Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:55, 24 December 2023 view sourceNishidani (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,558 edits →Discussion 2 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:09, 24 January 2025 view source Abo Yemen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,163 edits →Requested move 17 January 2025: reply to The Great Mule of Eupatoria: Obviously not Hamas 🙄 they are Khamas (-)Tag: CD
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~pp-extended~~\|~~small~~=yes}}		{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
			{{Old moves\|collapsed=yes
	{{pp-extended}}
	{{Talk header\|age=3\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|minthreadsleft=1}}
	{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=a-i}}
	{{censor}}
	{{American English}}
	{{controversy}}
	{{notforum}}
	{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|blpo=yes\|class=B\|collapsed=y\|1=
	{{WikiProject Current events}}
	{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|class=B\|importance=Low}}<!--Covers mass murders, which the massacres at kibbutzim clearly were -->
	{{WikiProject International relations \|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Islam\|importance=Mid\|Islam-and-Controversy=y\|Sunni=y}}
	{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
	{{WikiProject Lebanon\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Military history\|class=B\|Asian=y\|Middle-Eastern=y\|Post-Cold-War=y\|B-Class-1=yes\|B-Class-2=yes\|B-Class-3=yes\|B-Class-4=yes\|B-Class-5=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Palestine\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Syria\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Terrorism\|importance=Mid}}
	}}
	{{Section sizes}}
	{{press
	\|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html \|title=Misplaced Pages Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X \|author=Stephen Harrison \|lang=en-US \|org=] \|date=2023-10-26
	\|url2=https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-769599 \|title2='The Sabbath Massacres': Naming Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on Israel - opinion \|author2=Mark Klugman \|lang2=en \|org2=] \|date2=2023-10-22
	\|url3=https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/wikipedia-at-war/ \|title3=Misplaced Pages at war \|author3=Hava Mendelle \|lang3=en \|org3=] \|date3=2023-11-02
	\|collapsed=no}}
	}}
	{{banner holder\|collapsed=yes\|text=Page history\|1=
	{{Top 25 Report\|October 1 2023 (24th)\|October 8 2023 (3rd)\|October 15 2023 (5th)\|October 22 2023 (7th)}}
	{{ITN talk\|7 October\|2023\|oldid=1179028067}}
	{{page views}}
	{{Old move
	\|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict		\|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict
	\|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|result1 = moved		\|result1 = moved
	\|date1 = 7 October 2023		\|date1 = 7 October 2023
	\|link1 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1179550401~~#Requested move 7 October 2023		\|link1 = /Archive 4#Requested move 7 October 2023
	\|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War		\|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War
	\|result2 = not moved, ]		\|result2 = not moved, ]
	\|date2 = 11 October 2023		\|date2 = 11 October 2023
	\|link2 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1179788985~~#Requested move 11 October 2023		\|link2 = /Archive 7#Requested move 11 October 2023
	\|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war		\|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war
	\|result3 = ~~not moved,~~ no consensus		\|result3 = no consensus
	\|date3 = 15 October 2023		\|date3 = 15 October 2023
	\|link3 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1181585273~~#Requested move 15 October 2023		\|link3 = /Archive 22#Requested move 15 October 2023
	\|from4 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from4 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination4 = Israel–Hamas war		\|destination4 = Israel–Hamas war
	\|result4 = not moved, ]		\|result4 = not moved, ]
	\|date4 = 31 October 2023		\|date4 = 31 October 2023
	\|link4 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1182857855~~#Requested move 31 October 2023		\|link4 = /Archive 25#Requested move 31 October 2023
	\|from5 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from5 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination5 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war		\|destination5 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war
	\|result5 = not moved, early close, no consensus		\|result5 = not moved, early close, no consensus
	\|date5 = 1 November 2023		\|date5 = 1 November 2023
	\|link5 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1183002871~~#Requested move 1 November 2023		\|link5 = /Archive 25#Requested move 1 November 2023
	\|from6 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from6 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination6 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war		\|destination6 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war
	\|result6 = Not moved, moratorium on requested moves, speedy close		\|result6 = Not moved, moratorium on requested moves, speedy close
	\|date6 = 26 November 2023		\|date6 = 26 November 2023
	\|link6 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1186926732~~#Requested move 26 November 2023		\|link6 = /Archive 29#Requested move 26 November 2023
			\|from7 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
			\|result7 = Retain "Israel–Hamas war", no consensus on year disambiguation
			\|date7 = 23 December 2023
			\|link7 = /Archive 34#Requested move 23 December 2023
			\|from8 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
			\|result8 = Procedural close
			\|date8 = 10 January 2024
			\|link8 = /Archive 35#Requested move 10 January 2024
			\|from9 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
			\|destination9 = Israel–Hamas war
			\|result9 = Moved
			\|date9 = 12 January 2024
			\|link9 = /Archive 37#Requested move 12 January 2024
			\|from10 = Israel–Hamas war
			\|destination10= Israel–Gaza war
			\|result10 = No consensus, three month moratorium from date of close (28 February 2024)
			\|date10 = 23 January 2024
			\|link10 = /Archive 40#Requested move 23 January 2024
			\|date11 = 29 May 2024
			\|destination11= Gaza War (2023–present)
			\|result11 = no consensus
			\|link11 = /Archive 44#Requested move 29 May 2024
			\|date12 = 13 August 2024
			\|destination12= Israel–Gaza war
			\|result12 = No consensus. Listed at ]; ] endorsed
			\|link12 = /Archive 47#Requested move 13 August 2024\|date13=30 December 2024\|destination13=Gaza war (2023–present)\|result13=not moved\|link13=Special:Permalink/1266840090#Requested move 30 December 2024}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=a-i}}
			{{Controversial}}
			{{Banner holder\|
			{{Censor}}
			{{American English}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=other\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Islam\|importance=Mid\|Islam-and-Controversy=yes\|Sunni=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Lebanon\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject International relations\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|Asian=yes\|Middle-Eastern=yes\|Post-Cold-War=yes\|b1=yes\|b2=yes\|b3=yes\|b4=yes\|b5=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Syria\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Yemen\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
	}}		}}
			{{Press
			\|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html \|title=Misplaced Pages Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X \|author=Stephen Harrison \|lang=en-US \|org=] \|date=2023-10-26
			\|url2=https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-769599 \|title2='The Sabbath Massacres': Naming Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on Israel - opinion \|author2=Mark Klugman \|lang2=en \|org2=] \|date2=2023-10-22
			\|url3=https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/wikipedia-at-war/ \|title3=Misplaced Pages at war \|author3=Hava Mendelle \|lang3=en \|org3=] \|date3=2023-11-02

			\|author4 = Aaron Bandler

			\|title4 = Seven Tactics Misplaced Pages Editors Used to Spread Anti-Israel Bias Since Oct. 7
			\|date4 = 2024-05-23
			\|org4 = ]
			\|url4 = https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/371545/7-tactics-wikipedia-editors-used-to-spread-anti-israel-bias-since-oct-7/
			\|lang4 =
			\|quote4 =
			\|archiveurl4 =
			\|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate4 = May 24, 2024

			\|author5 = Avior Byron
			\|title5 = Truth held hostage: Language differences in Misplaced Pages's 'Israel-Hamas War' page – opinion
			\|date5 = 2024-06-03
			\|org5 = ]
			\|url5 = https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-804636
			\|lang5 =
			\|quote5 =
			\|archiveurl5 =
			\|archivedate5 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate5 = June 3, 2024

			\|author6 = Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv
			\|title6 = Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research
			\|date6 = October 17, 2024
			\|org6 = ]
			\|url6 = https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
			\|lang6 =
			\|quote6 =
			\|archiveurl6 =
			\|archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate6 = October 18, 2024
			}}
			{{pp-extended\|small=yes}}
			{{pp-extended}}
			{{Annual report\|] and ]}}
			{{Top 25 Report\|Oct 1 2023\|until\|Nov 12 2023\|Dec 3 2023\|Dec 10 2023}}
			{{Old RfD \|date=24 November 2023 \|result='''Keep''' \|page=2023 November 24#Israel–Hamas war}}
			{{Annual readership}}
			{{Section sizes}}
			{{ITN talk\|7 October\|2023\|oldid=1179028067}}
			\|collapsed=yes}}
			{{refideas
			\| {{cite news \| last1 = Hasson \| first1 = Nir \| last2 = Yaniv \| first2 = Kubovich \| work = ] \| title = The Israeli Army Is Allowing Gangs in Gaza to Loot Aid Trucks and Extort Protection Fees From Drivers \| url = https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-11-11/ty-article/.premium/the-idf-is-allowing-gaza-gangs-to-loot-aid-trucks-and-extort-protection-fees-from-drivers/00000193-17fb-d50e-a3db-57ff16af0000 \| date = 2024-11-11 \| archiveurl = https://archive.today/t28IY \| archivedate = 2024-11-19 \| url-status = live \| quote = <small> …looting of the convoys reflects the complete anarchy that prevails in Gaza due to the lack of any functioning civilian government. … Defense officials confirmed that the IDF is aware of the problem. (the Israeli government) considered making the clans to which the armed men belong responsible for distributing aid to Gaza's residents, even though some of the clans' members are involved in terrorism, and some are even affiliated with extremist organizations like the Islamic State.</small> }}
			\| {{cite news \| title = Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Image \| url = https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges \| access-date = 21 November 2024 \| work = ] \| date = 21 November 2024 \| quote = The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population. }}
			\| {{cite web \|last1=Murphy \|first1=Brett \|title=A Year of Empty Threats and a “Smokescreen” Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza \|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/biden-blinken-state-department-israel-gaza-human-rights-horrors \|website=ProPublica \|access-date=16 January 2025 \|language=en \|date=15 January 2025}}
	}}		}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~150K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 30		\|counter = 47
	\|minthreadsleft = 1		\|minthreadsleft = 1
	\|algo = old(5d)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Talk:~~2023~~ Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

			== Split ==
	== RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents (Adding Options - US, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah) ==
			{{Hatnote\|Iran section removal and Middle Eastern Crisis summary are followed up at ]}}
	<!-- ] 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1701201698}}
			{{atop \|status=Partially merged \|reason=After initial split discussions, convincing consensus to merge ] to ] was established. Multiple editors also recommended that the ] section remain, and a partial oppose was made for this reason alone. There was additionally a parallel discussion to ], however this proposal failed to gain traction alongside the ]. This is an ], 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 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 ], while noting that the section on ] still remains against the established consensus. ] (]) 17:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) {{nac}}}}

			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? ] (]\|]) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
	Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

			: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. ] (]) 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
	], ], ], ], ], ], ]
			::My core i7 10th gen and 32 gigs of ram just die when i press the edit button ''']]''' 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 17:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::lil update: Found out the my cpu was missing the fucking cooling fan. Moral of the story: dont get prebuilts ''']]''' 11:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Looks like the events section needs another mass trim. Page has grown considerably in recent weeks. ] (]) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			::What really matters here is ], and according to the , 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.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'll second (third?) having issues with this page loading. It typically takes 20-25 seconds to become scrollable. ] (]) 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::The question is what is there left to split? ] (]) 20:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::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... ] (]) 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			: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. ] (]) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Moving some content out of the Events section and to the ] 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 ].
			::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:
			::# 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...")
			::# We only include events that are extensively covered (''"I've got <u>three</u> whole marginally reliable sources that cover this event, how is that not extensive coverage...")
			::# 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. ] (]) 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 21:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::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. ] (]\|]) 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 04:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::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. ] (]) 06:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Support since we have already split for example the background section into the ] while keeping an intelligible four paragraph summary here which led to good results and set a precedent. ] (]) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			: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. ] (]) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			:How would everyone feel about removing the "Use of propaganda" section and adding its child article, ], to the See also section? ] (]) 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion to\|Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Other confrontations\|] (]) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}
			=== Other confrontations ===
			{{Moved discussion from\|Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Split\|] (]) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}
			:Much of the content of the "Other confrontations" section could probably be moved over to the ] article, although that article probably needs a rewrite. ] (]) 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::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. ] (]) 13:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::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? ] (]) 13:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::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) ] (]) 14:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::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 ] to parent articles. ] (]) 14:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::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. ] (]) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::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. ] (]) 21:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::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. ] (]) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::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. ] (]) 14:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::That's a mistake then. The Hebrew Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages's job is to describe the war in full, not just one part of it. It's like the ] article focusing heavily on the European theater and neglecting the ]. 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. ] (]) 14:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::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. ] (]) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::The Gaza War is one front of a multi-front war. Misplaced Pages's job is to summarize a war in it's entirety, not just one particular front of it. ] (]) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Upon which RS are you relying for "multi-front war". Just because Gallant and Halevi say it is, doesn't count for diddly. ] (]) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::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. ] (]) 10:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::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. ] (]) 13:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::As explained above by Makeandtoss, this article is about Israel–Hamas, not the Middle Eastern Crisis. The section should be ] just like every other section that has a main article (without exception). ] (]) 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::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. ] (]) 14:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::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 ] 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. ] (]) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::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. ] (]) 15:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::We're supposed to follow the sources, not right great wrongs as you are doing here. Desist. ] (]) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::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. ] (]) 19:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::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. ] (]) 13:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

			==== Survey ====
	'''Option 1''' – Add X<br/>
	'''Option 2''' – Do not add X<br/>
	'''Option 3''' – Neutral (no comments) on X<br/>
	(X = Country)

			Should ] section be merged into ]? ] (]) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
	RfC is '''not''' to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. <small>Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started.</small> '''The ]''' (] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

			*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. ] (]) 14:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
	:Germany? ] (]) 13:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' ] (]) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
	:Russia, Germany?
			*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. ] (]) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
	:can you provide context? ] (]) 17:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' ] (]) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Partial oppose''' The section about Palestine and Israel should remain (]). The other sections about other countries can be moved and a summary section can be added for other countries. ] (]) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Good point, this section should remain. Maybe need to start this again with that 🙄 ] (]) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Comment:''' this article is 16657 words, so it definitely needs to be trimmed per ] rule. Skimming the article, I did notice places where lengthy quotations have been used. It’s probably better to paraphrase them per ]. I will try to paraphrase the quotes to help trim down the article. ] (]) 01:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*: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 ] and ]. ] (]) 02:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::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. ] (]) 03:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::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. ] (]) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::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. ] (]) 18:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''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.--] (]) 13:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:<s>Partial oppose in agreement with this. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.</s> '''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. ]] 14:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::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 Misplaced Pages). I doubt that name will reach consensus on English Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::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. ]] 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::] is already a separate article. ] (]) 19:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::: Appreciated, cheers ] ! <3 ]] 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''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. ] (]) 14:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' ] (]) 11:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above. Right now this article seems to almost completely overlap with ]. Unless we reduce the scope of this article, we'll be forced to merge both articles, per ]. But we've already established this article is ], so lets start reducing scope.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''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.
			] (]) 08:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' because it's become just way too much <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' As above, it's simply to long already as many people have already mentioned and with all the sections as well as being ongoing-news the article IMHO will always be subject to 'scope-creep' for a lack of a better term, and so i believe there will be many events and so on that simply won't have the space to be properly explained in the detail they could be. Things can still be mentioned with things like inline links, and <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{see also}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{Further Information}}</nowiki> templates to articles which will go into more depth anyways. ]] 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''': The recent events involving the IDF are intertwined with each other. ] (]) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' The article of multiple separate that should be merged into ] in this article, thank you. ] (]) 09:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Slightly oppose to oppose''': ] is bigger than this article. ] • (]\|]). 02:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:That article has since been split and cut down to under 400k. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 14:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''': this section and the article have the exact same scope. A simple summary of each conflict should suffice under a normal main article tag. ] (]) 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support, keep "West Bank" section'''. I would say the West Bank events are more a theatre of this war, whilst the Lebanon war, Yemen blockades and the others are separate but related.</]> <] /><] /> 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support split''' Splitting the article can help with its consistency. ]] 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', while keeping section on West Bank and Israel. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			===== Elimination of this as a standalone article =====

			This possibility was mentioned by ] 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: ]. We also have an article on the portion of the war which is in Gaza, between Israel and Hamas: ]. So what is the purpose of this article other than to duplicate information in those articles? ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
	===Discussion===
	{{RM extended confirmed\|a-i\|other=RfC}}
	*'''RfC Creator Comment''' – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. '''The ]''' (] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi''', '''Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany''' – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), {{u\|Ecrusized}} said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea '''shot down''' 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to , the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to '''advise''' ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is '''delivered''' 45 cargo planes loaded with '''armaments''' to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given from the ] saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. '''The ]''' (] 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:<s>I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. ] (]) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>Struck per ] and ]. — ]] 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	:::] Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. ] (]) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::<s>In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. ] (]) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>Struck per ] and ]. — ]] 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::'''Add the US as being supported by''', they're doing everything apart from fighting, they're also directly helping Israel by flying drones, which indicates a major support measure. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 09:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	::'''Add US, Germany''' as supporters of Israel (Weapon suppliers, alliance network...)
	::'''Add Iran, Russia, North Korea''' as supporters of Hamas (alliance network, weapons supplied...etc.)
	::'''Hezbollah as one of belligerents (on side of Hamas)''' (Fighting is between Hezbollah and Israel also, in the North). ] (]) 14:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' A new report by states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by ]. ] (]) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	::I just added it to the list of options. '''The ]''' (] 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Comment 2''' reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. ] (]) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:<s>'''Comment''' Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. ] (]) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>Struck per ] and ] — ]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
	'''Option ''' Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are ]. ] (]) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	::So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". '''The ]''' (] 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. ] (]) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. '''The ]''' (] 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::Wait {{u\|Selfstudier}}, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. ''Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral?'' If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. '''The ]''' (] 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::I made my comment and I explained it as well. ] (]) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::::], but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. '''The ]''' (] 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Let the closer worry about what it means. ] (]) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::<s>@], my understanding is that @] would respond your question ''Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent?'' with the answer ''Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no.'' I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.
	:::::::] (]) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>Struck per ] and ] — ]] 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::::::::Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! '''The ]''' (] 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	:: {{re\|Selfstudier}} I think {{u\|WeatherWriter}} was confused because, while {{tq\|Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are ].}} is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". ] (]) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose any being listed as belligerents''' Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.
	:I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @] because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.
	:It may interest other editors to peruse ] and its archives, for an interesting case study.
	:] (]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	::{{u\|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, {{u\|Parham wiki}} made the comment that ]. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article ]), then it can be used. '''The ]''' (] 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. ] (]) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|Bermicourt}}, not sure if you made a typo, but the lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. '''The ]''' (] 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. ] (]) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	::I agree with '''opposing''' adding other sovereign states as belligerents, and would instead '''support''' adding them as in a sidenote about foreign support. Such foreign support should be concrete (i.e. lethal military aid) in the military conflict, not for example foreign aid to Gaza.
	::In other conflicts the consensus has usually been only to include as belligerents countries or similar entities (i.e. political parties or groups taking over a region or country) whose own soldiers are fighting in the conflict or whose territory a significant amount of the fighting has been on. ] (]) 02:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Oppose''' adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time.</s> A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. ] (]) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	::'''Oppose adding most; support adding the US:''' The US now appears to be putting significant boots on the ground, in addition to its other forms of material and personnel support. There are reports that US special forces entered Gaza. And Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction.(Biden's administration even moronically posted about it). The country has clearly crossed the lined into active participation and belligerence. ] (]) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. ] <small>(])</small> 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' — Iran has now the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” '''The ]''' (] 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that '''directly supports''' that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
	*::I did in my original reasoning. The US is and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. '''The ]''' (] 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
	*::::“'''US military equipment''' pours into Israel”. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am ]ing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! '''The ]''' (] 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. ] (]) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	* I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --] (]) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. ] (]) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:: Well put. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:I second this opinion so long as there is one or more reliable sources that identify a country as a belligerent. This removes the interpetation and opinions of editors and keeps it clean and objective. ] (]) 01:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' all additions.{{tq\| Countries should be added to the infobox if they are ],}} as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly {{tq\|None of these groups are involved in active combat}}, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but ''(thank God)'', there are ''(as yet)'' no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? ] (]) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Addendum''' ''added after RfC reopened''. All these proposed additions fail ]. The sources and quotes cited are dependent on ] or ] and don't come anywhere near the level of coverage or certainty that we would expect if the war had escalated in the manner implied. DFlhb's excellent list of sources outlined later, clearly show that all of these parties, particularly Hezbollah are being treated by the majority of sources from various countries as ''potential'' beligerents ''if the war escalates'' and any actual present military action is being treated as a 'border incident' or sabre-rattling. As User:DFlhb says {{TQ\|If it met ] we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?}}. ] (]) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	:'''Add''': ], ], ].
	:'''Do not add''': ], ], ]. ''']]''' 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Oppose all additions''' until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - ] (] \| ]) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)</s>
	::'''Add Hezbollah, oppose all others''' as per other users below. - ] (] \| ]) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

			:Per the last RM, , not that it gained any traction. ] (]) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Note''' – ] was added to the RfC discussion as there was a disagreement between editors and agreement to merge Hezbollah's belligerent discussion into this RfC. '''The ]''' (] 06:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
			:Rather, I think ] should be merged into this article. ] (]) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			::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. ] (]) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 11:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::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. ] (]) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

