to section sizes it represents 52% of the article and approx. 9,500 words, which in itself, would be a full sized article that would benefit from trimming... CNC (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have problems loading the article on my computer, but perhaps some trimming is in order. I find mass moving of content to timeline articles to be undesirable, as I don't think these articles get as much attention and they are often of poorer quality than the main page. I think the best way to trim the article would be to find sources that cover the breaking news content in the events section in more of a summary manner, classifying similar events together and using aggregate figures to describe trends rather than reports of each massacre. Unbandito (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving some content out of the Events section and to the Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war may just be an unfortunate but necessary restructuring.
This article by necessity covers the whole war as its topic. And we should try to keep it readable and accessible to as many people as possible, per WP:SIZE.
However, in practicality, this always becomes a nightmare to actually accomplish for current events. Because we would have to develop some sort of "threshold" criteria on what to keep in this article. And this can go horribly wrong and devolve into edit wars and interminable talk page discussions along a few different routes:
  1. We only include coverage from "the most reliable" sources ("Well how can you say that X source is more reliable that Y source? I think Y source should be included because...")
  2. We only include events that are extensively covered ("I've got three whole marginally reliable sources that cover this event, how is that not extensive coverage...")
  3. We only include events that historians and scholars consider to be significant - obviously nigh impossible for a current event
And so on. Potentially for every single bit of content proposed for relocation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a tricky problem, it being too soon to expect scholarly summaries of things. We might try and identify key "topics" idk, anything war crime related for example, I think it might well be possible to find suitable summaries relating to those, without specifying every potential war crime. Or humanitarian aid, attacks on healthcare, Northern Gaza, etcetera. Incidents within should go straight to the timeline articles. Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just merge some sections and/or rewrite sentences in a shorter form for clarity...? It might not help as much but it's worth a try. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first step would be to to reduce the events section through trimming without removing content. I think we should be aware that Wikipedia serves an important archival function, and we should balance size considerations with an imperative to preserve sources. We should strive to retain the sources in the article unless they contain meaningfully outdated information. Thematic organization helps cut down on redundancy. As more scholarly and analytical material is developed, we will become more able to shorten the article without sacrificing material. To reduce bytes, we can remove quotes from non-paywalled sources unless a claim is in particular need of embedded context. Unbandito (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the events section, which needs to be compressed, I think Other Confrontations could also do with a bit of summarising. As for the remaining sections, they are reasonably small. Another round or two of trimming would shorten them further. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support since we have already split for example the background section into the Background to the Israel-Hamas war while keeping an intelligible four paragraph summary here which led to good results and set a precedent. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a page I created for a wbsite I run took over ten seconds to reload after Javascript changed it and less than a fifth of a second when I switched the anti-virus protection off. It may be a problem like that is causing the wide difference in experience above. But I agree the page is too long. If something is covered by a sub article the normal rule is to only include some edited version of the lead summary and put a main link at the top of the section. And if some section is too long then convert it into a sub article. NadVolum (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would everyone feel about removing the "Use of propaganda" section and adding its child article, Misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war, to the See also section? Unbandito (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Other confrontations
 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other confrontations