			:] exists but should probably renamed to something less cumbersome. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose all except Hezbollah.''' None of these countries have deployed their own militaries for combat, and "supported by" has been deprecated. Hezbollah, on the other hand, initiated a low-intensity war on day two officially "in solidarity" with the Palestinians. () Hamas has operatives in Lebanon who can only operate with the cooperation and the consent of Hezbollah, and they have done so since the start of the war. ] (]) 12:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add Hezbollah''' per @] ] (]) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Close RFC''' there's no way we're realistically getting a consensus from this RFC query, which is simultaneously too complex and also too simplistic (encouraging voting rather than citation of sources that actually describe these entities as belligerents, and inherently inviting false equivalences). These should be discussed group by group. Also, it's worth noting that the situation in this conflict is changing more or less daily at this point so a month-long RFC is going to be a challenge. There should be no rush to get belligerents added, of course, since we're not a newspaper and there's no deadline. ] (]) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add Hezbollah''' per @] and also '''Add Syria''' Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. ] (]) 01:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:Editors here are coming up with their own arguments for including Hezbollah ''(or anyone else)'' rather than pointing to the many sources recording the escalation - which undoubedly would exist - if sources considered these 'border skirmishes' really were part of ''(not loosely related to)'' this war. Doesn't that concern anyone? That editors here have decided there has been an escalation before sources or official bodies have! ] (]) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
	*::Yes, basically every RFC about combatants or status or maps has been a series of exercises in original research. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)</small>

			===== Post January cleanup =====
	::::''"For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle."'' Original research, was it? ] (]) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
			@] performed a trim, from 14500 words (480K bytes) in 18 January 23:00 to 11000 words (350K bytes) in 19 January 04:00. @] indicated their initial approval. Do you both think the above discussion can be deemed resolved? ] (]) 12:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, because all that supports is a Hezbollah leader saying they are in the heart of the battle. It does not provide a third party reliable source saying that to be true as a fact. I dont get how this doesnt make sense to so many people who have been here as long as they have. A source has to '''directly support''' the material you want to include in a Misplaced Pages article. This source directly supports that Naim Kassem said these things. What is still needed is a third party source saying this makes them actively engaged in this conflict. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::::::No original research. Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. See here . Title "Authorities name 315 soldiers, 58 police officers killed in Gaza war". The IDF has published the names of 315 soldiers "killed during the ongoing war with Palestinian terrorists since October 7, mostly on the border with the Gaza Strip", they then further expand stating the number includes soldiers killed on both the Lebanon border and in the West Bank. ] (]) 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::{{TQ\|Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war.}} No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. ] (]) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::Fully agree on {{tq\|exercises in original research}}. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" : there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they won’t start a war". An expert is quoted saying: {{tq\|“Hezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel ''if they choose to enter this war'',” said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut}} (italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. ] (]) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::
	:::::It's not about Hezbollah entering or not entering the war, but whether or not the clashes will cross a threshold of escalation (or "full frontal war", as Reuters put it). As of October 26, Hezbollah had lost 46 fighters. That would have been a rather high death toll for an 18-day period during ]. Hezbollah itself says that it initiated these clashes as part of the war Hamas started, and as another editor pointed out, Israel too considers them part of that war. Add in the active involvement of Hamas fighters on the Lebanese-Israeli front, and it is starting to look increasingly absurd that this front is left out of the infobox. ] (]) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Your first and third source frame Hezbollah/Lebanon as a potential future front, not a current front; they contradict you. The second source is considered generally unreliable. The next paragraph is original research contradicted by sources. It's true that the skirmishes are a response to the Israel-Hamas war, but it is also irrelevant. ] (]) 21:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::What part of what I wrote is contradicted by sources? Both Israel and Hezbollah consider the clashes as part of the war; the only ones arguing otherwise are seemingly Misplaced Pages editors. (Also, read again the part about threshold of escalation. There is no contradiction at all. The first source makes a distinction between a full-scale and a limited war.) ] (]) 01:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::We can't include something that fails ], or side with original research over sources; this is sensitive enough that we need to be careful. Sources say Hezbollah has not yet joined the war. That makes them not a belligerent.
	::::::::*
	::::::::** Hezbollah {{tq\|sits on the sidelines of the conflict}} and {{tq\|''will'' enter the war if...}} (future tense). That's from yesterday.
	::::::::**They quote an expert: {{tq\|inflict pain on Israel ''if they choose to'' enter this war}} (hypothetical)
	::::::::**Quotes another expert: {{tq\|The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah}} (implying they are not yet involved).
	::::::::*
	::::::::**{{tq\|“All Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,” said a senior Lebanese official}} (implying they haven't entered the war yet)
	::::::::*
	::::::::**{{tq\|Israel’s military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah “is mainly in the contact line.” Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called “rules of engagement,” which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.}}
	::::::::**{{tq\|Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel}} (as explicit as can be)
	::::::::*
	::::::::**{{tq\|Senior administration officials ''do not believe'' at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamas’ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border.}} They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
	::::::::* (''after'' the skirmishes escalated)
	::::::::**Quotes an expert: {{tq\|If it’s a ground invasion , Hezbollah ''will'' feel compelled to join }} (future tense).
	::::::::**Says: {{tq\|Hizbollah’s entry into the war ''would'' have profound implications}}, and {{tq\|Hizbollah’s ''participation could'' also trigger}}, and {{tq\|Joining the war ''would be''}} (all hypotheticals).
	::::::::**You (and others) say the skirmishes make Hezbollah a belligerent in this war. That's ]. The FT describes them as belligerents in a flareup of the separate, decades-long Hezbollah-Israel conflict. You are confusing the flareup being a reaction to this war, with the flareup being part of this war. FT quote two experts who say years-old "red lines" (preceding this conflict) have not been crossed, which concurs with the Bloomberg quote above.
	::::::::*, published October 11 but still on their :
	::::::::**{{tq\|if Hezbollah were to enter the war}} (hypothetical)
	::::::::Even if you dispute this, logically, if there's any ambiguity, it belongs in the body not the infobox. Note Hezbollah is already listed as a belligerent in ], where it belongs, and we describe that as a "spillover" of this war. RfCs based on ] are a waste of everyone's time, and I wish we'd treat them as malformed. If it met ] we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we? ] (]) 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) <ins><small>edited 12:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)</small></ins>

			:Not quite but close, I ] 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. ] (]) 12:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Restore Hezbollah to the infobox and add the Houthis''' - Hezbollah has clearly stated that it is participating in the conflict and is actively participating, there has been sustained combat on the northern border with israel since the war began. The Houthis have also launched attacks.] (]) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
	*:I ~~concur~~ ~~and~~ ~~would~~ ~~like~~ to note ~~that~~ ~~Yemen~~ ~~also~~ ~~struck~~ ~~Israel~~ ~~directly~~ by ~~drones~~ at ~~Eirat~~, ~~not~~ ~~just~~ in ~~the~~ ~~Red~~ ~~Sea.~~ ] (]) 08:05, 24 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		::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! ] (]) 13:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}
	*'''Add Hezbollah''' per users above. ] (])
	*'''Add Hezbollah''' since it is directly involved in the war at the North of the country. Houthis can also be added since they openly declared that they fired the missiles. ] (]) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add the Houthis and the United States'''. The US has stated it shot down missiles heading towards Israel, and ] (a RS) stated this action "could represent the first shots taken by the U.S. military in defense of Israel".''']''' <sub>]</sub> 02:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:"Could represent" does not mean "is". ] (]) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::Elsewhere it was stated that a government is reliable for its statements about itself. NPR is in no way disputing, rather, is open to the possibility other actions previously occurred. Any basis at all to doubt? ] (]) 08:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add US, Houthis and Hezbollah'''. ] (]) 11:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:'''Strong Support''' because they are all active shooters. ] (]) 08:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose all''' If any of those named become actively and significantly involved in the fighting, RS will clearly identify them as combattants. This is not currently the case.]] 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose all''' as almost all sources avoid making such obviously contentious statements. This is why we avoid original research. Per ] this is not a good use of RfC energy; {{ping\|WeatherWriter}} please be more careful in how you solicit people's time. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose all''' per DF and SJ et al. The sources don't support listing anyone else as a belligerent, and proposals to add belligerents to the infobox need to come with sources describing the proposed parties as belligerents -- not potential belligerents -- in order to comply with ]. ] (]) 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the infobox haven't cited any RS in support of their views. Countries/governments delivering armaments — the reason could be treaty obligations of, as harsh as that may sound, business as usual. Having people talk to the parties involved in armed conflicts could have any number of reasons, from military advice to efforts to end the conflict. Hezbollah attacking settlements along Israel's northern border is nothing new, there are just more attacks now than "normal". ]] 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose all'''. I see Nasrallah is already, absurdly, listed as a 'commnander' in the war, anticipating an outcome of this discussion. If Hezbollah's pressure by minor skirmishes on the northern border (retaliatory threats are a chronic part of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict for decades) constitutes participation in the war, then placing battleships offshore, and having US military experts in the IDF's operations warroom could likewise lend itself to such a construction. Multiple sources do not permit this inference and neither shopuld we.] (]) 15:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Don't add anything''' we exclude obvious relevant players at ] so let's do it here too. ] (]) 13:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add Hezbollah''' I did a google search this morning and here are the most recent news that bears on this issue:

			== RFCBEFORE on a future move ==
	{{tq\|Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight.}} - From
			{{closed rfc top\|result=] has been opened by ''']''' with agreed sources. ] (]) 00:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			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. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Thanks for doing this. Should we modify the table so that "both" and "something else" are separate categories? ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{tq\|While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations.}} - From
			::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. ] (]) 19:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Even if the source is inconsistent, it's still a use, and counts for the RM (albeit weaker than if it only uses one). ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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" . 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. ] (]) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This is all a very elaborate re-hashing of a distinctly ] exercise. ] (]) 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Ground the title in the actual principal geography that the conflict entails, as already done by most media outlets, and per ], ] and generally standard practice ... Now there's a thought! ] (]) 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::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. ] (]) 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@], 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 (@], @], @], @] etc), what do you think of a move to "War in Gaza"?''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::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. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@], should we, present in the RM, 3 choices (Gaza, Israel-Gaza, Israel-Hamas) and ask people to give ]s? 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"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{re\|Vice regent}} I'd prefer the binary, since it seems like both Gaza and Israel–Hamas are both considerably dominant over Israel-Gaza. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 15:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::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. ] (]) 20:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			===News organizations===
			:{{ping\|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. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			{\| class="wikitable" width="100%"
	{{tq\|In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah — which has previously vowed to destroy Israel — has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollah’s next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesn’t more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza — but also has the power to stop it.}}
			! scope="col" width="20%" \|Gaza War
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|War in Gaza
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|Israel–Hamas war
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|Israel–Gaza war
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|Something else
			\|-
			\|




			Le Monde Diplomatique
			\|
			\|


			\|




			\|



			\|}
			===Scholarly sources===
			Here is the table I presented at the last RM.
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			!Engine
			!Gaza+war
			!Israel+Hamas+war
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|}
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			:"Gaza war" is a bit more ambiguous, and some of those hits could refer to ], ], or ]. "Israel-Hamas war" is much less ambiguous, so it would naturally have less hits. ] (]) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.
			::I want to clarify that in each of these cases I filtered to post 2023. Now its possible a source is referring to the ] post 2023, but its rare. For example in google scholar:
			::* - 829 results
			::* - 7 results
			::* - 1 result
			::* - 0 results
			::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" or "The Israel-Hamas War") but this is also rare.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 01:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War ] (]) 01:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]@], 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.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The only valid exception would be to exclude Israel–Gaza War from Gaza War, the rest of the variants are most likely valid. ] (]) 03:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Scholarly sources table with variants===
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			! colspan="2" \|Search query
			!]
			!]
			! colspan="2" \|]
			\|-
			! colspan="2" \|Scope
			!Titles only
			!Titles only
			!Titles only
			!Anywhere
			\|-
			\| rowspan="4" \|Gaza war variants
			\| "Gaza war" only
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| "War in Gaza" only
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| "Gaza war" or "War in Gaza"
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| (subtract) "Israel-Gaza war"
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			! colspan="2" \|'''Gaza war total'''
			!484
			!41
			!11
			!252
			\|-
			\| rowspan="2" \|Israel-Hamas war variants
			\| "Israel-Hamas war" only
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| "Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel and Hamas at war" or "War between Israel and Hamas"
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			! colspan="2" \|Israel-Hamas war total
			!285
			!27
			!8
			!192
			\|}
			@]@] 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 and .''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			: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. ] (]) 11:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Based on the in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a “neutral.”
			::@], {{u\|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. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			===News sources' prose===
	Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Misplaced Pages's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. ] (]) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			!scope="col" style="width: 50px;" \|Domain
			!Country
			!scope="col" style="width: 150px;" \|Top name
			!("the gaza war")
			!<small>("the gaza war" OR "the war in gaza")</small>
			!("the israel-hamas war")
			!<small>("the israel-hamas war" OR "the war between israel and hamas")</small>
			\|-
			\|theguardian.com
			\|UK
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|reuters.com
			\|UK
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| bbc.com
			\|UK
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|telegraph.co.uk
			\|UK
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|haaretz.com
			\|Israel
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| timesofisrael.com
			\|Israel
			\|Both
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|jpost.com
			\|Israel
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|palestinechronicle.com
			\|Palestine
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|today.lorientlejour.com
			\|Lebanon
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| aljazeera.com
			\|Qatar
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|france24.com
			\|France
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|afp.com
			\|France
			\|Neither
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|dw.com
			\|Germany
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|cbc.ca
			\|Canada
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|smh.com.au
			\|Australia
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| cnn.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| wsj.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| nytimes.com
			\|USA
			\|Both
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|pbs.org
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|bloomberg.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|theatlantic.com
			\|USA
			\|Neither
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|washingtonpost.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|politico.com
			\|USA
			\|Both
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|thehill.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|npr.org
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|}

			'''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 ]). 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.
	*'''Add US''' - has both troops on the ground in unknown capacity and naval vessels for deterrence. ] (]) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:Indeed, , not necessarily in direct combat roles, but these are units that are neither purely advisory or data gathering in nature. They are deployed. ] (]) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add US''' The time has come. Statements have been issued throughout the week confirming their support for Tel Aviv. This is no longer in doubt. ] (]) 19:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:That and the handed over. ] (]) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::Per, ], let's wait until American forces get involved in combat. Non-combat and material support is not belligerence. ] (]) 18:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::Can you explain why Belarus was added to the infobox of the ]? There are no combat involving Belarusian government soldiers! ] (]) 23:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::I didn't add it. ] (]) 14:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::::If I remember correctly it was added because Belarusian territory was used to launch a ground invasion of Ukraine. ] (]) 06:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	'''Oppose.''' The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. — ''']''' ] 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

			'''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".
	'''Oppose''' the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. ] (]) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 09:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{cot\|Off topic}}
	::I don't think it is contestable that
	*(a) This is a war between two parties, Israel and Hamas (read '''also''' the Palestinian people)
	*(b) The overwhelming bulk of sources used to document it are Israeli newspapers
	*(c) The Israeli sources named (and not named, Haaretz etc.) thoroughly identify themselves with 'our boys', and the Israeli victims. I read most articles and 95% are so partisan and emotional that they are 'unreadable' for facts, as opposed to how facts are to be neutrally represented.
	*I didn't state that they are unreliable sources. They qualify technically. I read an account of the British-Argentine war in the Falklands recently: newspaper accounts were alluded to quite often for how they egregiously spun, twisted, invented stories to titivate the anxious home readership. Serious military histories (and I read Burton Maugham's ''Tobruk and El Alamein'' (1952) as a control for this) use war memoirs (from both sides), government archives to describe the technical mechanics of battle, and almost never allude to, or rely on, contemporary newspapers. No time is wasted documenting that Rommel, for example, was a general in an evil regime's armed forces, or that Italians were pawns of fascism, an equally despicable regime. The narratives tell you the only thing that is worth grasping. How one or another side managed, with what matériel, or strategic stroke, to win ground or lose it, and why the adversary retreated.
	*All wars are accompanied by intense efforts by specific army/government related bodies to massage, manage, persuade and dominate the home side's perceptions. An informational war kicks in, as the governing states or bodies view to dominate the narratives to the end of enlisting public and international support for their respective campaigns.
	*Wars are 'sexy' and attract a large influx of editors wishing to participate in shaping the way the narrative is represented on wikipedia. Most have no background understanding, quite a few are emotionally committed to one party. This makes for a perfect knit between source bias and editorial passions. The result is massive WP:Undue, as the factual record, very thinly accessible, is flooded out with official points of view or one's side's commentariat prejudices.
	*Nothing can be done to fix the resulting ]. It will take a year down the road for us to access reliable independent analyses that are even-handed. Till then we will have this mother-lode of tripe to represent wikipedia's idea of NPOV.
	*My note was just a wake-up annotation to remind readers and editors that these articles are intrinsically flawed and will remain so for some considerable time. ''Caveat lector''.] (]) 10:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
	{{cob}}
	::{{u\|Nishidani}} - A ] about your comment, specifically part a. You seem to say it is not contestable that this war is between two parties (Israel/Hamas). That, to me seems more like a weird amphiboly comment. While true that it is between two parties, if one was attempting to say ''only'' two parties, that would be factually false as more than two parties are involved. I would also point out that the "inarguable" comment might be more or less "pushy" (not sure if that is the right word I am looking for), since several editors ''have'' argued for the inclusion of another party proposed in this RfC. Just a few small things to keep in-mind. Cheers! '''The ]''' (] 06:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add Hezbollah''', '''Neutral on Houthis''', '''Oppose rest'''. Hezbollah is widely documented as engaged in fighting on the Israeli-Lebanon border as part of this conflict. With the exception of the Houthis, the rest lack documentation along those lines; neutral on the Houthi's because while some sourcing exists, the minimal scale of their participation has resulted in a lower level of coverage detailing their participation. ] (]) 06:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:There are now reports that Israel retaliated against the Houthis . As for Hezbollah, they struck IDF posts along the border within hours of the Gaza ceasefire ending. ] (]) 11:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add the Houthis, Hezbollah, and US support''' - , and the and . US ships have and . ] (]) 01:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add the US, Houthi and Hezbollah''' per all above. Also per ]: {{tq\|the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article.}} No mention of ] and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. ] (]) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add United States'''. '''Oppose all others'''. My reading of the ] is that it's only the United States' level of integration into this conflict that makes them a belligerent, aside from the two primary players . All the others are peripheral. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose all''', this is not a normal war, so we shouldn't be treating it like one. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Add the US, Houthi and Hezbollah''' per above comments. ] (]) 17:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - The United States has not fired a shot against any of the main belligerents (yet). No one denies that they are ''involved'', but it is premature to label it a belligerent. Furthermore, we now have a ] for the US endeavour against the Houthis. If we are to list every country that has shot down Houthi missiles, we'd have to add Saudi Arabia, Egypt and France as well. I think that would be a bit confusing and silly. ] (]) 22:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:That Operation is a non-starter and the noted engagement precedes the announcement of that Operation. Yemen declared itself for Palestine. The drones and missles were intended for Israeli-aligned targets. If this were a Walmart, you'd want to be aware of all the active shooters. ] (]) 08:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

			:Perfect analysis VR, well done! I think the community is now better posed to make an informed move decision based on this data. ] (]) 14:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Hamas exaggeration in the lead ==
			{{closed rfc bottom}}