Moved from Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Split
 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content of the "Other confrontations" section could probably be moved over to the Middle Eastern crisis (2023-present) article, although that article probably needs a rewrite. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a lot of the material in other confrontations, and I am planning to do this soon. We can keep a basic summary and some aggregate statistics here and move the more detailed material over there. I like the idea of the middle east crisis article but I'm not sure how we would go about getting it to the quality and level of attention where it can act as a true parent to this page rather than a neglected distant relative that splits valuable context out of the page readers are looking at. I think the first step is broadly improving it, then getting this page replaced with that one on the main page. Unbandito (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approve of this. Only just realised that Other confrontations is supposed to be a summary of the middle east crisis article. It's also 21% of the article at 3,500 words so would help a lot to bring article under <13,000 words. The fact that the MEC article is only 3,200 words in itself, the content is clearly misplaced here, and merging it would create a full article over there. Overall the section should be summarised similar to how we summarised background section after splitting. Any objections? CNC (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only object to wholesale removal of the other fronts. If the middle east crisis page reaches the quality and readership levels of this page, we should reconsider making it more specific to the Israel-Gaza front. (Another reason to reconsider a name change for this page at some point in the future) Unbandito (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quality/readership analysis here is backwards; the reason there aren't as many views on that page is because the content isn't there and it's poor quality. If the content was there, and the quality improved, there would be more views. This is a chicken and egg scenario: as why would anyone visit MEC article when most of the content is here? The views argument also isn't relevant to policy or guidelines on summarising main articles to parent articles. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first step is to improve the MEC article, but I also think this page's status comes from its presence on the main page, its age, and its proximity to common search terms like "israel" "hamas" "israel war" etc. I just think we should wait to completely remove the other confrontations until the MEC article, which I believe is brand new, is more established and serves its function. Some of the material in other confrontations, like Israel's prison system, the Iranian strikes, assassination of Haniyeh, and the conflict with Hezbollah are inexorably linked to the Gaza front and should probably remain as a brief summary in this article for some time so that the bulk of readers about the conflict as a whole aren't misled based on what article they choose to start on. Unbandito (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed there should be a brief summary, at present that section is not brief nor a summary. Managing article sizes shouldn't be based on searches or views, but on scope and guidelines. CNC (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Israeli prisons and similar sections, the West Bank section and the Israel-Iran section deserve the most detailed summary on this page but each front should have an adequate summary of major events here. Unbandito (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about the Houthis blocking off the Red Sea and attacks on US forces in Iraq? Yes. The Lebanon and West Bank fronts as well as attacks in Israel? No. They should be treated as integral fronts of this war. In fact one of my issues with this article is that it has too little emphasis on that. This is a proper three-front war now, it isn't just between Israel and Gaza. RM (Be my friend) 14:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article's scope is specifically about the war with Hamas and the war on Gaza, which is part of a broader Israeli war on seven fronts (if we count Jordan). The scope of this article is not about Israel's seven front war. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mistake then. The Hebrew Wikipedia article for example treats all fronts Israel is fighting on as the same war. I actually think there needs to be a discussion on changing this. Wikipedia's job is to describe the war in full, not just one part of it. It's like the World War II article focusing heavily on the European theater and neglecting the Pacific War. In any event, we should move more stuff that doesn't directly involve Israel to trim the article if needed but we should keep stuff about the other fronts with a view to eventually expanding it. RM (Be my friend) 14:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not our problem at the English WP if the Hebrew one is treating the war from an Israeli perspective. The Gaza war is a topic on its own and it fulfills the notability guidelines for a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza War is one front of a multi-front war. Wikipedia's job is to summarize a war in it's entirety, not just one particular front of it. RM (Be my friend) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon which RS are you relying for "multi-front war". Just because Gallant and Halevi say it is, doesn't count for diddly. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza War is indeed a one front of a multi-front war from an Israeli perspective. That doesn't change the fact that: 1- Gaza War satisfies the notability guideline for a standalone article 2- that the Israeli perspective is not the only perspective in this world. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that we are debating whether this war deserves a standalone article is baffling, especially when is an article that already documents this "multi-front" war that could be expanded. CNC (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above by Makeandtoss, this article is about Israel–Hamas, not the Middle Eastern Crisis. The section should be summarised just like every other section that has a main article (without exception). CNC (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this article shouldn't just be about the Israel-Hamas war. The very name seems to have been sort of made up as a filler in lieu of an official name. This is in fact a proper multi-front war. Everything not involving Israel can go into the Middle East crisis section. RM (Be my friend) 14:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we merge Other confrontations to MEC as explained above this article would still be over 12,000 words. That is still arguably too big based on WP:SIZERULE and the scope should be further reduced if anything, certainly not expanded. I get that some editors want all the information to be in the same place, but if that were the case, this article would be 100,000+ words based on all the child articles combined. This is why we should split/merge/summarise. CNC (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said we shouldn't significantly trim it. We can focus more info in spin-off articles such as specific battles and "allegations of" this or that to trim the size, but we need to focus on all fronts as integral parts of the same war. This article needs a major restructuring at some point, and as part of it we should give info on all fronts in a similar manner, not treat it as a war solely between Israel and Hamas and all the other fronts as spin-offs barely relevant to the article. RM (Be my friend) 15:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to follow the sources, not right great wrongs as you are doing here. Desist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. There are many sources that treat it all as one war. Israel's official list of casualties for one. This is very obviously a multi-front war, and the article just puts overwhelming emphasis on one front. Which is indeed the main front but not the full story. The article simply needs to give more attention to the other fronts and not cut back on it. RM (Be my friend) 19:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going round in circles a bit here so have created survey below for support/oppose votes, in case there are more editors with opinions beyond this discussion. CNC (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Should Other confrontations section be merged into Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)? CNC (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it should be, with very brief summaries here. But that was not what some editors were proposing, which was the elimination of this article as a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support VoicefulBread66 (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and keep brief summaries with aggregate info and mention of the most important developments only in this article for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. Keep the attacks in Israel, Israeli prisons, and Iranian strikes in this article more or less as-is. Unbandito (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial oppose The section about Palestine and Israel should remain (Israel–Hamas_war#West_Bank_and_Israel). The other sections about other countries can be moved and a summary section can be added for other countries. Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, this section should remain. Maybe need to start this again with that 🙄 CNC (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this article is 16657 words, so it definitely needs to be trimmed per WP:PROSESIZE rule. Skimming the article, I did notice places where lengthy quotations have been used. It’s probably better to paraphrase them per WP:QUOTE. I will try to paraphrase the quotes to help trim down the article. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing I noticed which could be an easy way to trim the article is to trim the parts that are not using the best sources. Am noticing some sourcing from a liveblog. I think liveblogs are a great way to keep up with live news and snippets but liveblogs should be used with caution in Wiki articles per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:NOTNEWS. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stopped trimming at the "Attacks in central Gaza". A lot of those sources used about the daily deaths are from a live news blog. I stopped because I think I would be removing a lot of that section if I continued, but those liveblog sources should probably be replaced with better sources and it would probably be better to report cumulative deaths in the month rather than daily reporting of deaths to help trim the article size. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with trimming daily death counts, however I think it is important to retain mention of individual attacks and massacres. Doing so allows the reader to asses a pattern of action. Unbandito (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think so. I noticed there were non-liveblog sources also reporting specific instances of casualties. I think I will keep those since the non liveblog sources thought they were notable to use in an article. I will just trim the liveblog ones to reduce the Wiki article word count. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial oppose: The Hezbollah-Israel conflict, raids in the West Bank, Israeli clashes with the Houthis, and Iranian attacks on Israel should all be extensively covered here. In fact we should have a conversation on renaming this article as "Israel-Hamas war" was very obviously made up by editors trying to do the best that they could in lieu of official names for this war. This is a multi-front war between Israel and the Axis of Resistance and should be treated as such, rather than just covering one front of it. The stuff about Houthi attacks on international shipping and NATO strikes against the Houthis, attacks on US forces in Iraq and US counterstrikes, and other stuff not directly involving Israel should be put in the Middle East crisis article. If there's more trimming to do it can be done by taking more info from here and putting it into articles on battles and campaigns in this war.--RM (Be my friend) 13:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Partial oppose in agreement with this. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Note: I changed my mind reading arguments in thread, please don't count this. <3
    Note though we had a conversation about changing the name to 'Israel-Gaza' war above, which i think we're changing it to if i understood the vote correctly. It should possibly be widened yes, but at least it works in that all the other fronts exist in relation to Gaza. SP00KYtalk 14:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fine, after all it isn't just Hamas fighting in Gaza. It leaves out the other fronts but it's a start. I do think we should consider alternative options once the war is over. Currently the war is called the "Iron Swords War" in Israel (and that's its name on Hebrew Wikipedia). I doubt that name will reach consensus on English Wikipedia but I've also read that it might become known as the "October 7th war" (and in fact there's already a book that's been published under that name), if that does go mainstream it would be the perfect name for it in my opinion. RM (Be my friend) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Maybe after the war we'll be having conversations to change it to 'Gaza Genocide'. That's certainly not a vote i'm going to be looking forward to but it all depends on the courts I guess. There is also 'Al-Aqsa Flood' which would be an obvious one, but bizarrely in my looking around 'Al-Aqsa Flood' whilst refers to the war in Arabic only refers specifically Oct7 in English. SP00KYtalk 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaza genocide is already a separate article. JasonMacker (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciated, cheers JasonMacker ! <3 SP00KYtalk 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The title, now supported multiple times, along with the opening sentences of the lead, should define the scope. Anything outside of that should be in some other article with relevant summaries here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Right now this article seems to almost completely overlap with Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). Unless we reduce the scope of this article, we'll be forced to merge both articles, per WP:FORK. But we've already established this article is WP:TOOBIG, so lets start reducing scope.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support its better to split this into separate articles linked to this page as main article, also it will be better to create a separate page for West Bank with regards to this war, bcoz I feel the happenings in west bank are getting far less mention but fat is the disterbance there is far worse.

Bonadart (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of this as a standalone article

This possibility was mentioned by user:Makeandtoss above and it's not something I'd considered until now, but there is some logic in it. We already have an article on the general war between Israel and allies versus Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and allies: Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). We also have an article on the portion of the war which is in Gaza, between Israel and Hamas: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. So what is the purpose of this article other than to duplicate information in those articles? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last RM, My !vote, not that it gained any traction. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I think Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip should be merged into this article. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. Removing this as a standalone article would cause confusion, as there are certain events such as skirmishes with Hamas in the West Bank and the assassination of Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders that did not take place as a part of the Israeli invasion but are inexorably linked to the Gaza front of the war and its main belligerents. Unbandito (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think if we try to look ahead, this will doubtless be the Gaza War, as documented here. I can't see the sense in removing it or merging it into an overarching article. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it does end up as Gaza War, then the invasion article could be merged, for now the two things should stay separate, just like 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel is separate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war exists but should probably renamed to something less cumbersome. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post January cleanup

@AirshipJungleman29 performed a trim, from 14500 words (480K bytes) in 18 January 23:00 to 11000 words (350K bytes) in 19 January 04:00. @CNC indicated their initial approval. Do you both think the above discussion can be deemed resolved? Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite but close, I left a comment for AJ29 on talkpage requesting implementing this. But otherwise, given the clear consensus above and a motivated editor to summarise Other confrontations a bit better, I'll close this up. CNC (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, as a personal note, this led me to read the whole article for the first time, as it is now much more pleasant to read! Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFCBEFORE on a future move

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am starting this discussion to begin thinking about a new RM, to be opened with good sources. Feel free to add to the table below. As far as I know, the only RS that still uses "Israel–Hamas war" is NYT. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. Should we modify the table so that "both" and "something else" are separate categories? Unbandito (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if one source uses two, perhaps simplest is to include it twice like, for example, NYT or NYT Live and BBC or BBC Live. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the source is inconsistent, it's still a use, and counts for the RM (albeit weaker than if it only uses one). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta account for the sources that use multiple variations; listing those sources under just one variation is misleading. For example, BBC's section on this is called "Israel-Gaza war," not "War in Gaza" [1]. That it used the phrase "the war in Gaza" in an article doesn't merit it being listed under "War in Gaza." Past RMs have gone over these nuances in great detail and collected dozens of links as examples. Levivich (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a very elaborate re-hashing of a distinctly One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others) exercise. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO we should give up on trying to prove a common name and talk about a descriptive title of "Gaza war" with a lowercase W. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ground the title in the actual principal geography that the conflict entails, as already done by most media outlets, and per WP:NCE, WP:MILMOS and generally standard practice ... Now there's a thought! Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For over a year, I've been waiting for the right time to propose it (which would be some months after the prior one), and every single time I'm about to, somebody comes along and launches a no-pre-discussion RM. Including now over two consecutive winter holiday seasons. Crowdsourcing doesn't always work. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich, suppose you were to propose a move, do you have a list of sources that you'd use? Can you please post them here?
And everyone (@Chicdat, @QuicoleJR, @Unbandito, @Makeandtoss etc), what do you think of a move to "War in Gaza"?VR (Please ping on reply) 14:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an incomplete table of news sources, and (thanks to you VR) a comprehensive table of scholarly sources to support the RM. Though either title is fine with me, I personally hold a slight preference for "Gaza war" over "War in Gaza" per consistency with the prior conflicts, but if either one is proposed, I would support it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat, should we, present in the RM, 3 choices (Gaza, Israel-Gaza, Israel-Hamas) and ask people to give ranked choices? Or we should ask people to indicate whether they support/oppose on every single one of the choice? Or should the RM only be a binary choice between "Gaza" and "Israel–Hamas"? VR (Please ping on reply) 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I'd prefer the binary, since it seems like both Gaza and Israel–Hamas are both considerably dominant over Israel-Gaza. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ping VR and no offense but I'm going to decline to suggest sources for fear that a year+ from now, someone will post it as evidence of "consistent non-neutral editing" by me and arbcom will tban me for it as is happening now at arbpia5. I don't think I'll be participating in talk page discussions like this anymore, sorry. Again, nothing personal and has nothing to do with you or this page in particular. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News organizations