			== Lede updates ==
	"As of 3 December 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 15,500 Palestinians, including over 6,000 children as of 23 November 2023, have been killed, making this the deadliest wars for children in modern times." Gaza Health Ministry is run Hamas, and these numbers are likely greatly exaggerated, and were disputed by the United States. Describing this war as "deadliest wars for children in modern times" in the lede with unreliable Hamas source goes against neutrality. ] (]) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:That is very old news from Fox, the US has since essentially admitted the numbers provided by the MoH are likely accurate or an undercount. This has been repeatedly discussed, and the bit on deadliest war for children comes from the UN, not any Gazan agency. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::Current figure according to Hamas: 20000 killed, while according to Israel only 10000 civilians killed. Since the total number of casualties is disputed, we can't make such strong statements such as "deadliest wars for children in modern times" in the lede with unreliable Hamas source which were copy/pasted by UN. ] (]) 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::And Israel has previously said (and that was back in early November). Israel's propaganda can be noted, but sources treat the numbers from the MoH as reliable, and the UN statement on deadliest for children is independent. And previously discussed here for that matter. And oh by the way, the number from the MoH is 15,889 from your own source. The 20k includes the people that haven't been rescued from collapsed buildings. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::::What you cited is an unreliable blog post. Israeli official estimate is reliable because it's a government source, while Hamas is a terrorist genocidal organization that recently committed mass crimes per many sources. Nonetheless since the number is disputed, for the sake of neutrality, we can't make such strong statements in the lede until it's fully verified. ] (]) 20:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Uh, thats ], one of Israel's leading news sources. Cool story on your personal analysis, but this isnt your blog so it doesnt really count for anything here. And the material in the lead has been verified, you just think that means something that it does not. But it is a verifiable statement that the MoH in Gaza has given that as its count of dead. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::::::That blog post basically quoted a "security guard," not an official government statement. ] (]) 20:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::it isnt a blog, and it quotes a senior security official, not a security guard. Not sure why you are just making things up for no apparent reason but cool I guess. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	:::::{{tq\|Israeli official estimate is reliable because it's a government source,}} Sorry, but that is one strange statement. Gov't sources are not reliable in a war. Look at the gross exaggerations by the US gov't during the Vietnam War. Governments and militaries lie. Militaries even lie to their own governments. OTOH, the Gaza Health Ministry is a civil service group and generally considered reliable. You should self-revert your Hamas-run change. ] (]) 21:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::] clearly says "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" as do many other reliable sources ] (]) 21:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Do you mean to question the UN comment on the deadliest war for the children by this? --] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::It has nothing to do with any UN comment. ] (]) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Reverted. This has been and on other pages. Gaza MoH is considered reliable. ] (]) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Gaza Health Ministry is considered reliable by whom? It is known to be run by Hamas which is considered a terrorist organization in the West. ] (]) 12:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::By multiple RS, follow the link. Was also discussed at other pages. Do keep up, to help, here are some sources:
	:::::::::::: "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements."
	::::::::::::
	:::::::::::: "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies."
	::::::::::::"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."
	:::::::::::: "Israel and Joe Biden have shown scepticism about accuracy of rising death toll but others point to historical reliability of data"
	:::::::::::: discusses the MoH methodology and goes into more details than others (e.g., immediately reported numbers are less reliable)
	::::::::::::: ''World Health Organization (WHO) regional emergency director Richard Brennan, based in Cairo, said last week he believed the figures provided by the health ministry were trustworthy. "We're confident that the information management systems that the ministry of health has put in place over the years stand up to analysis," he said, adding "the data over the years has been quite solid".''
	::::::::::::: '''English translation:''' ''The World Health Organization, like many other organizations, trusts the figures. "We have had good experiences with the Ministry of Health in the past, for example with vaccination campaigns. We see no reason to fundamentally doubt the numbers of wounded, dead and sick. And the question for all of us is: would we have a different discussion if there were 100 or 200 fewer deaths? I don't think so," says Lindmeier.''
	::::::::::::
	:::::::::::] (]) 12:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::But the fact remains that more children died in the Syrian Civil war... I honestly do not think its appropriate to start comparing deadliness in the tragedy of war. But we must remain encyclopedic. (By mid-March 2022, opposition activist group the ] (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 25,546, and that 15,437 women had also been killed) ] (]) 10:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::You're right it is disputed. And I'm pretty sure the Syrian Civil War has been deadlier, also according to the Al Jazeera source the Syrian Civil war had more casualties. Although I do not like the notion of starting to compare the deadliness of war we should not have in the page info that is unsourced. ] (]) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Guterres "graveyard for children" was removed on the thesis that a quote was inappropriate in the lead so it was replaced with RS prose instead. Sourcing such statements is not difficult, for example
	:::: "In less than two months, more than twice as many women and children have been reported killed in Gaza than in Ukraine after two years of war." or "experts say that even a conservative reading of the casualty figures reported from Gaza show that the pace of death during Israel’s campaign has few precedents in this century."
	::::The rate of killing in this conflict is notable and commented on in many sources. ] (]) 12:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::"has few precedents in this century" - you can write, one of the deadliest. But you cannot write the deadliest since it is not fact. In the Syrian Civil war more children died. I do not like this notion of comparing the deadliness of war but we must remain encyclopedic and act according to sources. ] (]) 10:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::My dude, I have seen the satellite maps. We definitely have a basis not only to assess the tactical situation but also the reliability of sources. ] (]) 08:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::@], if the numbers have been independently assessed as accurate by a third party, then that source should be cited within the article. The sources as the stand (CBS News and Aljazeera) don't actually provide the source/references for the information within their reporting other than "according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza". It is not sure where or whom from the MoH in Gaza provided that number nor whether it is reliable. We need to use better sources or change the wording to be definitive. ] (]) 19:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::No, there are sources saying the MOH numbers are reliable but no source is independently assessing each update. The sources saying the MOH are reliable are enough for us to treat them as such. ''']''' - 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Heh? You claimed "the US has since essentially admitted the numbers provided by the MoH are likely accurate or an undercount." from that comment I can only assume there has been some sort of secondary assessment, either by the US or another 3rd party, as to the Gaza MoH numbers. All I'm asking you to do is reference your comment using a suitable source in the article. At present the article references merely references news reporting which claims to reference Gaza MoH but doesn't actually provide a Gaza MoH source or reference. Whether you think/believe the Gaza MoH is reliable or not is irrelevant because it is NOT the cited source in the article. Let's get it fixed. ] (]) 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Yes they said that the MOH numbers are accurate but they are not under signing every update. It isn’t about what I think, it’s about what the sources think and they say the numbers are accurate. ''']''' - 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::@], From what I can tell, the cited sources in the lead DO NOT say the numbers are accurate. I would suggest that news reporters simply repeating the numbers they are given are not making any assessed judgement as to the accuracy of the numbers. Whilst the UN and some other parties have stated they believe the overal MOH numbers are generally accurate - there is no clear assessment as to whether the deaths are civilians or armed militants, there is also clear argument that the numbers may be propaganda - which isn't mentioned in the article. Based on your responses and others to this thread thus far, I believe it is appropriate to flag the numbers as ] until such time there are reliable sources to verify the numbers given are indeed from reliable MoH sources or are otherwise assessed as reliable - both incrementally, and in terms of a detailed breakdown. There is no cited source I can see in the article that does that. At present we have neither reliable cited sources as needed, and I can only agree with @] on this one. There are also locally-based assessments which dispute the numbers, for example: . ] (]) 06:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::@]: This by ], a reputed source, has pretty much answered your doubt with the Gazan Ministry of Health. <span style="background:#ced">''The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions.''</span> You're not convincing us with a neo-conservative think tank/pro-Israel advocacy group source like the ] (JCPA). -- ] (] · ]) 07:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::You seem to be suggesting a source is unreliable because it's opined to be Israeli neo-conservative. That reeks of bias. As for the PBS claim, it's not referenced in the article nor does it provide an assessment of the incremental numbers. Or the breakdown of civilians/militants. So no, it doesn't answer my doubt. The Misplaced Pages article is quoting numbers as reliable fact that for all we, the UN agencies, and PBS actually know could simply be Hamas propaganda numbers. The Misplaced Pages article should at least state that the numbers are claimed, not verified. ] (]) 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::That isn’t what the sources say and you cannot use your opinion in place of the sources. And is The Lancet saying that the MOH numbers are reliable. are the Israelis saying the numbers are accurate. That you don’t believe the numbers is your own problem, one that this article need not take seriously. ''']''' - 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Again, NONE of the sources you provide ascertain that the breakdown of deaths in terms of Hamas reporting of civilian deaths vs militant deaths are accurate. None. Zilch. Nada.
	::::::::::The issue isn't the total number of deaths but the breakdown. Hamas claims they are civilian deaths, Israel claims they are Terrorists/Militants.
	::::::::::Where is the reliable source that verifies they are civilian deaths and not militant deaths? ] (]) 09:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The ministry of health has claimed no such thing, that objection appears to be entirely made up. They have reported women and children but have not claimed any civilian vs militant breakdown. And neither does the article. That little goalpost shifting attempt now is interesting but has nothing to do with what the article or the sources say. Think we’re done here now. ''']''' - 12:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Are you trying to tell me women and children can not be militants / terrorists? It's well known that Hamas recruits children to fight, unsurprising given Gaza has one of the youngest populations in the world. ] (]) 09:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::According to past discussions on ], JCPA is generally unreliable. If you think JCPA's credibility or claims can rival those of UN or Lancet, please gain acceptance on WP:RSP first, which is almost a guaranteed failure. Other than that, there is not much can be said, so please ]. -- ] (] · ]) 23:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Cool story, but you missed the point. I'm not disputing the TOTAL numbers are inaccurate. I'm merely stating there appears to dispute publically over whether the civilian death numbers are accurate as civilian deaths instead of militant / terrorist deaths. This isn't an argument for me to claim one source is better than another, just an argument over what sources ACTUALLY say, and how they sources are presented within the article. ] (]) 09:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Your argument concerning civilian/militant casualties has little to no relevance to the credibility of Gaza MoH. According to the Associated Press, Gaza MoH ''never distinguishes between civilians and combatants''. Misplaced Pages relies on information from credible sources, and in this instance, the UN backs Gaza MoH as impartial and non-propagandist. If you cannot present another reliable source regarding the civilian-to-terrorist casualty ratio, this debate is essentially concluded. -- ] (] · ]) 10:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:There is more to that. There are Casualties numbers in Infobox and they are not attributed. There should be an attribution at who is the source for the number is. ] (]) 00:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::they're sourced directly, aren't they? ] ] 00:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::They are sourced and they also should be attributed. ] (]) 01:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::why? ] is satisfied and the info infobox is not a place to do ] ] ] 01:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::As a reader, I want to know which side reports the number. ] (]) 01:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::There are links. You can't expect all this detail in an infobox. Not its purpose. ] (]) 01:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Let's take one. ''"Number of UN staff killed in the Gaza Strip rises to 79"''. What side is this? Attribution is one of basics of WP:NPOV. I don't want all the details. "Source: Israel" or "Source: HAMAS" or "Source: UN" would be enough. ] (]) 01:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Discussion at ] (]) 02:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::That's exactly why when you click the citation it takes you to the reference list for you to see who said it ] ] 03:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	:According to the NYTimes, Israeli sources estimate ~15,000 dead in Gaza, with at least 5,000 of them being combatants. Its not an official attribution, but if its more widely reported can put a stop to this conversation. <ref>{{cite news \|website=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/06/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/an-israeli-military-spokesman-estimates-that-several-thousand-hamas-fighters-have-been-killed?smid=url-share}}</ref> ] (]) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	::They said more than that, they said that the Gazan MoH numbers are roughly accurate according to Israel too. ''On Monday, a senior Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity under army rules, told reporters that the Gazan ministry’s estimate of 15,000 total deaths was roughly accurate but that at least 5,000 people killed in Gaza were combatants, rather than civilians.'' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	:: latest on this, confirms historical reliability of Palestinian figures as well as the likelihood that the actual death toll is actually higher than reported. ] (]) 13:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Hamas is supposedly concurrently running a campaign of misinformation since this war started, see this report by the ]: . According to some reports, Hamas's misinformation has been parroted by some media, see these for example: , and ] (]) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::That stuff can go in ] ] (]) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::I ask for reliability evaluation of the 3 sources provided by Crampcomes, namely "Center for Strategic and International Studies", "]" and " InvestigativeProject.org". -- ] (] · ]) 11:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::] is an anti-Muslim hate site and not a usable source. The Jewish Star article is a partisan opinion piece in a minor newspaper, not very valuable. CSIS is a US think tank (meaning, an for U.S. weapons manufacturers) but their article appears factual. ] (]) 12:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::The CSIS paper also has nothing to do with casualty figures or the ministry of Health. ''']''' - 16:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Can you guys join my talk section “ Subject on moving first paragraph lead sentence to second paragraph” as there is no one joining in ] (]) 11:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

			These need updating, since we are now in early 2025:
	Most developed nations have a national health care system. We wouldn't call the Israel national health care system "IDF-run" or "Likud-run." If anything, the Gaza Health Ministry is less run by Hamas than Israel's is run by the government because Gaza's healthcare system isn't very well developed due to the occupation. ] (]) 15:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	{{reflist}}

			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."
	== Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede ==

			2- "Over 100,000 Israelis were internally displaced as of February 2024." ] (]) 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm fine with fact that Hamas has been accused of rape in the initial attack on Israel being included in lede, but why should it be there without the appropriate denial by Hamas? Hamas has not admitted themselves that they committed such attacks (even if individual fighters have, the organization as a whole on Telegram denied it), and it is certainly not a fair POV to include allegations and not a single response by the alleged party themselves. If the international press and journalists dispute such denials then their refutations can be included after. Was going to re-insert the denial to the article with this source but I decided to bring it to talk first:

			:I have updated #1.
	Tagging @] who added the denial and @] who removed it. ] (he/him • ]) 19:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
			: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. ] (]) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::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.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Lede summarizing proposal 2 ==
	:It is an absurd abuse of NPOV to not include the denials. I await a reason to be offered before reverting the removal. ''']''' - 19:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	::My edit summary gives a few of the reasons. Please present your rebuttal, not another edit-war.]] 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::The rebuttal is that numerous sources include Hamas has denied the claims. ''']''' - 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Who other than Hamas has denied the claims? ] (]) 20:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Why does that matter? What matters is the weight sources give that denial, and by including it when they discuss the accusation then it has the weight to include with the accusation. ''']''' - 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::And RS that report the denial give it no weight. Misplaced Pages is not a news aggregator. Journalists are in the habit of reporting ]. Mainstream discussion of the denials consistently deprecates and rejects them. While we could assemble a section on the denials and the overwhelming condemnations of the denials, I think that all gets a bit far afield of the topic here.]] 23:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Accusation in the mirror is a precursor to genocide, and we have a whole lot more actual evidence of Israel's intent to commit gender violence than any Palestinian group. Right now there's a young girl in a hospital in the West Bank having some pretty gory bottom surgery for what IOF has done. Big fat preceding section. Pictures. It's gonna be beautiful. I love Misplaced Pages. One flaw though, in a genocide, all the RS runs dry--leaving everyone with their favorite flavor of delulu fuel. ] (]) 08:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::What is with this comment fantasizing about people being exposed to medical gore? "It's gonna be beautiful"? What the hell? ] (]) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:{{Ping\|HadesTTW}} What is your basis for "the appropriate denial" when non-Israeli RS have not treated those denials as credible and have instead continued to report extensive, diverse, and independently gathered and verified evidence of these actions? NPOV does not say that we publish what amounts to the FRINGE allegation that such attacks did not occur. If you have substantial, recent, top-tier RS that take such denials seriously then please present them. Also per my edit summary, the denial bit is not in the article text and we don't initiate such content from the lead down. But the same NPOV principles demonstrate that any text within the article body would be far different from what was inserted in the lead and would need to report on the denials not having been seriously considered by the WEIGHT of RS.]] 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Something covered by reliable sources is not FRINGE, and editing in a way that removes significant POVs is tendentious. ''']''' - 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	:POV editing. On the theory given in edit summary, all the "Israel disputes this" trot we have on hundreds of articles should be removed as well. ] (]) 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Good to point out now to the manual of style, ]: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Based on this I will be boldly editing it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::The first paragraph should simply define the war and why is significant. The Hamas attack and Israeli bombings should be in the second paragraph onwards. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 00:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	If the response is not presented then per NPOV the charge should not be either. I removed the sentence from the lead entirely. I also dont think it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead either. ''']''' - 19:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