@Chicdat: Thanks for taking the initiative. Note that a major point of contention will arise relating to what is the most recent usage by these RS, so the analysis in the table should probably include this. Also, a point will be raised that the scope is not consistent, so categories should be compared to categories, and text references to text references. But overall, it seems that there is consensus among RS, and in the previous move, to include Gaza rather than Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza War War in Gaza Israel–Hamas war Israel–Gaza war Something else
ABCNews

Algemeiner al-Arabiya English Arab News The Washington Post Sydney Morning Herald Le Monde Diplomatique 12

BBC Huffpost Intercept/War on Gaza NYT

AP Live Reuters/Israel and Hamas at war F24

Guardian

Al Jazeera BBC Live ABC (Australia) SCMP

NYT Live/Middle East Crisis

Times of Israel (Uses both 'Gaza war' and 'Israel-Hamas war') NBC/Middle East Conflict CNN/various descriptions

Scholarly sources

Here is the table I presented at the last RM.

Engine Gaza+war Israel+Hamas+war
Google scholar 590 257
JSTOR 26 24
PubMed 57 17
Taylor & Francis 60 24
ScienceDirect 15 9

VR (Please ping on reply) 18:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza war" is a bit more ambiguous, and some of those hits could refer to the 2014 war, the 2012 war, or the 2008-2009 war. "Israel-Hamas war" is much less ambiguous, so it would naturally have less hits. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify that in each of these cases I filtered to post 2023. Now its possible a source is referring to the 2008 Gaza war post 2023, but its rare. For example in google scholar:
So as you can see this effects results by <1%. BTW, the previous wars can be referred to as the "Israel-Hamas war" (for example "2014 Israel-Hamas war"[2] or "The [2009] Israel-Hamas War"[3]) but this is also rare.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is enough evidence that the current war can be primary topic over all other Gaza wars, and that it is time for you to start an RM and present the opening statement. Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the results of the Google Scholar search use "Israel-Gaza War", not "Gaza War". One of the ones on the first page even used "Israel-Hamas War" and simply happened to also mention Gaza in the title! The Google Scholar search you performed, using the terms you typed in, includes all sources that use "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza War", and it is therefore a bit misleading. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kenneth Kho@QuicoleJR, I deliberately didn't use quotes so as to include "Gaza war" variants like "War in Gaza", "War on Gaza", and "Israel-Hamas war" variants like "Israel and Hamas at war". Before we start the RM, we should decide if including these variants is valid or not. I think it should be as these are very similar wordings. If not, then everyone must exclude variants from their search.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only valid exception would be to exclude Israel–Gaza War from Gaza War, the rest of the variants are most likely valid. Kenneth Kho (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly sources table with variants

Search query Google Scholar JSTOR Taylor & Francis
Scope Titles only Titles only Titles only Anywhere
Gaza war variants "Gaza war" only 421 36 7 151
"War in Gaza" only 203 26 4 170
"Gaza war" or "War in Gaza" 553 50 11 279
(subtract) "Israel-Gaza war" 69 9 0 27
Gaza war total 484 41 11 252
Israel-Hamas war variants "Israel-Hamas war" only 278 26 8 164
"Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel and Hamas at war" or "War between Israel and Hamas" 285 27 8 192
Israel-Hamas war total 285 27 8 192

@Kenneth Kho@QuicoleJR here's the table with "Israel-Gaza war" removed and popular variants included. I included the top 3 search engines that I can think. I'm still trying to figure out how to use PubMed's phrase index and proximity search.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is sufficient evidence for me. If you are unable to figure out PubMed, I think Google Scholar, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis are enough. If you are able to include PubMed data, I think it will be similar to the three. There will be a more heated debate on common name in news media, I think Makeandtoss's evidence is a good start. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kenneth Kho, Makeandtoss, we need a similar fleshed out table for the news sources. Personally, I think scholarly sources should be given at least as much weight as news sources. VR (Please ping on reply) 14:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News sources' prose

Domain Country Top name ("the gaza war") ("the gaza war" OR "the war in gaza") ("the israel-hamas war") ("the israel-hamas war" OR "the war between israel and hamas")
theguardian.com UK Gaza war 600 789 10 76
reuters.com UK Gaza war 212 1,100 51 168
bbc.com UK Gaza war 147 182 0 4
telegraph.co.uk UK Israel-Hamas war 1 47 69 78
haaretz.com Israel Gaza war 627 669 9 40
timesofisrael.com Israel Both 190 485 218 246
jpost.com Israel Israel-Hamas war 48 208 152 162
palestinechronicle.com Palestine Gaza war 150 174 0 0
today.lorientlejour.com Lebanon Gaza war 120 160 4 40
aljazeera.com Qatar Gaza war 42 398 0 2
france24.com France Gaza war 119 189 40 45
afp.com France Neither 0 1 1 1
dw.com Germany Israel-Hamas war 6 92 55 60
cbc.ca Canada Gaza war 50 117 49 50
smh.com.au Australia Gaza war 9 118 6 31
cnn.com USA Israel-Hamas war 5 82 86 133
wsj.com USA Gaza war 3 64 2 3
nytimes.com USA Both 116 526 210 384
pbs.org USA Israel-Hamas war 3 180 190 157
bloomberg.com USA Gaza war 2 96 4 6
theatlantic.com USA Neither 1 6 0 0
washingtonpost.com USA Gaza war 137 217 65 78
politico.com USA Both 26 82 38 40
thehill.com USA Israel-Hamas war 3 82 49 43
npr.org USA Israel-Hamas war 27 134 79 62

Methodology: I searched for "the gaza war", and its most common variant "the war in gaza" vs "israel-hamas war" and its most common variant "the war between israel and hamas", for the past one month (to pick up on which direction sources are moving). I used "the" to ensure I was searching in prose and not in keywords or tags. I used google's "OR" operator, but some results don't make sense and you may get different results than me (see WP:GOOGLELIMITS). To determine what a source's top term was, I first compared "the gaza war" against "the israel-hamas war" and see if one phrase was clearly predominant; if not, I then added their respective variants and tried the test again. If without the variant one was predominant, but with it the other became predominant, I wrote "both"; if all hits <10, I wrote neither.

Observation: Of the 25 sources examined, 13 prefer "gaza war", 7 prefer "israel-hamas war" and 5 are unclear. Every single source uses either "the gaza war" or its variant in large numbers, but the same is not always true for "the israel-hamas war". American and Israeli sources are split between the two phrases, while UK, Europe and Arab sources lean more towards "gaza war". VR (Please ping on reply) 09:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect analysis VR, well done! I think the community is now better posed to make an informed move decision based on this data. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede updates

These need updating, since we are now in early 2025:

1- "By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed or damaged over 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 at least a dozen cemeteries."

2- "Over 100,000 Israelis were internally displaced as of February 2024." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated #1.
While #2 is already problematic since it lumps displaced Israelis from the country's war with Hezbollah into the conflict relating to the war on Gaza; it is also a year old. I have tried looking for updated figures but didn't find any relating specifically to Israeli communities around Gaza. If someone can find these figures within next two days, we can update them, otherwise this will be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would agree that if we want to include displacements from the Israel-Lebanon conflict, then we should include both Israeli and Lebanese, or neither.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede summarizing proposal 2

This summarization is going to be a tough one, proposal to summarize this chunk from:

"The war has reverberated regionally, with groups of the Axis of Resistance launching attacks on American military bases, and the Yemeni Houthi movement attacking commercial vessels in the Red Sea that incurred a US-led military operation. Meanwhile, by the end of 2024, a year-long exchange of strikes between Israel and Hezbollah escalated into a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, before pausing after a ceasefire. The crisis also saw the fall of the Assad regime and an ongoing Israeli invasion of Syria.

To

"The war has reverberated regionally, with Axis of Resistance groups across several Arab countries and Iran clashing with Israel and the United States. By late 2024, a year of Israel-Hezbollah strikes led to a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as well as the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria and an ongoing Israeli invasion of the country." Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it and thinking. One point, though, do we need to include the fall of Assad and the invasion of Syria? GeoffreyA (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about this specific point, but it surely is directly connected to the regional reverberations part of this war. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Regarding the whole section, I must say that I can find little to improve because you've strained it down to its essentials, and indeed, there's not a word more that can be severed without losing meaning. Only, a slight stylistic change in the Israel-Hezbollah sentence:
"The war has reverberated regionally, with Axis of Resistance groups across several Arab countries and Iran clashing with Israel and the United States. By late 2024, a year of strikes between Israel and Hezbollah led to a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as well as the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria and an ongoing Israeli invasion of the country." GeoffreyA (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, yes. Though of course, this does not exclude the possibility of further trimming this part in the future if deemed necessary. I will wait until tomorrow if anyone has further input before implementing this change. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's quite modular, in that we can cut out certain parts, if necessary in the future, without affecting the rest. GeoffreyA (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Tackle paragraph three next? (Which I think will be a nightmare.) GeoffreyA (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated and trimmed it a bit. Hesitant to do more to avoid giving misleading equivalency between the one day of 7 October 2023, and the 461 days since. Let's leave it for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the October 7 section

@AndreJustAndre: This article should be a broad overview of the relevant issues. With that in mind, I don't think we need to specify every kibbutz affected, and we certainly don't need a list of the types of people taken hostage. Can you please explain why you think this information needs to be included? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since this article is not the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casus belli was Oct 7 and the hostages and the various operations that day, so I think it's not undue weight. Andre🚐 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A date can't be a casus belli, and arguably, Hamas had one of those as well, for their attack, that aside, hostages just need to say how many, no idea what "various operations" means exactly but some summary like that too, right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date isn't the casus belli but the events of that date. What I reverted removed some details of the attacks on the kibbutzim. If Hamas' casus belli should be mentioned too it can be, is it not already? Andre🚐 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to list every single attack that happened on that day, we can just say that various attacks occurred and highlight the most important ones. Similarly, we don't need a sentence describing who the hostages were. We can describe the attack that started the war without these specifics, and the article on the October 7 attacks still mentions them, so I don't see why they need to be included. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: Can you please explain why you think we need to describe the location of every single massacre on October 7, instead of simply summarizing? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I said that, QuicoleJR, but I do think some mention of the invasion of the kibbutzim as a casus belli is merited, and I think your removal was overly extensive. It doesn't need to name all the specific operations but I think some mention of the kibbutzim should be retained. Andre🚐 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: I agree that the invasion of the kibbutzim certainly warrants mention, I just disagree on the importance of the disputed content. I don't believe that this overview article needs to list all of the kibbutzim that were attacked and the number of casualties in each. I believe that we would be better off simply saying that it happened in multiple kibbutzim and describing the most notable ones (Re'im and Be'eri) with more detail. The more detailed information would be retained in the October 7 article. Judging by your reply, you seem to be arguing that every kibbutzim that was invaded should be mentioned by name. If that is correct, I would like to know why. If I am wrong, please let me know. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that, QuicoleJR. I agree that "aying that it happened in multiple kibbutzim and describing the most notable ones with more detail" is acceptable. Andre🚐 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sound like you actually disagree with the change you reverted. If you don't have any objections, I am going to restore the original edit. To be clear, I will only be restoring the summarization related to listing the kibbutzim, not the other disputed edit regarding the hostages, which I am fine with keeping as the status quo. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: Forgot to ping. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the hostage edit, but regarding this revert [4], I disagree with the removal of the text mentioning that they were kibbutzim and the mentions of the notable kibbutzim, instead adding "at several locations." I believe it should specify that the locations were kibbutzim and name the most notable ones, as you said. Andre🚐 23:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as to your first point, would it be better if I changed "locations" to "kibbutzim"? As for the second point, the new version names the most notable two (Re'im and Be'eri) in the following sentences. If there are any other kibbutzim that you think need to be mentioned, please tell me which ones and why. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would suffice, thank you. Andre🚐 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done QuicoleJR (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning Nir Oz might be worthwhile Andre🚐 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: Could you please add the content? The source previously used to support mentioning it doesn't provide enough context to support a section, so a new source would need to be added. I'm not sure what source that would be, but I do agree that the Nir Oz attack should be mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that we shouldn't give unnecessary details in that section. I hope that a similar filter would be applied to the parts of the article dealing with the war in Gaza which includes lots of individual attacks atm. Alaexis¿question? 22:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede bit