			This summarization is going to be a tough one, proposal to summarize this chunk from:
	:Agreed and more has to be done to keep the opening paragraph general and neutral. ] (]) 19:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Well it has been returned, with a politician now quoted but Hamas denying it absent. {{u\|Coretheapple}} why should Blinken be quoted in the lead? Why should Hamas denying the claims not be? You also violated the 1RR for the record. ''']''' - 20:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Wrong on all three counts. I returned to the version of that paragraph that ''included '' the Hamas denial. So I didn't remove the Hamas denial. It wasn't a reversion as I added the Blinken quote in addition to ''reinstating'' the Hamas denial. (It is false to say Blinken is a "politician" but rather Secretary of State of the United States.) I added the Blinken quote because there is a large quantity of sourcing substantiating that there was sexual violence, and therefore I think that a "he said, she said" approach would be a grave NPOV issue. Why did you say that I removed the Hamas denial? I clearly did not remove that denial and indeed I added it back in. Why did you call this a reversion when I did not simply revert, but added additional text to what I added back in? Indeed, why do you say I am in violation of 1RR when I have not made ANY reverts in this article? ] (]) 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::You are right, I missed the Hamas denial inclusion. But also, I dont see why Blinked would be quoted, and there is a large body of sources saying that Israel has reported such evidence. A reversion is any edit that reverses another, you reversed my removal by restoring. And SPECIFICO's removal of the Hamas denial for that matter. Your other partial revert was ]. And yes, the US Secretary of State is a political office and its holder a politician, and a politician representing the views of the Israel's main backer internationally, so no that is not false. ''']''' - 20:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::I made a bold edit to the opening paragraph, it now certainly looks neater and more structured. ] (]) 20:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::No, neither edit was a revert and I already responded re Blinken. ] (]) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::The restoration is undoubtedly a revert. You restored what I removed. How do you figure that isnt a revert? ''']''' - 20:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::My understanding is that a revert is only pushing the "undo" or equivalent. (I've certainly failed to get 3RRs sanctioned that are not clear undos.) That said, I have not dealt with reverts for some years and that is not something I'm prepared to quibble over. ] (]) 00:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Your understanding is incorrect, ] ''']''' - 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Thanks very much, but despite your expertise on the subject of reverting I am not interested in discussing the subject with you at this time and in this location. ] (]) 16:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Cool, Ill just report it next time. ''']''' - 16:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::By all means. But if you are going to be suggesting in the future that is a "revert," you may want to consider ]. ] and ] are something else to keep in mind. You can have the last word, as I am done with this idiscussion. ] (]) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::I asked this question at ] talk and while the policy is indeed phrased this way, it appears that in practice such edits are not considered reverts. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::And after all that, restoring it without the denial. Huh. ''']''' - 05:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Edit warring (the repeated re-addition of the allegation without the denial) appears to be ongoing. I recommend the parties who persist in re-adding this allegation without the denial familiarize themselves with ] and ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 02:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Agreed. They reverted me in spite of me explaining the reason in the edit summary. ] (]) 08:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::. Lmao. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 15:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Thats an absurd rewrite and it should be reverted. ''']''' - 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::] is irrelevant. The sexual assaults, which have received an avalanche of attention in the world media, are in the article albeit underplayed, and removing them from the lead, as I some editors are doing, is contrary to ]. I think editors need to ponder ] here. I am seeing editors saying "well, Hamas's reaction should be included" and then not ''adding'' Hamas's reaction but just taking it out entirely. There is no need for Hamas reaction in the lead; we do not have Israeli reaction to every single negative thing in the lead. That is false balance and I think it is also an NPOV issue, reflecting a larger problem with the article, as reflected by the fact that eight words in the lead on sexual violence should inspire such passionate opposition. ] (]) 15:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Because when the reaction was added it was removed. The idea that contested claims should be left uncontested is absurd. Beyond that, ONUS is always relevant. The sexual assault accusations have indeed received attention, but so have the denials, which nearly every serious source includes in its coverage. Your edit makes it more difficult to claim that we are a serious source. ''']''' - 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::The fact that ] is a common belief does not mean that the ] article should prioritize that viewpoint. Don't see how this is any different. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 15:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Ill let that comment stand on its own, and note that sources attribute the claims of sexual assault and include the Hamas denials in their articles, and any serious editor would do the same here. ''']''' - 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::If Hamas denying the assaults took place, despite all the overwhelming evidence including their own videos, is an issue, then it should be introduced in the subsection of the article where the sexual assaults are discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Sexual_and_gender_based_violence It is totally unnecessary in the lead and in my opinion including that ridiculous denial in the lead creates a POV issue. ] (]) 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::There is no video of sexual assault, there are witness accounts. And Ill fix the missing denial in that section, thanks for bringing it to my attention. ''']''' - 15:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes it belongs ''there'' not in the lead. We have an entire paragraph in the lead on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We do not have in the paragraph Israel's assertion that Hamas is responsible for that crisis. We do not have a "he said" "she said" anywhere else in the lead. But some editors here want either no reference to the sexual assaults at all in the lead (as evidenced by the fact that they keep taking it out) or, if there, with Hamas's denials in the lead. I think the overall impact of the edits I'm describing is to skew the lead in favor of Hamas. ] (]) 16:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Belongs in both. And I agree that claims of sexual assault should be in the lead. But they belong with the denial. If the denial is being consistently removed then the claim should be as well. That is what NPOV demands. You may think that going from blatantly pushing Israeli positions as fact towards NPOV is "in favor of Hamas", but it is in favor of NPOV. ''']''' - 16:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::''“I don’t know why countries, leaders, international organizations were so slow to focus on this, to bring it to people’s attention. I’m glad it is finally happening,” Blinken told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “The atrocities that we saw on October 7 are almost beyond human description or beyond our capacity to digest. And we’ve talked about them before, but the sexual violence that we saw on October 7 is beyond anything that I’ve seen either.”'' That is fairly typical of the coverage. Now, when I attempted to add a link to this you called the US Secretary of State (Bliinken) a "politician." So I don't want to reinvent the wheel here or get in a rather degrading and nonsensical discussion with you concerning the sourcing re the widespread sexucal assaults. I'll just leave it at that. ] (]) 16:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes, a political ally of Israel has backed up Israel's account. That is not a reliable source for facts. Biden also said he saw scores of beheaded babies, something that was later proven to be complete bullshit. So yes, leave it at that, where you drop a quote from Israel's staunchest ally and pretend like you proved a fact. We use reliable sources, not partisan political actors, for facts here. ''']''' - 17:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::So let me see if I understand what you are saying correctly. You are saying that according to some sources, there were no rapes? The eyewitness testimony, the forensic evidence, etc., may all be just made up and Blinken is lying to support an ally? I just want to clarify what you say the is in doubt here. ] (]) 17:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Please dont put words in my mouth. I am saying that sources that are reliable for facts are largely attributing the rapes to Israel and Israeli accounts. They are not stating that it happened as a fact, they are saying X, Y, and Z have made these accusations. They are providing A, B, and C as evidence. You are taking that and saying, in the lead no less, that the accusations happened as a fact without attribution to X, Y and Z. That is like saying, in what you call a blatantly POV edit below, that calling Israel's war genocidal is acceptable because that accusation has been made by politicians. You think it acceptable to relay as fact what reliable sources report as accusations when it involves accusations that you want to include, but think it highly POV to do the same when it is about accusations you do not want to include. Ill leave it to you to determine the level of hypocrisy of such actions. ''']''' - 17:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what the other side of the story is. You say there are two sides to this story. Rape and mutilation "accusations" and another side. Is the other side "there were no rapes and mutilations"? I'm just trying to figure out what the reliable sources are rporting so we can reflect that fairly in the article. ] (]) 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::{{outdent\|9}} Um, where did I say there were two sides of this story? The story is Israel has accused Hamas of using rape as a weapon, and has cited such and such, Hamas has denied it. That is what the reliable sources have reported. Have you read the ones Ive posted here? ''']''' - 17:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::ONUS has nothing to do with the lead unless it introduces new text not already in the article, and that is not the case here. There are other neutrality issues. For instance removes text concerning opposition to Hamas within Gaza. You say you "neutralize section" but I think the opposite took place. ] (]) 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::This article is not about dissent in Gaza it's about the war writ large. We need to keep this article t a manageable length. That edit is good and supportable.
	:::::If you actually read WP:ONUS you'll notice the hatnote directing readersto WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY, which is a clear indication that the onus for inclusion in the lead is on the party seeking inclusion. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::To be clear, when I say "at a manageable length" I mean that if we start quoting random people on the street for every proposition in this article, the length of the article will balloon completely out of control. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 16:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::It does not remove text concerning opposition to Hamas, it very clearly includes {{tq\|The Associated Press reported that rare instances of public dissent against Hamas were taking place, with reports of angry chants against Hamas by hundreds of people taking refuge in a UN shelter.}} and that characterization is a lie. It does remove random anecdotes about individuals, and keeps the content more in line with the sourcing. The change I made went from an attempt at framing Israel bringing Gaza to and past the brink of starvation and the resulting breakdown in social order in to the Israeli propaganda line about Gazans need to rise up against Hamas. Now you can support pushing that propaganda line, thats up to you I guess, but yes that edit neutralized a nakedly partisan section supposedly on malnourishment. And yes, ], as literally any person who clicks the link will see, will see applies to all content, and says the burden on achieving consensus for challenged material is on those seeking to include it. ''']''' - 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::The edit in question completely changed the focus of the section. Blatant POV edit. ] (]) 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::No, it corrected the blatant POV of framing starving people and the resulting loss of social order in to the people of Gaza are rising up against Hamas. Your edit includes accusations that have been denied without the denial. Which is a ''blatant POV edit''. That will also be corrected. ''']''' - 16:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::They are not "accusations." There is overwhelming evidence for them. They were an essential feature of the 10/7 attacks, but this article deals with them only in passing, and the lead, as edited by several editors, either doesn't mention them at all or gives equal weight to denials by Hamas. The net effect, in the lead, if the Hamas denial is included, is to pretend that they are just mere, unproven accusations. After all, Hamas has denied them "repeatedly." ] (]) 16:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::That is POV, sources are attributing accusations and saying there is mounting evidence for them, but they are not saying that these things occurred as a fact. And they '''are''' including that Hamas has denied them. For example reports on Israeli accounts of sexual violence, and also includes that Hamas has denied the accusation. They do not say that this occurred as a fact. Unlike the lead. You can pretend like because you feel there is overwhelming evidence and that they were an essential feature of the attack that you are free to disregard the sources, but you are not. ''']''' - 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::"They do not say that this occurred as a fact"? Well as you may recall (see discussion above), I sought to add a few words from at one point to the lead, alongside the Hamas denial, as a compromise. The article begins:
	::::::::::''"Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday forcefully condemned sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas during the October 7 attack and blasted those who have not forcefully condemned it or were slow to do so.
	::::::::::''“I don’t know why countries, leaders, international organizations were so slow to focus on this, to bring it to people’s attention. I’m glad it is finally happening,” Blinken told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “The atrocities that we saw on October 7 are almost beyond human description or beyond our capacity to digest. And we’ve talked about them before, but the sexual violence that we saw on October 7 is beyond anything that I’ve seen either.”''''
	::::::::::My reference to Blinken's comments was removed by another editor. You supported removal on the rounds that Blinken is a mere "politician." ] (]) 17:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Again, a political ally of Israel backing Israel's account does not make it so this is a fact. You either get this or you dont, but we dont source statements of fact to political actors, and asking that we do is straightforward POV pushing. is an actual reliable source: {{tq\|The evidence of sexual violence on Oct. 7, Israel says, is overwhelming: Witness accounts of militants raping women; bodies of women discovered with their clothes removed; others shot through the head and the breast.}} You see how it attributes the accusation to Israel? I also support including that Physicians for Human Rights Israel saying this occured to be included in the article, attributed to them. But you want to include things that third-party sources attribute unattributed. That is what is POV pushing. You also want to not include the denial that third-party sources include. That is what is POV pushing. You are the one slanting the article and lead in a very specific direction, away from NPOV. ''']''' - 17:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::See my question above. I just want to be sure that I understand what you are saying. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the other side of these "accusations" is that it is all a lot of nonsense, there were no rapes, all the eyewitness testimony was made up, all the forensic evidence is garbage, etc. Therefore Blinken is just lying to support an ally. Is that what you are suggesting reliable sources are saying to counter these "accusations"? I am just trying to clarify the issues here. Please help me out on this. Because what I have read is overwhelming support of the position that yes, Hamas personnel committed rapes. ] (]) 17:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::No, I am saying what I said, not what you are imagining I said. What I am saying is sources attribute the claim to Israeli accounts, so we have to do the same. They also include Hamas denials. So we have to do the same. You want to include as fact what sources as attribute. This is a very basic issue, what is attributed in the sources cannot be unattributed here. ''']''' - 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::And the edit youre faulting me for includes as well that the PA Foreign Minister blamed Israel for using starvation as a weapon. It also includes an Israeli denial, despite the fact it has been well established by third party sources, and by statements by Israeli government officials themselves, that starvation is being used as a weapon. We dont just include the accusation without the denial. Because even if including Israeli denials that are on their face ludicrous is "skew in favor of Israel", NPOV demands that their views also be included. ''']''' - 16:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm tallking about the total absence of Israeli counterpoint ''in the lead''. Right now we have ''nine words'' on the widely, exhaustively reported sexual assaults and no, God forbid, we can't have that without a Hamas denial right there, in the lead. Please. ] (]) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::The Israeli counterpoint that Hamas has forced Israel to carpet bomb Gaza? What source includes that in its coverage of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza? Youre asking for unequal treatment, denials that are not covered by reliable sources should be covered by us, but denials that are covered by reliable sources should not. ''']''' - 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Maybe we should address the elephant in the room and talk about why these allegations are so {{tq\|widely, exhaustively reported}}? That is, Israel instrumentalizing violence against women to wage propaganda war for cynical motives far-removed from feminism. Not accusing anyone here, but people can clearly see the motive behind these types of allegations . Not trying to forum, or suggest that these sources be included in this article, just saying that this entire narrative is bound up in Israel's well-worn bait-and-switch. If we're going to compound ], let's at least do it in line with reliable sources, which report on the denials. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Again, see my question above. I may have missed reliable sources covering the position that there were no rapes by Hamas personnel. ] (]) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The issue is that reliable sources cover it as an Israeli accusation that Hamas has denied, and our article now covers it as an undisputed fact. ''']''' - 17:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Well you see that is my question. They are saying there were no rapes and other forms of sexual violence? If Hamas is saying "Israel is making it all up," we should say so. ] (]) 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I have no idea what you are asking. The sources attribute to Israeli reports that Hamas has engaged in rape and sexual assault. They also report Hamas has denied it. Do you get that? ''']''' - 17:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Look, I'm just trying to figure out how detailed and substantive the denials are, Clearly they are perfunctory, whereas the "accusations," as you call them, are anything but. ] (]) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::The issue is presenting what sources attribute unattributed and not including denials that sources include. Your view on how perfunctory those denials are is something that is personal opinion unrelated to our editing policies. ''']''' - 18:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::It sounds like you're drifting into ] territory here. Our purpose is not to opine on the relative merit of legal claims and defences, we're here to convey what sources say. If sources say, "According to Israel, XYZ, although this is denied by Hamas", then that's what we should be conveying. Anything more or less runs the risk of synthesizing and pushing POV. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 18:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Actually this is a perfect example of ] ] (]) 19:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Don't want to turn this into more of a forum, but just commenting that is a post by a ] user called "Proleterian Feminist" made exactly two days after the Oct 7 attacks. In they say “''For all these reasons and more, I cannot look at the Al-Aqsa Flood operation and come to any other conclusion other than it being a just response…” & “It’s also worth noting that Hamas and the other resistance factions have continuously stated that they are not targeting civilians or children, and have released video proof of their treatment of civilians.”(hamas, the famously reliable and neutral source)'' among many other things which if I were to fully quote would make this far too long. Not exactly a neutral or reliable source. ] (]) 03:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::As I said, I'm not proposing that that op-ed be used in this article in any way, shape, or form. My point was that many people understand that these claims are not coming from a place of authentic feminism, but as a justification for the atrocities committed against Gaza (including Palestinian women). The author writes: {{tq\| will often try to pull on the sympathies of left-leaning people by alleging violence against marginalized groups, such as women.}} My point was that the mounting coverage and feverish tenor of these allegations is conveniently timed, given Israel's increasing international isolation and growing pressure for a ceasefire. But again, not a forum. The real issue is whether or not to attribute the allegations and include the denials (see below). <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Please do not use these Medium links again, even on a talk page. They're inappropriate and offensive. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::{{outdent\|12}} Thats an essay. NPOV is core policy. Guess which one matters more? ''']''' - 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Essays guide us in our application of policy. In this case: "If reliable sources have checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that 'X denies the accusations' then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?" We have the denial in the body of the article and I think we can dispense with it in the lead. ] (]) 19:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::No, they guide us that one person thinks something about our policies. And that one particularly goes against other policies, such as ] for living people who are public figures. If the denial is not in the lead the accusation should not be either. I intend to restore the prior lead, adding the accusation with attribution and the denial. You may not present what sources attribute as Israeli accusations as though they are fact. That is a basic NPOV and V issue. ''']''' - 19:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::I don't think anyone has argued against the denial being in the article at all, but simply not in the lead. The brevity of mention of the allegations in the lead (just nine words at present) would require the Hamas denial to be given equal weight in the lead. But that would not be neutral. It would be POV, as there is a massive weight of evidence of the sexual atrocities and a perfunctory denial. Per ]: "When there are competing points of view, Misplaced Pages does not aim for the midpoint between them. Rather, it gives weight to each view in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources." ] (]) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Again, the issue is portraying as fact what the sources attribute to Israeli accounts, while also not including the denial that they also include in their reporting. ''']''' - 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, I don't think you're framing the issue accurately, Remember, we're talking about the lead now, and only the lead. The danger is ] in the lead and the NPOV policy ]. ] (]) 20:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Yes, the lead is where you are relaying as fact what reliable sources attribute. And you dont include the denial that they also attribute. One cannot go in without the other, and if you demand that the denial be removed then so to will the accusation. ''']''' - 20:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Also, this is absolutely not a case of one editor claiming ownership, this is a case of approximately five separate editors disputing an edit, through the proper forum, while other editors persistently make contested/tendentious edits. You can't just allege WP:OWN to circumvent the ]/] process. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Some editors here are making blatant POV edits . That was swiftly removed by an administrator but it does raise serious questions in my view. I also have on two instances corrected some serious mischaracterization of sources. ] (]) 16:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::If you don't know the elaboration of POV, it means Point of View. The article from the official UN website https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against is titled "Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people." And the first paragraph literally says and I quote "Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today." It was only reverted because it's still incompatible with Wikivoice. ] (]) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::But apparently grave violations committed by Hamas on 7 October that Israel has accused it of are totally compatible with Wikivoice. I leave finding the word to describe holding these conflicting positions an exercise for the reader. ''']''' - 21:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::The word that comes to mind is "contrary to Misplaced Pages policy." If you feel differently, please go back to the edit history, ascertain the identity of the administrator who removed it, and take it up with him or her. ] (]) 21:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::I dont disagree that inclusion of genocidal in our voice is not in alignment with our policies. I dont hold hypocritical opposing viewpoints on other accusations that sources attribute however. Thats the difference between us. ''']''' - 21:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::What exactly are you referring to there? I'm afraid you've lost me. ] (]) 21:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::That you believe one set of accusations, rape by Hamas, should be placed in our voice, despite sources attributing the accusations, while another set, genocide, made by independent observers no less, should not be. ''']''' - 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't disagree with that editor that's why I didn't pursue it further. But don't try to deflect from the topic at hand, which is you trying to include rape/mutilation of women allegations against Hamas without including Hamas's outright vehement denial. ] (]) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Throwing in this phrasing as middle ground: "including reports of sexual violence." ] (]) 21:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::That's like saying in the article on the Hiroshima bombing "reports of nausea." ] (]) 21:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Lousy analogy, the rubble of Hiroshima was there for all to see. Meanwhile, here the sources cited in the article speak of "allegation" (abcnews) and "investigations" (Reuters). There is nothing proven, as far as the sources are concerned. ] (]) 21:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Yes and the evidence of rape is substantial according to all of the reliable sources. Referring to them as "accusations," as if it's a couple of women filing lawsuits, is simply not an accurate way of describing the sourcing. But anyway, I think this discussion is starting to get repetive. I should add that I have added further text quoting Hamas's position on the subject, as what we had from Hamas is bare bones and perfunctory. What I ahve added remedies that. I also corrected a misrepresentation of the underlying source. ] (]) 21:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::The sources attribute it as accusations from Israel. You cant distort that into proven fact in the lead. ''']''' - 22:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::I dispute that these claims should even be included in the lead at all, with or without the denial; the lead should summarize the body of the article and this is not one of the most significant features of the ''war as a whole''. We have numerous articles covering the events of October 7, an entire article on sexual violence on October 7, and another article on the experience of women during the war. This website is already flooded with this latest Israeli talking point.
	:::::But if it absolutely must be included, Makeandtoss makes (and tosses) a good proposed compromise. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::I restored the prior lead, but with the rape/sexual abuse claims and the denial. ''']''' - 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Sure, that works too. Certainly far better than the prior. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 23:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::It did, but in a 1RR violation {{u\|Chessrat}} returned the unattributed claim saying the bbc supports it. However the BBC says that it heard testimony and saw evidence, it does not independently claim that rapes occurred. That, once again, distorts the source to make statements of fact that are attributed by the source. ''']''' - 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::My reversion of your unexplained removal of the BBC source was my only revert in the last 24 hours, so I would appreciate you refraining from baseless 1RR accusations. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::: <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::No your earlier reinsertion in to the lead of the unattributed claim was a revert. Please self revert. ''']''' - 00:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::In what way was it a revert? It was a re-wording and restructuring of the lede for clarity, moving parts of it around, adding bits/citations and trimming other bits. It wasn't based on any prior revisions of the article in any way so I'm genuinely not at all sure what you believe that edit to have been "reverting". <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 00:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You restored material that previously had been removed. You can call it a bold edit but it was also a revert, a revert about this specific material in fact. ''']''' - 00:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Which specific material in that edit had been previously removed from the article? I made the edit made entirely independently of the article history (and in fact hadn't even looked at this article for weeks prior to the edit) so certainly am not aware of anything amounting to a revert, but if there is specific material in the edit in question which happens to have been removed from the article in a similar form prior to the edit, thus making parts of the edit in question a revert in practice (if not in intent), do please tell. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 01:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::{{tq\|carrying out mass ]}}, which reverted ] which removed {{tq\| and Hamas militants reportedly raped, assaulted, and mutilated Israeli women and girls}}. You returned the very thing that has been argued about in this section twice today, the unattributed claim that Hamas raped Israeli women as part of their attack. ''']''' - 01:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Okay, so not the BBC source then. Your unexplained removal of the BBC source was the primary reason for my latest revert, so I have partially reverted my most recent edit to your wording, but retained the BBC source. Is this acceptable? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 01:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Yes that’s fine. Thank you. ''']''' - 01:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Chessrat, for future reference, this "1RR accusation" stuff was disposed of above in the comment and linked ] ] cited by {{U\|Alaexis}} above at 20:09, 13 December 2023. Such edits as you carried out are not in fact viewed as reverts. ] (]) 04:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::Incorrect. The ] is pretty clear on this point. A revert is {{tq\| An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part}}. The edit described above “manually reverse” my action (the removal of an unattributed, POV claim) entirely, or at the very least in part. It was definitionally a revert. If your interpretation was correct the edit warring policy would be basically meaningless; minor semantic tweaks would be enough to ] and there would be virtually no restrictions on edit warring. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 04:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::See link to the October 2023 noticeboard discussion in my reply. which indicated that such edits as Chessrat made are not considered reverts. Editors should be mindful of ] in their conduct on this page, and that bad-faith 1RR warnings are subject to sanction. ] (]) 15:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::{{outdent\|16}} Yeah, you can test that belief if you like, but you probably shouldnt recommend somebody else risk their own editing privileges based on your misconceptions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ''']''' - 16:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. Coretheapple, that is a mischaracterization of the noticeboard discussion linked above, which related to the removal of "{{tq\|certain information that had been in the article for a while}}". It did not address restoring information that had been very recently removed. The discussion also specifically emphasized ] which has been persistently disregarded during this discussion. Again, no one is asserting ownership, as I've pointed out, this is a case of a significant number of editors disputing non-consensus POV edits.
	:::In the event that I'm wrong, it's based on my ] understanding of policy and the noticeboard discussion linked above. Baseless accusations of bad faith are ] uncivil. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::And I see . Wow. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Should be reverted, we are not including that Israeli bombs have wiped out entire families, that they have decapitated countless babies, that snipers have shot at civilians during the supposed ceasefire in the lead. That level of detail does not belong in the lead, unless your aim here is to attempt to skew the article to support a narrative. ''']''' - 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Ive included an equivalent level of detail for Israeli atrocities. If you want to turn the lead in to a detailed accounting of the worst stories you can find, I promise you I can find worse ones. ''']''' - 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Maybe we should include the that were found decomposing after Israel demanded the hospital be abandoned and promised to evacuate the babies, and then didnt. ''']''' - 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::The previous wording in the lead presents an NPOV issue. It presents a ] between amply documented allegations of rape and a perfunctory Hamas denial. I retained the denial, though I do not believe it is necessary as I have previously indicated, but to prevent false balance in the lead I think NPOV requires more substance in describing the assaults. Various excuses and rationalizations are being presented to either omit entirely the mention of the sexual assaults or to falsely balance them with the result being to underweight and skew the neutrality of the lead. Neutrality does not require that equal weight be given to all points of view. That is well established. And in the section that this summarizes, in fact equal weight is not given to the perfunctory and brief Hamas denial. In fact, it was so brief, I actually had to add to it. But it remains in sharp contrast to the extensive documentation of teh sexual assaults, the horrified reaction of people overseas, including US president Biden and Secretary of State Blinken as well as European and EU officials. The false balance language therefore does not reflect either the article or reality. ] (]) 16:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Again, politicians are not reliable sources, no matter how many times you pretend like they are. If you want this level of detail for charges against Hamas then fine, we will have that level of detail for the exceedingly well documented crimes of Israel. Biden was also horrified at the beheaded babies. That was later found to be bullshit, but you would have had us include "Hamas beheaded countless babies" because some ultra-Zionist politician said so. ''']''' - 16:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::No one has to "assert" ownership for ] to apply. No one ever says "I own this article." I would just suggest that people be mindful of that. ] (]) 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, and neither do you. ''']''' - 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Considering that you just called upon my lateast edit to be reverted, that is quite a statement. ] (]) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::It should be, you keep trying to push things in to the lead without anything resembling consensus. You dont own this article, consensus does. ''']''' - 16:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::I have no objection to your added wording to the lead. This is not a ] and I would respectfully suggest that you not treat it as such. ] (]) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Cool, will be adding a bunch more. Not looking for a battle, just equal treatment and NPOV. ''']''' - 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You say "cool," but there are a lot of other editors here. I can be reverted or edited and so can you. This is not a peace conference with delegates from both sides making handshake deals. ] (]) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::One other point I wanted to make. The coverage indicates that this is an extremely brutal war. It reminds me of the Pacific Campaign during World War II. To sugarcoat or downplay the actions of one party in a high-visibility article like this is very corrosive to the project as a whole, and I fear that that has been the case in this article with regard to the sexual assaults and its treatment in the lead. If the sexual assaults are not given proper weight, or if there is false balance, that is damaging to the project. This should not be a tit for tat situation. "Oh you addedd negative details so I will too." I see that an editor added some badly needed text re friendly fire incidents. Again, that rsolves is an important omission. There is no need to add countervailing detail from "the other side." Each detail needs to be added independently with an eye toward weight. ] (]) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The idea that we should only include details on supposed atrocities by one side, when the coverage of atrocities by the other side has been exceedingly wide, is absurd. If some editors insist on turning the lead in to a detailed account of the most extreme accusations against one side then of course the lead will need a similar level of detail for the actions of the other side that have been much more widely reported and verified. ''']''' - 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Actually I said quite the opposite of "including details on supposed atrocities by one siide," but... eh... never mind. ] (]) 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:@] can you explain why you are both including details on charges against Hamas and removing as unencyclopedic material that is widely covered? For sources on the wiping out of entire generations of Gazans, see , , , , and . What is unencyclopedic or not in keeping with the balance of sources in that material? That you did so while adding detail to charges against Hamas is a curiosity that I would like an explanation for. ''']''' - 20:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:In what world is ] an acceptable edit {{u\|Andrevan}}? Why did you remove the material on multiple generations of Gazans being killed? How is it non-neutral? Why is it removed from the body? ''']''' - 09:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I started a discussion on this in a section below, under the heading, "wiped out multiple generations of families" ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	===Arbitrary break===
	I've lost track of the discussion, maybe it will help to re-frame the issue. There are two viewpoints: there was sexual violence and there wasn't sexual violence. Many Israeli sources and some international ones say the former, Hamas says the latter. According to ] the viewpoints have to be represented {{tquote\|in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.}} Other than Hamas, who else is saying that there was no sexual violence? If it's just Hamas, we should mention it in the article but not in the lede. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:That is not true, y4ou dont describe what sources attribute as a fact, and you dont not include what sources include for a denial because "it's just Hamas". That is straightforwardly asking that we distort the cited sources. Independent sources are saying there are Israeli reports of rape and sexual violence, and that Hamas has denied these claims. ''']''' - 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::It's not just Israeli sources, there are also international ones like NBC and the Times that interviewed survivors and watched the footage.
	::You're right that if the denial ''itself'' is widely covered, then it would also satisfy DUE. However then the onus is on you to show that RS indeed mention it prominently. I didn't see it in the discussion above but I may have missed it. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::: says {{tq\|The evidence, primarily from the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli officials, suggests that dozens of Israeli women were raped or sexually abused or mutilated during the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. According to first responders, one was mutilated with a pair of scissors and another stabbed with a knife. The genitals of some men who had been killed were mutilated as well.}} and then later {{tq\|NBC News could not independently verify the authenticity of the interrogation videos released by Israeli officials. Officials declined to provide unedited versions of the interrogations.}} And, by the way, the NBC story also includes Hamas's denial. They report on the testimonies of first responders and of witnesses, but do not say that they have established the veracity of those claims. I dont know which ''The Times'' you are referring to. You are welcome to provide such sources, but the sources have been attributing the accusation to Israeli accounts. Not saying that they have established that they are accurate. ''']''' - 22:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Your “reframing” also ignores the fundamental question of whether this story is essential to a summary of the war as a whole (i.e., WP:DUE). Not a summary of October 7, not a summary of how wicked and cartoonishly villainous Hamas supposedly is, a summary of the ''entire war''. Regardless of whether you accept Israel’s evidence, one of our tasks here is to distill out the essential features of the whole war, in proportion to the coverage of RS. The fact that the Israeli propaganda machine has latched onto these stories (after the “40 beheaded babies” schtick didn’t catch on) doesn’t make it worthy of inclusion in the lead. So, no, it may help a certain POV to {{tq\|re-frame the issue}} along these lines, but I doubt it helps our readers or other editors looking to establish consensus. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::So you suggest to remove any mention of sexual violence from the lede? I don't agree with this, lots of RS have mentioned it very prominently when describing the conflict.
	::The 40 beheaded babies have nothing to do with it. Some claims turn out to be false, on both sides (e.g., the first reports of the number casualties of the Al-Ahli explosion were hugely exaggerated). In case of beheaded babies, the RS have investigated this claim and found it to be untrue. In case of sexual violence, on the other hand, we get and evidence that it happened, unfortunately. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::From your CNN source: {{tq\|CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims}}. AP comes closer to saying that it happened in their own voice, but still attributes it to accounts provided by Israeli witnesses or first responders. Both also include the denial. I am fine including that these accusations have been made, in the lead too, but not with the level of detail given here if we are eliding detail of Israeli crimes from the lead. And yes, with the denial. ''']''' - 22:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Yes, that is my position, but I’m not opposed to compromise. I’m glad you brought out those sources though. From the first:
	:::* {{tq\| CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims … Hamas has repeatedly denied allegations that its fighters committed sexual violence during the attack — despite the evidence.}} so, some editorializing (which we don’t do here), but still noting the denial.
	:::from the second:
	:::* {{tq\| ''accounts given'' to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of … investigators are still trying to determine the scope of the sexual assaults … Hamas has rejected allegations that its gunmen committed sexual assault … Rights experts say the United Nations is best placed to conduct a fair, credible and impartial investigation.}}
	:::attributions, denials. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Willow, you misunderstand our NPOV and Verification policies. When the source says the denials are false, then WP must do the same. We are agnostic and just summarize the RS.]] 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::The source does not say the denials are false so your premise fails under its own weight. ''']''' - 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::"Alice says she saw Bob eating a steak. Charlie says he saw Bob eating a burger. But Bob says he's a vegetarian—despite the evidence. CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims." In this hypothetical, is CNN saying that Bob's denials are false? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 00:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::It would advance your position more effectively if you would not post straw men and other deflections. I did not say that the quoted source called the denial false. I was trying to address the principle by which WP treats statements by RS. I was giving you the example that even in the polar case, where the denial was outright false, we would still represent whatever the source says. In the case of Hamas' denial of these assaults, the source makes a point of telling its readers that the denial is "despite the evidence". The NPOV way to reflect that in the article is to include that assessment. Numerous editors have been explaining that quite clearly for many days now, so if it's not acceptable to you, you could mount an RfC or solicit feedback at NPOVN, but I think you will find that our policies have not changed.]] 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::That is one source, and numerous editors have been explaining quite clearly the issue with your edits, and you may solicit that same feedback. Since you have declined to answer my question on your removal of very well sources material up above, I am reverting it. ''']''' - 01:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Saying that something is denied "despite the evidence" is not the same as saying that the denial is false. That was the point of my analogy. I understood you as saying that the quoted source called the denial false. If I misunderstood, that was my mistake. But, as nableezy notes, even if CNN did dismiss the denials, other RS report the denials without editorializing on their relative merit.
	:::::::My position remains that a clinical, detached tone is preferable. Even in articles like ] and ], the extreme language that's being pushed here isn't used in the lead. Make of that what you will. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 01:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::I think that suggesting that the sexual assaults did not occur at all, or are somehow in doubt, is a position that does not help matters much at all. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Where did I say that they didn’t happen? I said that they were denied by the alleged perpetrators, I said that Israel has a history of misrepresenting or outright fabricating evidence, but I never specifically opined on whether or not it happened. Rape has (always and tragically) been a weapon of war and it will continue to be as long as imperialism and colonialism (the real root of wartime violence against women) persist. But are we here to discuss what WP user WillowCity thinks, or what RS say? I’m vain, but I think the latter. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::You're cherry-picking sources to give a false impression of the overwhelming evidence supporting the immensity and gravity of the sexual assaults. Please stop. ] (]) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::No, he is accurately showing that sources are attributing these accusations. Your accusation is baseless and outrageous. Please stop yourself. ''']''' - 23:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Israeli rape accusation which was fact-checked by ] turned out to be false propaganda. ] (]) 16:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::That wasnt inserted by WillowCity, and I agree that shouldnt be in the lead. What are you implying with that quote as a reply to me? ''']''' - 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::I was just bringing this to your attention. BTW, I totally agree with WillowCity that this whole rape accusation, which already has a separate article on it, should not be in the lede of this article. ] (]) 16:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::That does not belong in the lead, it is a single report on a single instance. ''']''' - 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::"''Suggesting that the sexual assaults did not occur at all''" is knowingly twisting someone's word. If you insist on such bad faith behavior, I may bring the issue to administrator noticeboard and ask for possible disciplinary actions. -- ] (] · ]) 16:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Yes, the denials are mentioned, but not prominently (two sentences in the Times , one sentence in the CNN, NBC and AP reports. These sources do not mention anyone else denying that this happened. In view of all this, we should mention the denials too in the body of the article, and in the article about the sexual violence, but definitely not in the lede, per WP:DUE.
	::::Basically every claim in this war has been contested by one side or the other. Including denials after each sentence is clearly not the right way to write encyclopedic articles. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::I agree. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Nonsense, that they include it means we need to, and including charges without responses is a straightforward NPOV violation. ''']''' - 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::This is particularly true since the lead may be ]. We also can't pick-and-choose what parts of NPOV we want to rely on (e.g. emphasizing a particular interpretation of DUE, without considering potential BALASP issues that arise from discussing the claim in the lead at all). <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::When sources relay accusations as accusations and include denials they are not endorsing a view, they are relaying the charges made and the responses to it. That is what we do as well, as the sources do. ''']''' - 22:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::(edit conflict)I agree with the points made aboveby Alaexis re the denials, and I think the NPOV issue created by failure to mention the sexual atrocities is self-evident. ] (]) 22:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*per ], all the views must be quoted when a subject is mentioned 1) Hamas denies using rape as a weapon - it is a fact, they released a statement, 2) individual Hamas soldiers did commit, it was reported. ] (]) 23:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:That is not what neutrality is. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::"fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". two sides of a coin and not censorship like it was done here. ] (]) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::]. It's not two sides of a coin, 5050 on every issue. ], If most sources, even "WESTERN" sources, say something, we have to give more weight to that side. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::The same sources include the accusation and the denial. What don’t you get about that? ''']''' - 01:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*The lead now includes "and Hamas videos showed naked and bloodied women on the day of the assault." and does not include the Hamas denial of the rape accusations. That level of detail is not being included for accusations about Israeli actions, we are not including that they , we are not including that they have killed generations of families which Amnesty International , we are not including that they have , we are not including that , we are not including any details on the war crimes committed by Israel. But we are including details on contested allegations of crimes by Hamas. This is non-neutral. Either include details on charges or dont, but you cant turn the lead in to "this is why Israel is justified in leveling Gaza" without any other POV. ''']''' - 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:''a ] was imposed, thereby forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, "tainted" water.<ref>{{Cite web\|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/disease-runs-rampant-gaza-clean-water-runs-rcna125091\|title=Disease runs rampant in Gaza as clean water runs out\|date=15 November 2023\|website=NBC News}}</ref>'' This long-standing part was sneakily and cunning removed too from under our noses. You know whole population of 2 million drinking contaminated water can kill a lot more than 18000 in both long and short term. But it's what it is. ] (]) 23:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Couldn't agree more, this has created massive BALASP issues. The lead could be filled with horror stories, with the , or their , or the of , or the "" increase in settler violence in the West Bank, or the . But it's not. This allegation is given more attention in the lead than anything I've listed, none of which is even mentioned. The result is an outrageous POV violation; as editors, we should be embarrassed. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 23:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::I'd like to see the source survey for the relative prominence as aspects of each of those for this topic, stacked against the other things you think are less prominent. Has such a survey been done yet? If not, maybe that would be a constructive, productive way forward rather than soapboxing about how embarassed or ashamed we should be about this, which isn't exactly incivil, but I don't like the tone. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Well I apologize for the tone, I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just exasperated by this conversation going in circles for days. But you don't need a source survey to know that this level of specificity, for something that has yet to be independently, impartially investigated and verified, is not in keeping with the rest of this article's lead, which is the real crux of the issue.
	*:::As for a {{tq\|constructive, productive way forward}}, I'm on board with just stating the allegation and the denial, without getting into the specifics. That is a compromise from my original position, which is that the sexual assault issue is WP:UNDUE for the lead (and I note that no editor has produced a source survey showing that this is a prominent aspect of coverage of ''the war as a whole'', despite the onus). EDIT: When I say {{tq\|just stating the allegation and the denial}}, I mean with attribution for who is alleging and denying. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:'' a ] was imposed, thereby forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, "tainted" water.<ref>{{Cite web\|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/disease-runs-rampant-gaza-clean-water-runs-rcna125091\|title=Disease runs rampant in Gaza as clean water runs out\|date=15 November 2023\|website=NBC News}}</ref>''
	{{reflist-talk}}
	:Why letting the pro Israeli wp users impose their will of relating unbalanced stories when you can use edit summary naming the User who did this, re including this content while re-adding the denials of Hamas. Don't wait for their approval, cite ], it is what matters. ] (]) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:I restored the less detailed rape charge, along with the Hamas denial. There is no consensus for the inclusion of these details, and if you refuse to include the denial then the charge should not be included either. We can take this to an RFC if you want, but there has never been consensus for what has been repeatedly pushed in to the lead. ''']''' - 03:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I have to think there is a better way to write it than, {{tq\|srael has reported rapes and sexual assault by Hamas fighters; Hamas has denied this.rape as a weapon of war}}. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Yeah I fixed that, was a mistake from two different thoughts being combined. ''']''' - 03:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I also included the charge they used rape as a weapon of war. I think that addresses the problem that some had with supposed equal treatment here. ''']''' - 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Somewhat, but haven't others aside from Israel confirmed the Israeli reports? While nobody has confirmed the Hamas denials, because you can't really confirm a denial. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::I have yet to see an independent third-party source stating that it is confirmed, using that specific word. Some sources find the witness/forensic evidence credible, but that is a very different proposition from outright 'confirmation'. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 03:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Well, at least the US state department. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, I should say an independent, '']'' third-party source. I thought that went without saying, though. And when I say "independent", I mean RS from outside of Israel or Palestine. In a , I said that the reports emanated from "Israeli sources", so that would encompass ToI, YNET, and other Israeli outlets that post corroborations/confirmations. I'm not opposed to that type of attribution. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::OK, yes, that too. but what about like the US state department and US officials. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::That's a reliable source for what the US government believes to have happened, but not for what actually happened. US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller is not (to my knowledge) a forensic scientist, international expert, specialist in the laws of war, or otherwise qualified to interpret evidence and determine its legal effect. He can convey what the US government believes to be true, and we can convey that. But the Hill article even says that Miller "had not made an independent assessment." <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 03:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::That's fair, but you wrote it as Israeli reports alone. I think it's a bit relevant that the president has said governments and international organizations should "forcefully condemn the sexual violence of Hamas terrorists without equivocation." Not that we need to quote that, but maybe "Israel, supported by the US," would be appropriate. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Why in the lead? Why is that part of the summary? ''']''' - 04:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Because otherwise it sounds like it's a 50-50 false balance whether the sexual assaults happened or not, not that they did happen, Hamas denied it, as they would, and Israel's story is corroborated by extensive evidence and international support. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::It is supported by their political and military allies. Who also supported claims that have later turned out to be patently false, eg babies beheaded. And there arent sources for "they did happen", the sources say that Israel says they happened and have provided testimonies from witnesses who say it happened. The source you offered has a US State Department spokesman saying "The fact that it seems one of the reasons they don’t want to turn women over, that they’ve been holding hostage, and the reason this pause fell apart, is they don’t want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them during their time in custody". That is a political office of an ally of Israel making what is an unsupported and uncorroborated claim, and you are taking that as evidence that this is true and we must follow that source. Sorry, but I disagree. I see an attempt to push a thumb on the scales here and include contested views as facts when the sources describe the views as views that are contested. And I do not think any reading of ''Israel has reported Hamas fighters committed rapes and sexual assault and that it used rape as a weapon of war; Hamas has denied this'' can be construed to be "50-50 false balance". We include that Israel has "reported", not "accused" or "claimed", that Hamas fighters committed acts of rape and sexual assault and that it used rape as a weapon. And we include four words on Hamas denying it, with one of them being a preposition. If you want to start an RFC on this feel free. ''']''' - 04:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I'll leave it alone for a while, as I expect over time, more information will come out. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The beheading of babies isn't "patently false"- it's something which several survivors and eyewitnesses have reported, and almost certainly happened (just as many other eyewitness accounts from 10/7 ended up confirmed by journalists)- but it is something that the evidence for has not been reported with sufficiently stringent journalistic certainty as to be presented as a fact in Misplaced Pages. Lack of sufficiently strong evidence that something happened is not equal to evidence that it did not happen.
	:::::::::::::Regarding the sexual assaults on the other hand, there is widespread journalistic confirmation of that happening in reliable sources, so it would be undue bias to refer to the denial of them. There is a very good reason why the lede to the article on ] does not contain the wording "Journalists claim that Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, but Nazis deny this". <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 18:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Equating the level of certainty surrounding the Holocaust to the level of certainty surrounding sexual violence on October 7 (to the extent and in the manner alleged by Israel) is frankly offensive. Please refrain from making these sorts of comparisons, it does a disservice to the memory of the Holocaust and the millions who died. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::The better comparison, if any is appropriate, would be between current events and denial of the Holocaust during WW2 when it was ongoing. There was lots of that.]] 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Almost certainly happened lol? One baby was killed on October 7. So no, definitely did not happen. Completely debunked and yet repeated here as though it were true. ''']''' - 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	I don’t know that this should be in the lead of this article at all tbh. This isn’t the article on the 7 October attacks, and accusations of sexual assault have not been a major component in coverage of the war as a whole as opposed to coverage of the initial attacks. Definitely a major topic for that article, but here it seems like it’s just being shoved in the lead without regard to its weight to this topic. ''']''' - 19:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

			"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.
	:This has been exactly my position from the get-go. It's a ] issue. The war has been ongoing for months and a ton of events have transpired/are transpiring. If this claim is important to the war ''as a whole'', then those who want it included in the lead should be able to establish its importance with reference to RS (and not just RS talking about the war's outbreak). <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Yeah I agree and think it shouldn’t be repeatedly forced in either. If you support material being included and you need to resort to edit warring to include it then you don’t have consensus and need to establish that first. ''']''' - 19:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Obviously, many other users disagree. Nothing is being forced in. There's no consensus to remove it. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::If there was never consensus to include it then the onus for establishing consensus is on those seeking to include it. And I think you know that, despite your attempt to shift that onus. And it has been added/removed no less than 5 times<sup>],],],],]</sup> so I dont know how you can pretend like it is not being forced in. But, to the point, can you show that this story features prominently in coverage ''of the war'' and not just coverage of the 7 October attacks? Because we have an ] on those attacks. If it is not a prominent feature of coverage of this overall conflict then it should not be in the lead of this article. ''']''' - 20:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::It's by far, one of the most prominent aspects of the war and the attacks. There are something like 37 million results for "sexual assault hamas" ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::But which of those are not in the context of coverage of the October 7th attack? And there are news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", for "rape" "hamas", nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks. Which, again, we have an article for. ''']''' - 20:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::That's a pretty significant amount of news coverage for an event that's only a few months old. There will be even more coverage as books and journal articles and other kinds of secondary and tertiary analysis are added. And there's clearly a consensus to include this material or at best a stalemate of status quo which as you know, defaults to the status quo. I think it's a gray area in terms of ONUS, one that gets discussed there, so I may leave a comment pointing to this. "I don't like that and it never had a consensus" isn't a valid argument here. It's been sitting in the article and the status quo should remain given that there's a critical mass of users who support it. If you disagree, I suggest an RFC is the way. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::How do you know {{tq\|a critical mass of users support it}}? How are you defining status quo? The extent of edit-warring completely undermines the idea that inclusion is the status quo, the last stable version of the lead before the edit war actually ''excluded'' the claim. Respectfully, this is not a grey area; the onus to include disputed content is on advocates for inclusion. “I don’t like that” is a strawman, various editors have explained (patiently, repeatedly, at great length) the policy basis for our position. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Start an RFC to solicit opinions. I do not know why advocates on this topic don't want to abide by the same rules of engagement that everyone else must abide by on Misplaced Pages. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Yeah, part of those rules is contested edits stay out absent a consensus. But you up above, and now, act like the burden to establish that consensus is on those seeking the removal of what has not had any consensus to begin with. And what you also have restored, without that consensus. Whats that about {{tq\| don't want to abide by the same rules of engagement that everyone else must abide by on Misplaced Pages}}? ''']''' - 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::As you know, ] and ONUS must be weighed against every other policy, which should not be wikilawyered. ONUS is not a weapon to remove anything you find objectionable. In a situation like this with an active discussion, the status quo will remain. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::There was never a status quo for this, it has been edit-warred in from the start. If that continues well we can see what happens. Im removing it as lacking weight in coverage of the war and consensus for its inclusion. ''']''' - 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The decision as to what will or will not remain is not yours to make alone. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Andre, youre ignoring my point. Its a significant part of the October 7 story. I dont think it is a significant part of the coverage of the war as a whole. There are results for "ceasefire" "hamas". ''']''' - 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	* I google "hamas rape" (no quotes) and I get 45 million results. 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by ] ''While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.'' ] (]) 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:I concur. Include the sexual assault, and exclude the denial. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Yes, the Israeli military official says that. There has been some coverage of hostages being sexually abused, but I would not say that much. The coverage that does exist is about October 7, which we have a dedicated article on. There has been no indication that the coverage of the assaults in the context of the war as a whole, which is what this article is about, and not those attacks specifically, merits inclusion in the lead. Since there was never a consensus for its inclusion, Im going to remove it. And users should read ] before continuing to edit war. ''']''' - 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*@] would you consider reverting to include contested material due to ] when ] requires consensus for inclusion to be tendentious editing? I was told to engage an administrator prior to escalating things to formal reports. This material has been subject of dispute since it was first included in the lead ], been removed and restored more than a half dozen times in the 11 days since then. Does this meet any definition of consensus, either in this section or as ]? ''']''' - 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Of course it's not, as you know, during a discussion, the status quo remains. I have not violated 1RR ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::I did not say you violated 1RR, I am saying you are editing tendentiously which is prohibited independently of edit-warring. This has never been stable material, and users are edit-warring to maintain it. Hell, it's the second time today it is being pushed in to the lead, without consensus. ''']''' - 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::It's stable material in that it's been in the article for a long time and people try to remove it for reasons that lack consensus, and it is restored. That is a form of stability. Start an RFC. Bandying around empty accusations of tendentious editing is incivil. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::No part of that is true. It was added 11 days ago and has been removed repeatedly only to be restored without it having consensus. It is just not true that it has been in the article for a long time, and you are adding it without consensus, despite twisting the policy to say {{tq\|people try to remove it for reasons that lack consensus}}. Sorry, but the onus for establishing consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content, and distorting our policies to pretend like they say the opposite of what they do is likewise tendentious. ''']''' - 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::You're wikilawyering to keep out content that you don't like despite obvious lack of consensus or at best, a stalemate that defaults to the status quo. 11 days is a significant percentage of time that this article has even existed given that it's a <3 month old event. The bottom line is that while the article is under active and robust discussion you shouldn't be unilaterally making changes to the material under discussion. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::But you're not engaging with the core points:
	*::::::1) There has been repeated edit-warring for the past 11 days, reflecting a lack of consensus
	*::::::2) in these circumstances, the actual status quo is the last stable version of the article, which excluded the contested sentence
	*::::::3) if there is an "obvious lack of consensus" as you acknowledge, onus requires the inclusionist camp to establish consensus
	*::::::Moreover you reverted nableezy's edit within a minute of it being made, is that not {{tq\|unilaterally making changes to the material under discussion}}?
	*::::::I do not see these arguments as wikilawyering I see them as a mundane and obvious application of policy. The novel interpretation of ONUS and consensus that you're advancing, however... <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::Bullshit, I am providing Misplaced Pages policy-based reasons for not including material in the lead of the article. Wikilawyering is when an editor claims that the rules, like ], do not say what they clearly say, and attempt to force through material through manipulating those policies to support what they do not. 11 days would be significant if it had stayed in the article. It did not, it was challenged and edit-warred back in. So your blustering is a. completely false, and b. completely unsupported by the rules. Ill await clarification from the admin on if that merits raising a case of tendentious editing or not, but I have no interest in engaging in a discussion with such a bad faith and plainly false portrayal of our policies, especially when it comes with a claim of wikilawyering by somebody who, ironically, is wikilawyering. Somebody should revert your edit as it is plainly not acceptable under ]. ''']''' - 21:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::There is also ] and ], and I see that the inclusion of the denial was already tagged by another editor for NPOV. Without any mention of the sexual assaults in the lead, I think we have a serious NPOV issue. ] (]) 21:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::Yes, my removal is based on ], which is part of ]. Can you please address the question on if coverage of the war as a whole, and not just the 7 October attacks, features accusations of rape prominently? Because where I say the overwhelming majority of coverage of that is in coverage of those attacks. But this is not the article on the attacks. ''']''' - 21:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::I RV'd to omit the sentence; hopefully this stabilizes the lead pending some resolution but I'm not holding my breath. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:ONUS is not a blank check and no[REDACTED] policy works the way that nableezy and WillowCity seem to think. Each policy must be interpreted in light of all other policies and context. See a similar discussion here ]. This is very similar to the hypothetical scenario I proposed. Per Coretheapple, CONSENSUS, NPOV, LEAD, BALASP, all point to this content remaining. Removing it is obviously anti-consensus if it's under active discussion. Again, start an RFC or a noticeboard discussion. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::You need consensus for inclusion, and that applies to all of us. You dont get to claim a special exemption to the rules. Edit-warring in material that has been disputed from the start and then claiming consensus is needed to remove it is one of the POV-pushers main arrows. They think they can just shift the burden through slight of hand. Sorry, but I know the policies here, and your editing is in direct contravention of them. I'll see if an administrator agrees and take it from there. ''']''' - 21:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::I agree with Andre, and I also wanted to mention that I agreed to include the Hamas denial despite my feeling it was not warranted in order to get the matter resolved, as consensus, per ] "is not an all or nothing proposition." ] (]) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Except you also kept restoring it without, eg ]. Anyway, I dont think it belongs as I dont think it is a prominent feature of coverage of the war, as opposed to a prominent feature of the coverage of the 7 October attacks, but this article is not about the 7 October attacks. A point made and completely ignored for some reason. I wonder if its ]? ''']''' - 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::That's not a valid argument as the attacks were the opening salvos of the war, are very much part of the war, and as I said now and previously), it remains in the forefront of the coverage. Yes the atrocities were gruesome, but Misplaced Pages is not censored. ] (]) 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::Yes, they were the opening salvo, but if you open up the universe of sources that are related to the war as a whole, and not just the ones that are related to 7 October, then the coverage of sexual assault is not that high. It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes ( results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023" compared to the 16k on "sexual assault" and the 14k on "rape"). But you would have us cover that more prominently with more detail than we do the various UN resolution attempts? Why? ''']''' - 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::On the contrary, coverage is increasing due to evidence and testimony of the freed hostages. These is ainvestigative report by NBC News today. An RfC will resolve this.]] 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*I don't see that there is, or has ever been consensus for inclusion, but what I do see is long term edit warring from both sides of the issue.{{pb}} Yesterday I had the edit notices and AE log open, ready to apply consensus required. The only thing that stopped me was knowing that I was going to be too busy to meet admincond for the next few days. I was hoping I would come back to see an RFC or other productive discussion, and this ain't that. {{pb}} I don't think anyone really wants to deal with consensus required on an article as active as this. To avoid this, I suggest we respect ONUS, and start an RFC. {{u\|Andrevan}} your statement above {{tq\|Per Coretheapple, CONSENSUS, NPOV, LEAD, BALASP, all point to this content remaining}} is an argument for inclusion, but it doesn't make disagreement {{tq\|anti-consensus}}, and as you said {{tq\|it's under active discussion}} which demonstrates there is no consensus for inclusion. We have procedures for exactly this situation. Leave out contested content, discuss, if consensus isn't clear or is challenged open an RFC. The kicker is that even if this isn't how things proceed now it's how it will have to proceed if consensus required is applied because the content has never enjoyed consensus.{{pb}}I think an RFC with three options, include, include with Hamas denial, and don't include is probably sufficient. If the RFC starts soon we'll have an answer in a little over 30 days. There is no deadline, and a month with this one detail in limbo isn't going to make it break the article. We're all experienced editors who've worked on disputed content in contentious areas before, so let's steady on and solve this like a group that includes some of the more experienced editors involved with the project. ] (]) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Oh, and that there have been 227 comments with only 16 editors (including myself) in this section demonstrates that this should have been an RFC well before now. When discussions turn to a small group of editors going in circles it's time to take a step up the ladder of figuring shit out. ] (]) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::While you are here, the most costructive thing would be if you'd review this talk page for civility lapses.]] 02:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::I don’t think it’s fair or necessary to ask SFR to devote their time to that. If you have a particular concern I’m sure you could take it to the talk page of the relevant editor. We’ve all been duly chastened by the “adult in the room”, let’s all just take the above comments to heart and try to deal more productively moving forward. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 02:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Perhaps you would like to share some of the one and a third tomats of text you object to? I see recently in this thread there were two accusations of idealistically based arguments, one of which was retracted and the other was pointing out the accusation, which is kind of a wash. I reviewed a great deal a few days ago and issued some warnings.
	*:::There are 37,000 words on this talk page, so even a hint would help. ] (]) 02:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:I agree that the RFC is the best path forward, but per the advisory essay ] which has some community support, ''Avoid reverting during discussion''. While both sides were reverting, to be sure, the ONUS argument is a non-argument. As of 6 days ago, the compromise solution was including the statement in the lead along with the denial. I never removed the denial, I attempted to restore the status quo which had 6 days of stability, Further, continued personalization of the dispute is disruptive. So while I agree this discussion has been going nowhere fast, I don't agree that the status quo wasn't including the material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::It's never been in the article long enough where removing it isn't considered a revert, so it's not the status quo. ] (]) 03:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::How long is that? because this is not a type of Wiki rules account rule-of-thumbing that I'm familiar with, but may be a custom or practice specific to this topic area. Given that the entire event is about 3 months long, if we agreed to a compromise 6 days ago, which was abandoned today for some reason (probably for the same reason that some people unilaterally redirected a number of articles on the conflict and put them up for AFD, for the 2nd time in a month in one case?), how much longer before these types of things would be considered a status quo ante? It seems to be we said, {{tq\|'ll leave it alone for a while, as I expect over time, more information will come out. Andre🚐 12:17 am, 17 December 2023, last Sunday (6 days ago) (UTC−5}} at which time nableezy's edits stood in the article. I was reverting back to that version. The goalposts have moved, though. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Your timeline is incorrect as laid out below. ''']''' - 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::From what I've seen in numerous discussions although there's no hard cutoff I've seen anywhere between 2 weeks to a month to upwards of six months. ] (]) 03:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::Fair enough, if that is the modern consensus I will abide by that. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::It was not stable for 6 days however. You re-added it on the ], was ] on the 18th, ] (without the denial), I ] the denial and less detailed material that day, it was ] the 20th, and ], ]. ''']''' - 03:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::I don't object to the chronology, which shows that it was not entirely stable, so I will grant that, but it does show that a compromise version containing the material and the denial was readded by me as well as you. I will admit I did not notice that the denial got lost in the restoration on the 20th. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::I was focused on maintaining the neutrality in that compromise, a compromise that was repeatedly rejected I'd add (including by ]), but I still dont think that is merits weight for inclusion in the lead, because I dont think it is a prominent controversy about the war as opposed to being a prominent controversy on a sub-topic of the war, the 7 October attacks. And Im surprised that the article ] does not include rape in its lead for that matter. But as a a proportion of coverage of the war as a whole, and not just coverage limited to the initial attack, it just doesn't have the amount of coverage that other controversies do. Like al-Shifa, or other claims of human shielding, or the humanitarian crisis and the effect of the siege, or the stalemate in the UN(SC), or any number of other topics that have coverage 10x+ than this does. ''']''' - 03:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::Indeed, Nableezy, I oppose including the denial as my position, but I did not reject the compromise. I stated my opinion. I did not make any edit. It was under discussion. As far as why it's not on that other article, I can rectify that right now. In general, going forward, I thought we had had a compromise and that we were waiting for more info to come since it's still recent. Obviously we don't agree on the weight question, but that's a question we can put to an RFC soon. Maybe we could wait a couple weeks and draft some more proposals or evidence. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::I agree with your edit there. And yes, an RFC should settle all parts of this. ''']''' - 04:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::But also, if that compromise did not keep getting rejected, both here and in the editing, I dont think we would be here. If it would actually end things Id support that compromise, but it doesnt seem like that it is what is happening. Agree to include the denial, then edit not to does not a compromise make. ''']''' - 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			To
	*I've started an RfC as suggested. See bottom of page. ] (]) 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			"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." ] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Reconsideration to include the US on Israel's side ==