Personally I think this should be removed from the lede: "Torture and sexual violence were committed by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli forces". Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss why? VR (Please ping on reply) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things are happening in this war like use of human shields, tunnel warfare, carpet bombing, etc; not everything should be mentioned in the lede as summary. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strong part of the overwhelming horror at Hamas's actions that gave the Israeli government such a casus belli and widespread support by the Israeli public and international partners. Its relevant IMO. TimeEngineer (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the information provided is accurate and verifiable, it should remain. It is one of the catalysts (for good or for bad) why the war has lasted as long as it has. I see no compelling reason to remove this information from the article but am open to futher opinion. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss so it seems that information should remain, but it can be rephrased with the other things you mentioned. "Torture and sexual violence against the opposing side was committed by Palestinian fighters and by Israeli forces; Palestinian civilians have been used as human shields by Israeli forces and by Hamas." VR (Please ping on reply) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was in arguing for less of this kind of information in the lede rather than more. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty figures

Note that a peer-reviewed Lancet scientific paper has found that Palestinian causality figures are most likely an undercount by at least 41%, which has received extensive reporting by RS. [5] [6] [7] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pedantic, but the Reuters headline[8] here is wrong: "Gaza war death toll could be 40% higher, says study". Instead it should say "could be 71% higher". When we are going from the "real" figure to GHM figure, we'd subtract 41%, but when we are going from the GHM figure to the "real" figure we'd add 71%.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: How about summarizing it this way?
From: "Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been reported killed, over half of them women and children, with thousands more dead under the rubble. The Lancet has estimated a total figure of 70,000 direct deaths due to traumatic injuries."
To: "Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, over half of them women and children, and tens of thousands more believed dead, trapped under the rubble or unreported." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet study does not actually include those under the rubble, so that would be a misleading summary. I don't see the need to blend the Lancet analysis into other things. It's got a very narrow and precise scope and definition. It also isn't saying that's the total number of dead, just those dead from direct traumatic injuries. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: It is mainly because they are within same idea in two different sentences; also I think there is no need to attribute the Lancet. To avoid the implication you mentioned; "dead" could be replaced with "killed" for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's correct that the Lancet is a very authoritative source, and this is the first peer-reviewed study of the numbers, so it is doubly authoritative. Even so, I think attributing the statement is quite worthwhile until the dust has settled around it in the media. It has already been picked up a lot, but we will know in a week or so whether anyone opens to question its methodology or attempt to pick holes in its premises. If not, the attribution can go; if so, the material is suitably treated in-text. In terms of your specific combo phrasing, I'm afraid I don't really like the way it takes a very rigourously quantitative source with specific figures and turns that into just "tens of thousands" in a vague context. That just seems sloppy. Your proposed summary makes it so that the Lancet study may as well not even exist, which is the opposite of what my attributed phrasing is doing, which is broadcasting that fact far and wide. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about: ""Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, mostly women and children; thousands more are dead under the rubble, and The Lancet estimates the true death toll may be 70% higher." VR (Please ping on reply) 13:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of works, but it should probably be "... estimates the true death toll due to traumatic injury to be (at least) 70% higher." – since the study is specific and I don't think includes those under the rubble, which would be extra. This also doesn't include indirect deaths from starvation or disease, which the article alludes to in noting the previous 186,000 estimate in the Lancet correspondence. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "traumatic injury", how about "directly killed" since that is more accessible to the reader. So something like:
"...over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been directly killed, mostly women and children; thousands more are presumed dead under the rubble, and The Lancet estimates the number of direct deaths may be 70% higher. These estimates don't include indirect deaths (due to disease and famine), which may be four times higher." VR (Please ping on reply) 13:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can definitely get on board with that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support that wording, and inserting "mostly civilians" as suggested below. Well supported by the sources. I'm trying to think of a better wording, as "may be 4 times higher" seems to imply "up to 4 times higher" when actually the source implies it may be much more, but the above wording is still OK and I haven't thought of a better wording. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties in infobox

The casualties section of the infobox is presently being used to give a detailed breakdown of casualties in the war. This is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE where the infobox is to summarise key facts from the body of the article. The infobox is not suited to such detail. Whether the numbers reported can be represented as a fact is another issue, as is the process by which these figures are arrived at through a collation from sources. A collation process assume that the reports identified are complete and without duplication. Also, in an ongoing engagement, any figures are not stable. Consequently, the casualty reports should be removed from the infobox. A consensus to this effect was reached for Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is a casualties section in the body of the article and the TOC directs the reader to that section. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 are you proposing there be no casualties in the infobox, if so, I disagree. Otherwise please state your proposal. If we must simplify, I'd rather leave in the casualties for Gaza and remove those for other parts like Lebanon etc.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the casualties can be simply summarised, they don't belong in the infobox (per INFOBOXPURPOSE). If you disagree, then on what P&G basis? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could maybe put the detained and displaced numbers in a hidden section like the one the Egyptian casualties are currently in, since these are not technically casualties and losses, and maybe remove the Egyptian casualties altogether. Direct death and indirect deaths could be made more concise at the top with bracketed ranges, 47,000-70,000, and 186,000+, respectively. That would reduce the size. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The place for detail is in the body of the article. Large hidden sections create accessibility issues for mobile users as the dropdown doesn't function for mobile devices. We are also back to the issue of presenting detail in the infobox for which it is not intended per INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refaat Alareer's death