			:I'm looking at it and thinking. One point, though, do we need to include the fall of Assad and the invasion of Syria? ] (]) 10:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	As the war progressed, the United States' involvement in the war on Israel' side against Hamas has become more and more glaring. The US just recently skipped congressional review to approve emergency supply of tank shells to Israel, while simultaneously threatening Iran and others not to arm or replenish Hamas. The US has been shooting down Yemen's missiles and drones that were fired toward Israel.. ] and ] are already included on Hamas's side in the infobox. I believe it's about time we included the US on Israel's side for the sake of keeping Misplaced Pages' neutrality. ] (]) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
			::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. ] (]) 10:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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." ] (]) 18:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::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. ] (]) 08:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, it's quite modular, in that we can cut out certain parts, if necessary in the future, without affecting the rest. ] (]) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Implemented accordingly. ] (]) 10:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Much improved. Tackle paragraph three next? (Which I think will be a nightmare.) ] (]) 11:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::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. ] (]) 12:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Trimming the October 7 section ==
	:That's money and material. Not boots on the ground. ] (]) 04:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Shooting down drones and missiles are not just money and materials, and by your logic Israel's aerial bombardment of Gaza wouldn't count as part of this war because that's not boots on the ground. Also, Hezbollah and Houthis don't have boots on the ground either yet they are included on Hamas's side in the infobox ] (]) 04:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::We need RS that say the US is part of the combat ] ] 05:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::The US is not only shooting down Houthis' missiles and drones fired toward Israel, but now also battling the Houthis at sea on behalf of Israel </nowiki> ] (]) 05:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::That's all well and good, but ]. ] must make it for us. ] ] 05:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::The US Navy has battled pirates since (nearly) ]; this isn't remarkable. - ] (] \| ]) 21:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	:See RfC above ] (]) 08:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
	:The US is not described as a belligerent in reliable sources. ] (]) 16:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

			{{ping\|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, ] (]) 22:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	== "Hamas-controlled" attribution ==

			:Especially since this article is not the ]. ] (]) 22:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am okay if the ministry of health being controlled by Hamas is mentioned sparsely, but this attribution being abused by certain bad-faith editor who wants to imply unreliability of the ministry of health is simply unacceptable. -- ] (] · ]) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
			:] was Oct 7 and the hostages and the various operations that day, so I think it's not undue weight. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Agreed, and even Western sources are dropping the meme of Hamas controlled. : {{tq\|While the collapse of Gaza’s health system has made it challenging to track exact numbers, the World Health Organization has reported at least 369,000 cases of infectious diseases since the war began, using data collected from the Gaza Health Ministry and UNRWA, the U.N. agency that cares for Palestinians — a staggering increase from before the war.}}, : {{tq\|The Gaza Health Ministry said that 73 bodies and 123 injured people had been brought to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, in the city of Deir al Balah, in the past 24 hours. The circumstances of the deaths and injuries were not immediately known, and the health ministry did not elaborate. But aid workers have described intense bombardment by Israeli forces, which say they are advancing on the major southern city of Khan Younis to root out Hamas militants there.}} ''']''' - 16:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
			::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? ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:It's easy to find recent articles which do append "Hamas-controlled." . ]<sub>]</sub> 20:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::~~There~~'s ~~nothing~~ ~~bad~~ ~~faith~~ ~~about~~ ~~attributing if~~ the ~~reliable~~ ~~sources~~ do as ~~well, and~~ I ~~think~~ we should, ~~because~~ it's ~~relevant.~~ ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:27, 16 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		:::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? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::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. ] (]) 01:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::"Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" has become a trope at this point, and the clear import of this phrase is to call into question the astronomical casualty rate. You may think it's relevant, but clearly lots of RS don't: e.g., NYT (see above), , , and the (the linked article actually discusses the appropriateness of the "Hamas-run" comment, but at the bottom of the article, not in the lede). Another editor has used the phrase "]" to describe this turn of phrase and I really think that's apt. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping\|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? ] (]) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Didn't we have an RFC on this that determined it should be attributed? Or, charitably, why don't you tell me what your interpretation of the last RFC outcome pertaining to the consensus on this article was. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::::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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::No, we had an RFC on how to attribute in the infobox, and that result was with an inline citation and not just saying "Hamas controlled MOH" as had been pushed in. ''']''' - 22:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::{{ping\|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, ] (]) 21:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::And it is easy to find ones that do not. That fact means that prepending Hamas-run to every instance is uncalled for. ''']''' - 22:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Selecting just the pro-Israeli sources that cast doubt on casualities in Gaza is biaised editing. It is time to select sources like those users who edit this page with a pro-Israeli angle do. Cleaning their stuff, or adding sentences with other sources that don't doubt the UN reports on casualities and don't let them add appendix at the end of your sentence, like some users do out of the blue a few days later (a similar case RE section Neutrality Lead just above this one) ] (]) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::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, ] (]) 22:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{ping\|AndreJustAndre}} Forgot to ping. ] (]) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::OK on the hostage edit, but regarding this revert , 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::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, ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Yes, that would suffice, thank you. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::{{done}} ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I think mentioning ] might be worthwhile ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::{{ping\|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 ] should be mentioned. ] (]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Lede bit ==
	::::I've never heard AFP referred to as a "pro-Israel source" https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231213-gaza-health-ministry-says-out-of-children-s-vaccines "Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry said Wednesday it had exhausted its supply of children's vaccines and warned of "catastrophic health repercussions" That's Dec. 13. ] (]) 23:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::I was talking about the casualities and this way of providing the number of killed Gaza people, with the mention 'according to Hamas". Not using the present tense but Would + verb in the lead, rises questions...France24 journalists are pro Macron, pro liberalism, and so they defend colonialism. I am saying that many English well known media update on the number of dead Palestinians without writing according to Hamas, because they base their research work on what Human Watch, Greenpeace, Red Cross, etc... are saying which is a similar number of human losses. Where is the updated percentage of squashed/lost buildings in Gaza ? It reaches 70%, and it appears nowhere on this article ] (]) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::France24 AFAIK is reliable, and this narrative that Western sources are pro-colonial or pro-liberal is problematic for me. We don't exclude sources for being mainstream. Quite the opposite, we should exclude ] sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weight. This isn't Misplaced Pages the free anti-war anti-colonial encyclopedia. We have to attribute groups with a strong declared POV that are advocacy groups like ] or ], and attribute their statements if they need to be attributed. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Uh, I must have missed the memo where we have to attribute HRW, or the one that says they have a {{tq\|strong declared POV}}. Didn't see that on RSPSS.
	:::::::I understand the thrust of what you're saying, which is generally consistent with policy, but comments like {{tq\|we should exclude WP:FRINGE sources that are outside of the mainstream of Western English sources, or attribute them and give them less weight}} are the reason we have a ]. "Non-English" or "Non-Western" is ''not'' synonymous with "unreliable".
	:::::::But we're getting off-track, because plenty of nice, reliable, Western, English-speaking corporate media refers to Health Ministry figures without the sort of caveat that's being pushed here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Perhaps you missed ], and yes they're reliable enough for simple facts and I didn't say they were unreliable, I said they should be attributed for statements that might be perceived to have a bias. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::That is a WP ''article'', not a WP policy or guideline. Lots of sources have that type of article: ], ], ]. Anyway, I usually don't oppose attribution, unless it's phrased in a needlessly prejudicial manner ("Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry" when just "Gaza Health Ministry" with a WL would suffice). <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 00:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Yes I know, and it's all hypothetical since I haven't made this edit, but more generally, when things like the ] or ] are discussed at ], they can be used but should be attributed when they have a "side." HRW is unabashedly antiwar and clearly has a side on some of these questions. That's all. It's also an org I've given money to for years, FWIW. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Exactly, CBS just last week, wrote in present tense ''"They are among the more than 18,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza"'', they did not cast doubt on the number. France24 is reliable, but neutrality is not only used with pro neo liberalism / pro israeli sources; This isn't Misplaced Pages the pro israeli pro-colonial encyclopedia either. The bad music that UN/ Greenpeace/ Red Cross... is antisemitic, has been going on and unsurprisingly, innuendos can pop up. ] (]) 00:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Who said antisemitic? You're bringing up antisemitism. Honestly, Iennes, I've never seen you before today and all of your comments are all over the place, no offense. We're talking about the type of attribution necessary. France24 requires no attribution. However if they attribute it, or if other sources that are "Western Mainstream" attribute the figures, we should as well. As I mentioned earlier, there was an RFC on the infobox. Maybe we should have one about more generally whether the Hamas Health Ministry figures that come from the Palestinian Information Center need to be attributed. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::I am like WillowCity on this, <<"Gaza Health Ministry" with a WL would suffice>> because casting an exaggerated doubt over the number of Gaza victims goes against neutrality. ] (]) 01:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::This is an RFC I'm interested in having. In my view there is a meaningful question of style and also whether this situation is exceptional. It's exceptional for many reasons, not the least is that Hamas is not a state, it is a quasi-state with territory. So the RFC I'm interested in drafting is something like. "Should the reported figures for the totals from Gaza health ministr(ies), given that they are in a gray area as far as officialness compared to say the NIH, CDC, NHS etc, be attributed to them inline in text with a written label?" ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::That isn’t the question you’re asking though. We do attribute in line to the Gaza Health Ministry, what is being pushed in the edits objected to here is prepending the poisoning the well of Hamas controlled ''every time'' the MOH is mentioned. That is not in keeping with the treatment by reliable sources, and that is what is being objected to. But the material is already attributed in line, and we have wikilinks for a reason. We don’t include that the Israeli border police is run by a convicted terrorist supporter whenever we mention them either, much less every time they are mentioned. ''']''' - 05:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::I agree with what Nableezy summarized in the above reply. This represents my stance on the matter. The Gazan Ministry of Health, whether under Hamas' control or not, is considered a reliable source by other verifiable secondary sources, most notably the UN. While Israeli (and to some extent, US) officials may question its reliability, their opinions are not deemed neutral due to their direct conflict of interest on this subject. In contrast, a third party like the UN is regarded as more impartial. -- ] (] · ]) 10:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::They have all said that the numbers by the MOH are accurate or even an undercount. It isn’t even in dispute. ''']''' - 11:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It's actually now considered reliable most notably by , a medical journal that supersedes the news source commentary on the matter. ] (]) 12:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I agree, the Lancet is a lot more significant. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Thank you for introducing this source, it's definitely valuable. Please note that they write that {{tquote\| MoH communications and mortality reporting collapsed on Nov 10, 2023}}. The latest data the PA ministry of health in Ramalla. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The MOH stoppped providing daily updates, but are still providing semi-regular numbers. ''']''' - 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