I removed this from the article back in December, but apparently it was added back on January 1st. I still believe it is not important enough for this broad overview article, and should be mentioned in more specific articles, such as the timelines. @Monk of Monk Hall: Why do you believe that this individual poet's death should be given a paragraph in this article? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all, I believe there is only a sentence in this article about Alareer, not a paragraph. To my understanding, Alareer's death is one of the most notable civilian casualties of the war. His killing has had extreme significance in pro-Palestinian protests around the world. Buildings have been occupied and libraries created in his memory. A video of Brian Cox reading his poem was watched millions of times. Alareer's book recently made the NYT bestseller list. There are far less notable people mentioned in the article, like Israeli colonel Ehsan Daxa. Since I added Daxa to the article, I have never seen anyone try to remove him despite the fact that there is no consistent basis to leave him in the article while removing Alareer. I think this article should be fairly detailed even if that means it is long and for the most part, I think that short mentions of notable individuals in this article enhance its quality and accurately reflect the weight given to them by the sources we use. If Alareer were not mentioned here, this article would be minimizing his importance in comparison the sources and the public's memory and those are important aspects of what we ought to hope to capture in writing for Wikipedia. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Monk of Monk Hall, I hope we can come with a more or less objective criterion. I don't know why, for instance, Ehsan Daxa is mentioned and Vivian Silver is not. Alaexis¿question? 20:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should not be given a paragraph, rather a single sentence (not two as we currently have it). We can also make it part of a sentence like "Israeli operations have killed prominent artists in such as Refaat Alareer,..." IIRC he's not the only prominent artist killed in Gaza[9], and the killing of artists as a category has been subject to RS coverage[10].VR (Please ping on reply) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second sentence was/is needed to explain his notability, but I agree with the idea of organizing the article more thematically in general, in which case the mention of Alareer could be shortened and moved to a section about notable civilian deaths. If the ceasefire announced today holds, I think it will become much easier to write about the war as a historical rather than a current event, and we can clean up the timeline and present information more thematically. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date variety?

Over at Talk: October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, there was a recent requested move that changed "7 October" to "October 7," de facto ending in consensus that the entire article's WP:DATEVAR should be changed from day-month-year to month-year-day, based on a preponderance of reliable sources — Arab, Israeli, and international. In the interest of cross-topic consistency, I'm asking here if people would agree to change the DATEVAR on this article (and other related articles) to MDY based on this conclusion. DecafPotato (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both Palestine and Israel use DMY format according to our listing so we should retain that format. MOS:DATETIES says to "should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country". Maintaining date format consistency across articles is not important. Burrobert (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 January 2025

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

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

See also Methodology of news table

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

See also Methodology of scholarship table

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose since the troops -if I’m not mistaken- were sent to operate interceptors targeting Iranian missiles, which are a different conflict from the one here relating to Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the infobox, it lists 100 US troops on the side of Israel. I just think it's weird to have US troops on the side of Israel in the conflict's infobox but not have them as belligerents. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these US forces fight against Hamas in Gaza. Otherwise, one would need to include all US battleships in this area, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If those 100 troops are part of a different conflict, should they be removed from the infobox? (Or should the area warships be added?) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say they're part of a different conflict, but they aren't a belligerent in the conflict. It's possible to be involved in a conflict without being a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like WP:OR, as the cited source says US troops are deployed "in combat". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Belligerent has a very specific definition. Combat troops only operating in a supportive role are not belligerents. As another example, if the US sent medics to the border of Ukraine (or even into Ukraine) to help bolster their healthcare system (ex: due to losses of doctors who were conscripted into combat), that does not make the US a belligerent in that war. Similarly here, the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems. They are not making the ultimate decisions on how they are used. They are acting in a supporting role, not a belligerent role. I will end by saying thank you to TurboSuperA+ for recognizing this will be contentious and bringing it here rather than just making the edit - we all do better when we communicate rather than just making changes that we know will be contested :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems."
The WP:RS is quite clear that US troops are there to operate the missile defense system.
"about 100 American troops to operate it" and "The move will put American troops operating the ground-based interceptor," [nytimes]
"Components for a terminal high-altitude area defence (Thaad) missile system, alongside a crew to operate it," and "Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system" [telegraph]
Therefore the troops aren't sent there to train and maintain, but to actively "operate" the system. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Operating a missile defense system is not a belligerent. Helping an ally defend themselves from missiles while not actually engaging the enemy yourselves is the opposite of a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez "Combatants are persons who are authorized to use force in situations of armed conflict"[24] It would appear the US soldiers are authorized to use force. The only thing is that the 'enemy' they are authorized to use force against is most likely Iran or Hezbollah, not the Palestinians. This is why I suggest not conflating the Iran-Israel conflict with the war here.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html

Trim Review

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

I picked one of their edit that removed 4.5K bytes, which I see as representative of how the trim was carried out. [25] Please explain your approval or disapproval with that edit.

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

Before edit: An Israeli airstrike on a UNRWA-run school-turned-shelter in Nuseirat refugee camp killed at least 18 people.[1][2][3] In September, an Israeli strike on a home in Nuseirat refugee camp killed 10 Palestinians.[4][5] An Israeli air strike on Zeitoun school in Gaza City killed at least 21 Palestinians.[6][7][8] Israel returned 88 bodies to Gaza in a container truck, providing no personal or location information where the victims had been killed. Nasser Hospital health officials refused to bury the bodies until they were identified.[9] An Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter in Jabalia killed at least 15 Palestinians.[10][11] Israeli forces bombed two houses on the Nuseirat camp, killing at least 13 people.[12][13]

After edit: An Israeli airstrike on Nuseirat refugee camp on 11 September killed at least 18 people.[14][2][15] Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

References

References

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

Ceasefire

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for rewriting the lede in a proportionate way, which better reflects the events of the war.

As for considering the war to have concluded, I think this is premature. A ceasefire is by definition: a temporary suspension of fighting; a truce. This ceasefire, which Netanyahu himself had yesterday declared that he had the support of both Biden and Trump in viewing it as temporary, consists of two phases, with the first having started a few hours ago, and negotiations for the second to start in a few weeks leading supposedly to an end of the war. So the war has not finished officially yet, and the first phase is not being viewed as having been a permanent arrangement. The war should still be described in the present tense. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with that reasoning, and will self-revert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from WP:RFED

I would like to request that... (the status section for the front page should be labeled as “ceasefire” until the ceasefire ends. This is in accordance with the recently-reached agreement.) . LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. possibly already done now Cannolis (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit request from WP:RFED

In the fourth paragraph of the entry, it states "Various experts and human rights organizations have characterized the events in Gaza as genocide. A case accusing Israel of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,...." This should be changed to "Various experts and human rights organizations have characterized the events in both Gaza and Israel as genocide. Cases accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,..."

This change is supported by multiple references and necessary for balance, and neutral point of view.

The changes are fully suppoprted by numerous references including : https://archive.ph/2023.10.19-000330/https://docs.google.com/forms/d/ and https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231103-israeli-families-bring-war-crime-complaint-to-icc-lawyer Apndrew (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Change is not supported by the sources. Rainsage (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third edit request from WP:RFED

The following statement is misleading: "Torture and sexual violence were committed by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli forces". Sexual violence committed by Hamas on October 7th was widespread and systematic. On the Israeli side there is one documented case. The statement on this Wikipedia page is not based on a direct source, but rather on a quote of quote of an Amnesty International document that doesn't go into specifics. This does not meet the conditions to make such a general claim about "Israeli sexual violence". Please check sources of this statement. 46.121.213.127 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rainsage (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 attack

The recent edit to lede changed describing Israeli victims from "killing" to "deaths." This should be reverted. [26] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the previous version, folding in the civilians addition. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal directive in the lead

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

I think Lisa got their revert rationale wrong, but Airship got their revert rationale right, essentially the sentence as written is improper, see here [27]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it should be reworded. Alaexis¿question? 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

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

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

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

In reference to the previous discussion that I recently closed, which I assume you have seen here, I completely agree with your assessment. I've expressed this elsewhere, so to say it in the right place, the Iran section is highly problematic; there is only one sentence in relation to Hamas (the assassination), while the rest has no relevant context to the subject and scope. This should be cleaned up given the consensus, ie complete the merge to MEC article, ideally by a competent editor who is familiar this this article and the other, leaving only a summary of the child article in it's place per editing guidelines, similar to nearly every other section here. The Iran conflict is also already summarised as a child in MEC, so there is no need to do so here, only a sentence or two with wikilink is required. The other issue is the lead of MEC is of poor quality, as it fails to summarise the body and main child articles with an undue focus on Israel–Hamas at present, so a summary would realistically need to be written from scratch, ideally with additional context to the subject (that's the main obstacle here imo). If there were a decent lead summary over there, it would be relatively straightforward otherwise. As for the American involvement section, this just seems misplaced as it is directly about the Israel–Hamas war, not other confrontations, so would be better moved elsewhere. CNC (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an update have expanded the Other confrontations section with summary from child article,[28] and reduced Iran section to the notable events for MEC child summary.[29] This summary could no doubt do with improvement and further expansion, but for now I think it's good enough and covers the main points as intended. Will double check if there is nothing missing in 2024 Iran–Israel conflict that was removed here, though is highly unlikely, unless there is updated information to add (based on maintenance template there). For anyone here from Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) after the notification to talkpage, this is the version to use to cross-reference with your child article summary if needed, but looks like you've got a pretty solid summary there already. Think I'm done here. CNC (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox talk page

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

Lede

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

As for war crimes, "accusations" is not an appropriate term, because it implies they are unsubstantiated, which is untrue, as HRW, a RS, has found that both sides have committed/amounting to war crimes. [30] [31] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would make it easier if you linked the diffs that you are opposing and proposing.
On the first point: What you want to remove is deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust? That is a phrase that is extremely common in the reporting.[32][33][34][35][36][37]
Deadliest day for Israel is also fairly common, but less so.[38][39] If we do go for that, though, maybe we should add a citation, as currently the citation is about the war being the deadliest for Palestinians since the Nakba.
This edit doesn't seem like an improvement to me as it means the first day was the deadliest of the war for Israelis, whereas the point being made was that it was the deadliest in Israel's history.
On the second point: I tend to think "characterised" is better than "accused" or "claimed" from an NPOV perspective. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be in the body, in the lede it won't be a major point since there are other comparisons, and in the opening paragraph in particular it doesn't belong there since it is subjective. As for the second point, I don't mind changing to "in Israel's history." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Start of second lede paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

Someone here please review pending edit requests

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

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

Fourth edit request from WP:RFED

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

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

Fifth edit request from WP:RFED

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

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

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

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

Done 4 hours 37 minutes after the edit request, UN report which substantiates both claims were added [41], although I am unable to open the paywalled Haaretz article and not think ABC article is the correct reference for this. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth edit request from WP:RFED

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

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

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

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

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

Not done This sentence is about International Court of Justice (ICJ), not International Criminal Court (ICC). Only Israel is respondent before ICJ, as it is a UN member state. ICC indictments are a separate matter where both sides have received it. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1271386867"