			Personally I think this should be removed from the lede: "Torture and sexual violence were committed by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli forces". ] (]) 12:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Mention of apartheid RfC==
	<!-- ] 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1705838482}}
	{{rfc\|soc\|rfcid=015ACA8}}
	In the historical background of the war, is it necessary to include references to apartheid claims? ] (]) 11:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

			:@] why? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@] Yes it is ''']]''' 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			::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. ] (]) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 12:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::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. ] (]) 19:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] so it seems that information should remain, but it can be rephrased with the other things you mentioned. "{{tq\|Torture and sexual violence against the opposing side was committed ] and ]; Palestinian civilians have been used as human shields ] and ].}}" ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::My point was in arguing for less of this kind of information in the lede rather than more. ] (]) 11:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Casualty figures ==
	===Survey===
	{{notavote}}
	* '''No'''. Most mainstream sources do not mention apartheid in the context of the war or as its background. ] (]) 11:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*]???? ''']''' - 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:]??? I know the discussion was 2 weeks ago, but I simply didn't have time to sit on formulating the question. ] (]) 12:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Where is the discussion that showed a lack of consensus on this topic? Not having time isn’t a reason to make everybody else waste theirs. ''']''' - 12:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::I just sent you the link. ] (]) 12:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per Davidroth, and I note that the references to apartheid in the article (such as the one with footnotes 181 and 182) fail to reflect that the sources concern ''denial'' of the apartheid claim. ] (]) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per Dovidorth, I think it was rather unfitting and rather disconnected per the time. Furthermore, there is a truth to Dovidorth's statement that most mainstream sources do not mention Apartheid in the context of the war.] (]) 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Reliable sources ''do'' mention the apartheid in the context of reporting on the war(], ], ], , Professor ], ], ], ], ] etc). Even pro-Israeli news reporting mentioned (and argued against) the apartheid analogy().The question is not whether it should be mentioned, but how we can mention it in a neutral way, giving ] weight to all opinions. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:: If you search for that term in your query, you can find articles that mention it, but that is ], and invalidates your conclusion. Because there is now such a vast number of articles about this war, you can find a lot of terms if you search for them, but that is a biased search and doesn't prove anything. Here are a dozen articles that mention "New Jersey" somewhere in the article: (<span class="plainlinks"> ).</span> This list of articles doesn't prove anything, except that there are now lots and lots of articles about the war. ] (]) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Did you read the articles I mentioned? They mention apartheid in some meaningful and relevant way. The stuff about New Jersey could very well be relevant - one of your articles says one of the victims of the Hamas attack was from New Jersey, and that is covered in the part on foreign casualties (whether in this article or the subarticle on casualties). ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. The majority of sources on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war do not mention ''apartheid'', therefore per ] neither should we. I did an unbiased news search for <code></code>. Looking at the titles of the first 100 results, the number of articles with ''apartheid'' in the title was zero; the number with ''apartheid'' in the search result abstract was zero. I opened the top ten and checked the entire article with search-in-page, and the number of articles with ''apartheid'' in the body of the article was zero. My conclusion is that ''apartheid'' is hardly ever mentioned in current news articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. ] (]) 17:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:News sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events. ] (]) 17:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:: You may well be right about that. This article documents a current news event; some day, there will be books written about it, and I can well imagine that they might discuss the background going back to British Mandatory Palestine and possibly use the term ''apartheid'', and if and when they do, those would be great ] sources to use to include the background information you wish to include. But lacking that information now, under what ] do you propose that we should mention it at this point, if the sources do not? Misplaced Pages ]. ] (]) 18:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:{{re\|Mathglot}} if being mentioned in the first 100 articles in an unbiased news search was the threshold for inclusion, there's a LOT that can be removed from this article! Also, kinda curious how you determined that ''none'' of the articles mentioned apartheid. Did you read through every single one of them or use some tool? ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:: Reread my comment; I was completely transparent about my methodology. It's possible that another search method will demonstrate that ''apartheid'' does belong in the article, and if someone does that, I will change my vote. I'm just saying no one has done that so far. Misplaced Pages needs to follow the sources, not start with what we want to include, and then search for sources that validate it; that's backwards; we need to start from the best sources available, and summarize the majority opinion we find there, wherever that takes us. ] (]) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::The "first 100 results" is not a methodology specified in our editorial policies. Please cite at least one paragraph from our policy which could back you up. First of all, as IOHANNVSVERVS have already said "news sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events". This is even more relevant for an ongoing military conflict started few months ago. -- ] (] · ]) 04:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::: Sure, I can do that. But it's too long for the Survey section, so I'll add it to the ] below. Thanks for asking. ] (]) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Comment:''' This RfC is similar to a previous discussion on this talk page here . ] (]) 17:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''', ] provided many sources referencing apartheid as relevant to the background of the current war in Gaza. ] (]) 18:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Yes'''I seems perfectly valid to include at least a reference to this. In my brief search I have turned up several RS that support this. ] (]) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''unrelevant RFC'''. What matters is what the sources say. The criterias for naming apartheid rely on several strict points established by International Court of Justice; Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be ]. Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk ], rightfully raises questions. ] (]) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:@]Please strike your comment falsely accusing people with a different opinion of lobbying. If I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, please correct me. ] (]) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:@] - You are entitled to disagree with me and many others here, but you are not entitled to cast personal attacks and accusations without evidence. If you do not strike this, I will consider reporting you. ] (]) 06:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::What exactly would you like ] to strike from their comments?
	*::''"Denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be ]"'' and ''"Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk ], rightfully raises questions"'' are both reasonable statements which do not include personal attacks. ] (]) 07:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::“Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions.” I see this as a personal attack against pro-Israel editors. If it is not, please clarify. ] (]) 07:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::] — "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible ] on a specific article or topic"
	*::::] — "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view(NPOV) without editorial bias."
	*::::] (]) 07:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Malformed RfC''', but '''yes'''. In addition to the sources raised by VR, two more from Vox discussing apartheid in the context of the war: ; from Reuters: ; another from Amnesty (UK) discussing apartheid at some length: ; from Jacobin (possibly an opinion piece but not labelled as such): ; from Newsweek: ; from HuffPo: . Not only is it relevant background to the war as a whole, it also contextualizes other details such as South Africa suspending relations with Israel and the rhetoric used in ongoing ceasefire protests. Outright exclusion is not justifiable, the issue is NPOV and ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

			Note that a peer-reviewed Lancet scientific paper has that Palestinian causality figures are most likely an undercount by at least 41%, which has received extensive reporting by RS. ] (]) 12:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Yes, Absolutely'''. Just because the Israeli government denies it doesn't make the mountain of academia on Israeli apartheid any less valid. To not mention it would be purposefully ignoring the context and causes of the war. You might as well try to rewrite ] without mentioning apartheid. ] (]) 01:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No, Absolutely''' per ]. With regards, ] (]) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per Dovidroth and Mathglot. ] (]) 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

			:Not to be pedantic, but the Reuters headline here ]: "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%.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 20:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Yes'''. OP (Dovidroth)'s claim that apartheid isn't mentioned in mainstream media is false, as the apartheid issue of Israel against Palestinians has been being consistently mentioned in reliable sources since the Oct 7 terror attack. Presenting apartheid as a background of this conflict is in line with our ] weight policy. -- ] (] · ]) 04:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Iskandar323}} How about summarizing it this way?
	* '''Yes'''. ]. ] (]) 05:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
			::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." ] (]) 10:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping\|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. ] (]) 09:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::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. ] (]) 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::How about: "{{tq\|"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.}}" ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That sort of works, but it should probably be {{tq\|"... 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. ] (]) 13:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::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 times higher." ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, I can definitely get on board with that. ] (]) 14:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::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. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{groupping\|Per above\|Iskandar323\|Makeandtoss}}, also please consider adding "mostly civilians", as there does appear to be a consensus of sources at ] that 75%+ are civilians.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Casualties in infobox ==
	* '''No'''. while it is very relevant to mention that "Palestinians are in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza" as a part of the context (and it is indeed mentioned), the use of the term "apartheid" is inconsistent with the low-key spirit of Misplaced Pages , being factual and non-judgmental. Mentioning that some non-profits "have likened the Israeli occupation to apartheid, although this characterization is disputed" just emphasizes the fact that the point about the despair is factual and sufficient in the background. By the way, similarly, the phrase "viewed from Gaza, things were only going to get worse, considering that Netanyahu's coalition partners opposed a two-state solution for the conflict. He suggested they would prefer to annex the entirety of the West Bank" is relevant, while the speculative non-factual addition "even at the expense of turning Israel into an apartheid state" is biased, judgmental and not with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Please quote our policy or guideline which specifically requires Misplaced Pages to be "low-key spirit". If anything, Misplaced Pages actually encourages editor to ], as long as the edit is consistent with our editorial policies. If multiple reliable sources agree on a point of view, whether it is disagreed by other entity, we present that POV in our articles without unnecessary compromise. -- ] (] · ]) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

			The casualties section of the infobox is presently being used to give a detailed breakdown of casualties in the war. This is contrary to ] 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 ]. There is a casualties section in the body of the article and the TOC directs the reader to that section. ] (]) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Yes:''' per the sources provided by VR. If the sources say it, we can say it, duh. Doesn't need an RFC to state what is obvious from basic policy. If RS mention it, it is relevant for inclusion. If they say it is related, we sat it is related. If they say it is unrelated, we say it is unrelated. Etc. Also ] the filer for inadequate ] and source hunting, i.e. simply not looking hard enough for the relevant sources that were so readily discovered. ] (]) 22:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:There was a large discussion ]. How do you think that this is lacking ]? ] (]) 10:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

			:@] 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.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''? Even if the apartheid is debatable, adding information on it to help people come to their own conclusions is better than obscuring history. ] (]) 09:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', it should have a brief, carefully-worded and attributed mention in the article body (likely just a single sentence, part of a sentence, or even as little as just one word in a prose list of some sort, such as the list motivations claimed by Hamas.) There's sufficient coverage to support the idea that it is something enough sources consider relevant that it ought to be briefly mentioned; the sources that do exist support the idea that it's a small but significant flashpoint in the underlying background. I don't think the arguments against it above are sufficient to exclude a mere single-sentence mention in the body - they would make perfect sense if we were discussing adding it to the ''lead'' or creating an entire section or paragraph for it or somesuch; but we're discussing a bare mention, which has a much lower standard. We don't need to have the majority of sources mentioning something just to include a single sentence noting somewhere in the body; we just need enough sources to demonstrate that significant mainstream / non-fringe discussion exists, which it certainly does. --] (]) 08:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

			::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? ] (]) 21:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per Dovidroth and Mathglot. ] (]) 14:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::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. ] (]) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::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. ] (]) 05:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ]'s death ==
	*'''No''' per Dovidroth and Mathglot. ] (]) 16:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

	*'''Yes''' ~~This~~ is ~~extremely~~ ~~important~~ ~~context~~, ~~and~~ is ~~well-sourced~~ ~~from~~ ~~many~~ ~~reliable~~ ~~sources~~. ~~The~~ ~~idea~~ ~~that~~ it is ~~irrelevant~~ ~~because~~ ~~breaking~~ ~~news~~ ~~stories~~ ~~don't~~ ~~always~~ ~~include~~ it is ~~absurd~~ on ~~its~~ ~~face-~~ ~~news~~ articles ~~updating~~ on a ~~war~~ do ~~not~~ ~~need~~ to ~~include~~ a ~~history~~ of ~~the~~ ~~conflict.~~ An ~~encyclopedia~~ ~~entry,~~ ~~however,~~ ~~should.~~ ] (]) 17:13, 20 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		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. {{ping\|Monk of Monk Hall}} Why do you believe that this individual poet's death should be given a paragraph in this article? ] (]) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			: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 ] 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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''No''' This is undue in an article about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. The vast majority of reliable sources do not mention this concept in the context of the war. Even most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip, where there are no Israeli settlements. ] (]) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			::@], I hope we can come with a more or less objective criterion. I don't know why, for instance, Ehsan Daxa is mentioned and ] is not. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:Categorically untrue that {{tq\| most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip}}. The very first sentence of : "The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it controls (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, ''and the Gaza Strip'') an apartheid regime." In the report on Israeli apartheid, "Gaza" is mentioned over 250 times; HRW has , in the context of the war, discussed Israeli apartheid in relation to Gaza. And from Amnesty International, just this June: "; and in : " is vital as ending the longstanding impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity and securing justice and reparation for victims are essential to prevent recurrence of these atrocities ''and to address the root causes of the conflict, such as Israel’s system of apartheid imposed on all Palestinians.''" These are three of the most prominent sources alleging apartheid, and all of them refer to Gaza; HRW and Amnesty refer to it in the context of the war. So should we, with adequate attribution. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			: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, and the killing of artists as a category has been subject to RS coverage.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''No''', per Agmonsnir. ] (]) 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			::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. ] (]) 17:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Date variety? ==
	* '''No'''. The notion of apartheid is totally irrelevant here - per Dovidroth, Agmonsnir and Marokwitz. ] (]) 08:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

			Over at ], there was ] that changed "7 October" to "October 7," ''de facto'' ending in consensus that the entire article's ] 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. ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''', per VR and others. —<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> <small>] \| ] ]</small> 10:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
			: Both Palestine and Israel use DMY format according to our ] so we should retain that format. ] says to "should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country". Maintaining date format consistency across articles is not important. ] (]) 05:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' per VR and WillowCity ] (]) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' - discussing Palestine, in an article this long, without mentioning apartheid in the background information is nonsense. The amount of source material available that discusses apartheid in this context is humongous. If you just Google the word "apartheid", you don't have to scroll for long before encountering mentions of the Zionist entity. --- ]&]]) 06:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. It's not relevant to this article. Apartheid has to do with the West Bank Palestinians first and foremost, since they are the ones who generally commute to and from Jerusalem to work and stuff like that. Gaza was actually given back to Hamas for complete self-determination. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:So it's like a Bantustan then. —<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> <small>] \| ] ]</small> 20:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:No part of that last sentence is true. ''']''' - 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::See ] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::"Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel" - ]. ] (]) 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Due to the blockade yes, but there's no apartheid in Gaza was my point. It's a separate walled off place where Hamas is in charge. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::So say you. Plenty of RS disagree. And as for "walled off", well... that says it all, doesn't it? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 21:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::Yes, apartheid refers to a working underclass, and I'd accept it may apply to the West Bank, but Gaza is walled off, the settlements there were dismantled, and it's administered by Hamas who haven't held an election since 2006. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::I have never seen this definition of apartheid before, including under the Rome Statute and the ICSPCA, but even if such a definition existed, would it include ] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::“Occupied by Israel” does not mean “apartheid”. The accusation is a fringe view to begin with and is undue in this context. ] (]) 17:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Im well aware. Your statement is entirely false on all angles. Not Hamas, not self-determination, not complete. ''']''' - 21:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Requested move 17 January 2025 ==
	=== Discussion (apartheid) ===

			{{requested move/dated\|multiple=yes\|current1=Israel–Hamas war\|new1=Gaza War\|current2=Gaza War\|new2=Gaza War (disambiguation)\|protected=Israel–Hamas war}}
	In response to {{u\|Sameboat}}'s question <span class=plainlinks></span> about providing a policy basis for using top Google results as methodology: Policy generally does not specify methodology, it specifies goals, such as mentioned by ] (part of our ] policy, which is one of the ] of Misplaced Pages, and '''cannot be overridden by consensus''', such as by the result of an Rfc). NPOV says this:
	: {{talk quote\|Neutrality requires that ] articles and pages fairly represent ''all'' significant viewpoints that have been published by ], '''in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources'''. <small>(''emphasis added'')</small>}}
	When a niche topic has only twenty-seven sources in total, you can go visit all of them, count them up, and figure out which ones are majority and minority views, and write your article content accordingly. When there are thousands of sources, you cannot do that, and you need some kind of proxy or methodology, that lets you figure out what the majority and minority views are. One such proxy is the results of the ranked search results of an unbiased query to a trusted search engine. If you believe my query was biased, or if you believe that Google is rigging the game and failing to fairly surface results about ''apartheid'' for that query for some reason, that would be a valid way to attack my argument. But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Misplaced Pages editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive. Note that the very next line at ] is this explanatory note:
	: {{talk quote\|The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.}}
	So, you could start by attacking my query, my methodology, or Google search results if you wish to claim that a 100-result survey is not a valid indicator. Even better, would be to come up with a superior methodology yourself, showing that my method was inaccurate, and that your method demonstrates that ''apartheid'' is, in fact, part of the majority (or significant minority) content in articles about the topic. But merely claiming this or that without evidence will not affect the result of this Rfc. ] (]) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

			*] → {{no redirect\|Gaza War}}
	:An obvious methodological issue with this is the risk of ] (see also: ]). The current war has been ongoing for two months, so news outlets aren't necessarily going to be rehashing every relevant detail, they'll likely assume a level of baseline awareness on the part of readers. Whether you "sort by relevance" or "sort by date", the first 100 results are overwhelmingly, almost entirely from the last week (at least, they were for me when I followed the link); if that was our metric, the article would be dominated by the IDF's execution of three hostages, Lloyd Austin's visit to Israel, the upcoming UNSC vote, etc. Our content is qualitatively different than a news article; it has to be ] in a way that news stories don't, necessarily.
			*] → {{no redirect\|Gaza War (disambiguation)}}
	:Another methodological issue is the phrasing of your search. For example, by searching for the "2023 Israel-Hamas war" you may be excluding or lowering the ranking of news outlets that use other names, such as .
			If supporting, please indicate whether you prefer "'''Gaza War'''" or "'''Gaza War (2023–present)'''".
	:A third question is geographic situation. Depending on your Google preferences, the result may be skewed toward outlets from a certain region (e.g. a noticeable proportion of my results were from Canadian outlets, even though I followed the link you posted). I also got a large amount of coverage from Israeli sources (particularly JPost and ToI), which raises its own issues.
			*]: 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, ] requires us to consider names "close enough to be considered variations of the same common name")
	:A fourth issue is the fact that aggregated Google News results don't filter for reliability, which is a core policy. So I'm getting Fox News stories, blogs and opinion pieces, etc., which are irrelevant to this discussion.
			*]: most major modern wars are simply named after the main location: ], ], ], ] etc. Where we have two names, they are both countries: ], ] etc. "Gaza War" is consistent with these, but "Israel-Hamas war" is not as Hamas has never been a country.
	:A fifth issue is depth of review. You say that you reviewed the search abstract, which is (somewhat, but not really) equivalent to the lead of a wiki article; but we're not talking about putting apartheid in the lead of this article, we're talking about including it further down.
			*], both "Gaza war" and "Israel-Hamas war" have previously been used to refer to other conflicts (eg, for "2014 Israel-Hamas war"). Previously there has been consensus that this current war overshadows all previous wars to be the ] (see ] and ]). "Gaza War (2023-present)" is more ], but "Gaza War" is slightly more concise.
	:So there are a lot of methodological issues arising from this approach; I've never seen this method used to determine notability or due weight. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
			*]. Significant POV issues were identified with "Israel-Hamas war" ], and "Gaza War" solves that. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)<small>The move request was modified to indicate the fate of the existing ] page as per .''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	:In essence, the approach of relying on the "top Google search result" lacks credibility in determining due weight. This is due to the inherent bias in Google's algorithm, influenced significantly by the user's IP or search history. It's regrettable that seeking clarity on your methodology is interpreted as an "attack." (''But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Misplaced Pages editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive''.) If you believe your methodology deserves recognition on Misplaced Pages, consider gaining consensus from the community, perhaps through avenues like ]. Currently, your approach seems to conflict with information from reliable sources, as highlighted by ]. We shouldn't compromise our content based on Google's search results, but we can still use Google when specifically seeking information from reliable sources. -- ] (] · ]) 00:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
			{{User:Vice regent/gaza war usage}}
	:As additional reading, please take a look at ]. While not a formal policy or guideline, it provides an in-depth guidance of the appropriate way to use search engines while maintaining neutrality when editing Misplaced Pages. -- ] (] · ]) 03:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: Show me the data that supports your view. I see a lot of pointing out possible issues (which I respond to individually below) but nothing concrete to really respond to. Regarding recency, ] is an essay, but I'll respond anyway. There are issues with recency to be aware of, and ] (guideline) does warn about the dangers of breaking news:
			*'''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. ] (]) 10:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: {{talk quote\|] and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia}}
			*'''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? ''']]''' 10:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: One way to deal with that is to use a custom time search to build in specific dates and avoid the "breaking" syndrome, so I redid the query restricting results to articles from 14 December or earlier; you can find the results of that search . (These results shouldn't change too much, even if you click again a few days or a week or two later.) I didn't see a single reference to ''apartheid'' in the titles or abstracts of the first 100 web results (not just news results) prior to 14 December. The guideline section ] says:
			* '''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. ] (]) 12:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: {{talk quote\|Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.}}
			* '''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. ] (]) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: so that needs to be kept in mind, as well. There may be a recentism issue, but if there is, it hasn't been demonstrated.
			* '''Strong support''' – thanks so much for this VR, as your data demonstrates Gaza War as common name and primary topic. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 13:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: The point about other wording such as ''Israel-Gaza War'' is a valid one, and that (and other phrasing) should definitely be looked at, to try to get a fuller picture of what the ] are. The pre-14 December web search results for ''Israel-Gaza War'' are <span class=plainlinks>, and there are no occurrences of ''apartheid'' in the top 100 results. The top ten are: , , , , , , , , , </span>, and checking the full text of those ten, ''apartheid'' is found in The Nation, and the BBC article. I looked at #11-20 (Brookings–CPJ) and it didn't occur in any of those. (#18 was a video, I only checked the text and did not listen to the audio.) I did not check the full text of the remaining 80 results, only the title/abstract, where it did not appear.
			* '''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''', as I'd like to see how it is referred to if or '''<u>after</u>''' the ceasefire takes effect. {{teal\|edit: also, y'know, the RM two weeks prior}}''']]''' 13:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: As far as geographic influence on results, you can mitigate that somewhat by stripping query params "search location" (<code>&gl=</code>) or the "search region" (<code>&uule=</code>) if it appears in the url in your address bar and my query urls are stripped to the bone. (] is okay as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far; in particular, it fails to mention any of Google's proprietary ], including either the search location or the search region; that's a pretty big gap for an article supposedly about searching Google.) Avoiding those params doesn't stop Google from using your IP to surmise your location, but there are web sites or browser extensions you can use that that alter your apparent location. I tried the same query from Doha, Qatar and just eyeballing the results, I didn't notice any major difference; I got the same mix of websites as I did without specifying a location, although I did not try to match them up one-to-one down the whole list of results, and if you felt like trying that to see if there are some subtle differences I didn't notice, I'd be interested to hear what you find out.
	:: It's fine to challenge results and I appreciate your comments which inspired a new set of refined queries that appear to reinforce the same result as the earlier query, but if you merely criticize without offering your own data that support your vote, it all just seems very theoretical. ] (]) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::I believe the crux of the matter is not the adjustment of search parameters to refine Google search results but the use of the "top 100 results" as a justification to exclude a point of view readily found in reliable sources within the subject's time frame. With all due respect, it appears you are introducing a new rule. The burden of proof lies on your side to persuade the greater community (beyond participants of this article) to accept such an evidently flawed method for determining what is due and what is not. -- ] (] · ]) 06:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::: I have no wish to exclude anything, and I am perfectly indifferent to how this Rfc turns out, either with, or without ''apartheid'' in it, as long as whichever way it goes follows Misplaced Pages ]. I've presented evidence that the term appears to be sufficiently rare to meet the use of the phrase "tiny minority" at ] (policy), which says that
	::::: {{talk quote\|Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,}}
	:::: and your conception of who has the onus of providing evidence is backwards: in fact, the ] (policy) is on the person who wishes to include information, not the reverse. Nobody cares what you or I believe, our opinions are unimportant; it's about Misplaced Pages policy, and supporting evidence. I've presented the governing policy links and quotes, and shown to the best of my ability how the unbiased results of several queries pertain to them, especially ]. I have no wish to recycle previous comments or to comment further unless some actual evidence is brought to bear. Thanks, ] (]) 08:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::To begin with, calling the apartheid argument as "undue" (or "minorities view") seems to be more of a personal opinion, supported only by a poorly formulated method. If you maintain that the sources presented by Vice Regent are inadequate, it's fine, and you're entitled to your own perspective. However, relying on search engine results is not a suitable method for determining due weight. If you find it repetitive, we can pause and await the judgment of a reputable, uninvolved editor to conclude this RFC. -- ] (] · ]) 10:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

			* '''Support''', I always thought it would the title "Gaza War" was better, or maybe "2024 Gaza War" to distinguish from the 2014 Gaza War. ] (]) 16:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== In lead, Middle East Eye citation (59) appears unreliable ==
			*'''Strong Oppose''' – This is not a war against Gaza, but rather Israel fighting Hamas. Too many RS specifically say this is "Hamas" and not Gaza, such as , and , a very pro-Hamas source, with "{{tq\|Israel-Hamas war: Hospitals facing ‘totally catastrophic’ situation}}. , a very pro-Israel source, legit has a category for the "{{tq\|2023-2025 Israel-Hamas war}}" news articles. No, this is not the "Gaza War", this is the Israel and Hamas war. Not enough RS for "Gaza war" over "Israel-Hamas war". '''The ]''' (] 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' Gaza War is now the common name of this war. ] (]) 18:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Same reasoning as my !vote at the ], that, as the current lead sentence states, it's {{blue\|An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups}}. "Gaza War" is too generic IMO, considering we have a ] disambiguation page. There are also ] issues with making this war the primary topic. ] (]) 19:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC) {{small\|added, ] (]) 14:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*<s>'''Procedural oppose''': Didn't we just go through this discussion two weeks ago (in the ])? —⁠ ⁠] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
			*:It was closed within 3 days due to lack of prior discussion and resulted in consensus to ] to start this RM. ] (]) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::OK. I withdraw my remark. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 05:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nomination. ] (]) 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per nomination, especially consistency with previous wars. but I think the years should be included in the title to distinguish from the other Gaza Wars ] (]) 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support Gaza War (2023-present)''' This is the fifth war fought between the people of Gaza and Israel, it's not a good idea to have a non-disambiguated name. But yes, any change is better than the name that implies Israel is fighting solely against Hamas (despite the overwhelming majority of the dead being civilians, which has been true for over an year now) and the great majority of sources do not use. ] (he/him • ]) 01:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per nomination because the reasons given by {{reply to\|Vice regent\|label=VR}} are pretty strong and I have yet to see any rebuttals to them that are half as convincing. I would have preferred ] for the sake of ] but I'll settle for ] if the former receives less support. ] (]) 02:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. As a previous supporter of the current title back in the day, it's clear that the common name has shifted since 2023 to Gaza War/War in Gaza. Reasoning outlined in nomination is sound. We need a year disambiguation, but I would like to see the years eventually be in front of the name: 2023–2025 Gaza War rather than Gaza War (2023–2025) to be in line with ] and etc.] (]) 03:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Malformed''' The proposed target, ], is in use as a disambiguation page. The proposed move does not address the fate of the existing page. One might ''assume'' this might be retitled {{no redirect\|Gaza War (disambiguation)}} or {{no redirect\|Gaza war (disambiguation)}} but ] applies.
	The lead mentions "The total includes an unknown, but significant number of deaths from friendly fire". I believe two of the three citations listed aren't sufficient and should probably be removed.
			:The proposal does not address the issue of capitalisation of ''war'' per ], ] and ] and a review of Google news 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 ]). A search of Google scholar 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 ], the actual title is ]. We have other titles: ], ], ] 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 ], the was for an RM for ] to ], in which the latter was a disambiguation page (now ] 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 resulted in the move from ] to ]. 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 ]. While PRIMARYTOPIC was mentioned in these discussions, it was largely done in a way that shows a {{tq\|understanding of the matter of issue}} (per ]). 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 ]. ] 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''.
			:{{U\|Vice regent}}, the devil is in the detail. ] (]) 04:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::RMCD Bot has notified the affected page of this move request from the start, see ]. ] (]) 06:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''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. ] (]) 06:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			* '''Support''' "Gaza War" and "Gaza War (2023-present)", per nomination. Furthermore, Hamas isn't the only militant group fighting Israel, there's also ], therefore the name change is appropriate. ] (]) 09:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Citation 57 does not mention friendly fire once. The only mention I could find of anything resembling that is "The Bituah Leumi data does not distinguish between those killed by Hamas and civilians killed by Israeli forces in the fighting to retake control of southern Israel, an operation in which the army used shells and rockets on inhabited areas, according to testimonies collected by AFP and Israeli media". But this doesn't make any claim at all - at least not a claim that a significant number of people died to friendly fire in the initial attack in Israel proper.

			* '''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[REDACTED] page The Gaza War. Plus moving this page will also necessarily force the removal of the disambiguation page that is currently at ] to instead go elsewhere, which is not right because the most natural place for it is at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Citation 59, meanwhile, doesn't appear to be fit for Misplaced Pages. Putting aside the fact that this is an opinion piece, not news, the author by his own admission constructs an alternative to the "official story" (common phrasing for conspiracy theorists) and spends much of the article postulating a conspiracy theory that the ] was caused by Israeli troops because there is no possible way Hamas could want to kill civilians. It's worth noting this author has a track record of denying or shifting the blame for other atrocities; he has used , describing the initial invasion as being as "light a touch as possible". I don't think this citation is of much value here, and it should probably be removed in favor of the more reliable Ynetnews source. '''] ]''' 14:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
			*:Closer should be aware that some opposes merely oppose the title without years and silent on the title with years. ] (]) 22:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''': The current title isn't perfect, but it is better than this proposed change.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 14:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Elaborate please as this sounds like an ] argument <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::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.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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. ] (]) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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 ] 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 \| ] \| ] 21:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:] says, regarding {{tq\|common name}} that "{{tq\|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".''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 00:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::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 \| ] \| ] 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' it’s been long enough, and the term “Gaza” is being increasingly used in news headlines than “Israel-hamas” ] (]) 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Your concern re the sourcing is well-taken, and in fact ''all'' the footnoted sources should be checked for whether they correctly represent what is in the sources, as I have found at least two instances in which the article text seriously misrepresents sources. The overarching issue is whether it belongs in the lead at all. I would say it most definitely does not. Every war has friendly fire incidents. Inclusion of this in the lead skews the POV of the lead, as well as breaching ] by failing to summarize the text within the body of the article in proportion to its significance within the article. Friendly fire incidents receive only scattered attention within the article and clearly are not significant enough in the article to warrant inclusion in the lead. ] (]) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Strong oppose''':'''"Israel-Hamas War (2023-present)"''' is most appropriate. Wider participation is important in these discussions; closing them rapidly discourages that. Speaking of which, inviting wider participation in a revisit of ] is warranted. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::To your point, {{u\|Coretheapple}}, here's another issue I've found - the claim that this is the "deadliest war for children in modern times" is not backed up by ''either'' source listed. Neither source listed mentions this claim at all or lists actual numbers. This claim is not only vague, it seems inaccurate on the fact of it. I'm guessing the original source came from , but the statistics don't back it up - the wars in Syria and Afghanistan both appear to be deadlier at minimum. Pretty much every other war listed in the piece notes the actual totals are likely "far higher" due to uncertainty. This claim should probably be removed or heavily reworked '''] ]''' 17:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::That's right. This article is shot through with POV, over-emphasis, under-emphasis, the whole "nine yards." ] (]) 17:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::These are all quite ghastly calculations, to be honest. AJ is probably right that if we measure children killed per day this conflict would be worse than the other major conflicts in the last 10 years. However this begs the question why we use this particular definition. In Yemen, according to the same organization (Save the Children) 85,000 children under the age of five which is one order of magnitude more that the current Gaza war. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Its also 3 years to 9 weeks. ''']''' - 19:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::That's right. I hope it ends much sooner...
	:::::My point was that it's always possible to craft a definition according to which a given conflict would be the worst - one can choose the time frame, the subgroup of victims, geographical area, etc. The casualty numbers are already displayed very prominently in the lede and in the infobox. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::The point on the 10x more killed in a conflict that is a. widely acknowledged to among the most brutal targeting of a civilian population in modern times, while b. being 17x times longer is not the point I think youre making. That Israel has killed kids at nearly 2x the rate that Syria did is not really proving your point here. ''']''' - 21:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
	:Its worth noting that that sentence was ] per this but had to be ] due to an ] report. ] (]) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	::I agree, this sentence should be removed, per the rationale in that request and these comments. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

			* '''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. ] (]) 12:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Israel buried Palestinians alive by using bulldozers in Gaza hospital? ==
			*:{{tq\|"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. ] (]) 14:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::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. ] (]) 14:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:No, it is not {{tq\|1=a war between Israel and Hamas}}; Take a quick look at the infobox to know who else is fighting <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 14:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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 ]. 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. ] (]) 19:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''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. ] (]) 21:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			* '''Support''' Most sources say Gaza War and for those that may argue the title is too vague we can disambiguate it by putting the year in the parentheses. ] (]) 23:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	There have been some reports that Israel used bulldozers to bury Palestinians alive in Gaza hospital. Could someone please look into it, and if enough reliable sources are available then add it to the relevant article. Thank you. ] (]) 21:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per arguments above. Prefer "Gaza war (2023-2025)", without capitalizing "war", based on arguments above, but other variations of the name are also fine. Given that there is currently a ceasefire I think we can't assume the war will necessarily restart, and if it does and lasts into another year the title can be adjusted. Can be renamed to "present" if/when there is fighting, if the year becomes outdated. If it had already said "present" we wouldn't necessarily have to rename it as soon as a ceasefire starts, but it seems wrong to me to name it "present" during a ceasefire, as if Misplaced Pages is implying the war will necessarily restart; however even if the new name has "present" I'd rather rename it than not. The name proposal and some of the comments above were posted before the ceasefire started on January 19. (ed.: To me, the phrase "Gaza war" seems to mean a war in Gaza or a war about some or all of the territory of Gaza, not necessarily a statement about who is fighting.) <span style="color:Blue; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Most sources use the term Gaza War.] (]) 07:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Support''' Gaza war is used more. I prefer ]. ''']''' (]) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' ], since that is what most sources seem to use. See ] for precedent. But between "Israel-Hamas War" and "Gaza war" (with or without capitalization), I would support the latter. Gaza is the most common way to identify this war, so any variation of that would be preferable. ]<sup>]]</sup> 17:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Oppose'''. ] is not the only thing we use when moving pages. There are also considerations like ]. We cannot use an obscure title like "Gaza War" when that can refer to many other things as well. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:What about ], which is pretty unambiguous? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Oppose'''. We have already discussed this multiple times before. Even in 2022. I don't know what is the difference between this debate and the one two years before -- ] (]) 02:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Could you link to the 2022 discussion on ]? ] (]) 10:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::6/9/2022 was a real tragedy 😔 <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 11:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			* '''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Only thing I could find that was somewhat reliable . Unless international sources pick up on it we should probably wait. ] (]) 21:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Agreed. Thank you! ] (]) 21:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

			*'''Partially support''' per ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 02:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Israel indiscriminately shooting civilians ==

			*'''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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] (]) 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Israel admitted to firing and killing 3 of the Israeli hostages who were unarmed, signaled that they were surrendering and posed no threat to IDF. This has raised suspicion that Israel is intentionally killing unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza.. Do we incorporate this new info into the article? ] (]) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
			*: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 ].
	: I doubt any country would deliberately massacre their own kidnapped civilians - even more so while under an international microscope. Given that they say that Hamas uses their own civilians as "meat shields" and that they were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, and the fact they blatantly operate within their own civilian population, who is to say Hamas didn't make them wave the flags as deception and they thought they were Hamas? Doubt it was "indiscriminate".--] (]) 05:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
			:The Wall Street Journal's (listed as using "Gaza war") official search shows 223 mentions of "The Israel-Hamas war" versus 204 for "The Gaza war"., putting it in the "Both" category instead of "Gaza War"
	::] --- ]&]]) 19:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			: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. It doesn't provide detailed breakdowns on usage, but this invalidates Google here.
	:The first sentence is OK enough, although it has been mentioned in the events. The second needs further discussion. ] (]) 05:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
			: Reuters, listed as heavily favouring Gaza war in VR's table, according to their official search used "Gaza war" 8030 times versus 8958 times for "Israel-Hamas war". This would put it in "both" category
	:Some additional sources for this:
			: CBC, listed as heavily favouring the term "Gaza war", only used it 289 times versus 1865 for "Israel-Hamas war".
	:* , ''Times''
			*:On another note, ] is not a reliable source based on previous RSN discussions. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::"..three hostages held by Hamas were killed by Israeli forces in the middle of an active war zone after they '''waved a white flag and screamed out in Hebrew''' to show they did not pose a threat."
			*::Responded .''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* , Wall Street Journal:
			*::To add onto the COMMONNAME argument, here are showing that "Israel war" is by far the most popular search term over "Gaza war" or "Israel Hamas war". <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::"The three Israeli hostages killed by Israeli forces Friday night were '''shot after they emerged shirtless''' from a building in northern Gaza, '''holding up a stick with a white cloth''' on it, Israeli military officials said Saturday."
			*:::Your above link shows "Gaza war" is more popular than "Israel-Hamas war". "Israel war" lumps up the results from this war, and ] or ] and ] and ] and ] etc.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:--- ]&]]) 19:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Specifically, I'm not convinced "Gaza war" is the unambiguous ] 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 ] 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 ] — 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 ]. ] (]) 01:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:"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.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Per nomination. - ] (]) 05:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''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 (], ], ] and ]) of Israel. I would also favor '''"Gaza War (2023–present)"''' over the '''"Gaza War"''' ] (]) 23:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Checking structure ==
			*'''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 ]. Similar discussion had occurred multiple times here in the talk page, every times, the proposal was dropped. ] (]) 10:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' - As per OP, there is mounting evidence that the COMMONNAME for this war has shifted align with Gaza War. I prefer ] 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. --- ]&]]) 15:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per ]. ] (]) 07:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - The war wasn't between Israel and Gaza. It was a war between Israel and Hamas (also Hamas led allies). The current title is more suitable and factual. ] (]) 12:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Are the tens of thousands of civilians that Israel has killed in revenge campaigns, discriminate bombardment intended to kill civilians before being posthumously labelled “militants” by the idf, the numerous hospitals besieged and raided, and all the thousands of Palestinians kidnapped and tortured to death in Israeli camps near the border all “Hamas?” ] (]) 13:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Obviously not Hamas 🙄 they are Khamas <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Discussion===
	I asked chatbot to produce an outline
			*Important to note that this move request, as have previous ones, is being subject to ] . ] (]) 08:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Collapse top\|outline}}
			*{{u\|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. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	User: Write a detailed outline for a Misplaced Pages article on the topic "2023 Israel–Hamas war".
			*: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.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Bot: I. Introduction
			*Re {{u\|Chess}}'s 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 for "the Gaza war" (and variants) vs 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" 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 ( + ) vs Israel-Hamas war total 12 ( + ). 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.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	A. Definition and background of the Israel-Hamas conflict
			*:{{re\|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". <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	B. Overview of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war
			*::@] 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, 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 "]" so the "Gaza" terminology seems much more accurate than "Israel-Hamas".''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	C. Importance and significance of the war
			*:::{{re\|Vice regent}} What you're proposing is, essentially, ]. I would weight far less on primary sources (of which contemporaneous news articles are) and far more on secondary sources. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::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. ] (]) 04:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::It is not ] but ], which provides "extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change." ] (]) 12:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{re\|Chess}} A good example here is the article on the ]. Its original title, ], 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 ]) predominantly used ]. However, as the conflict changed from symmetric warfare in Israel to the fighting in Gaza, sources switched to using ] 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. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 12:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''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. ] (]) 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: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. ] (]) 23:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I am in favour of using Gaza War, which was also my preference in the last RM. ] (]) 07:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Should the United States be added as a belligerent to the infobox? ==
	II. Background
	A. Historical context of the Israel-Hamas conflict
	B. Previous conflicts and ceasefires
	C. Factors leading up to the 2023 war
	1. Political tensions
	2. Socio-economic factors
	3. Regional dynamics

			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:
	III. Causes and Triggers
	A. Immediate causes of the war
	B. Key incidents leading to escalation
	C. Role of external factors and international relations
	1. Influence of neighboring countries
	2. Role of international organizations and superpowers

			{{tq\|"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed <u>in combat</u> in Israel during the current crisis."}}<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/</ref>
	IV. Course of the War
	A. Timeline of major events and battles
	B. Strategies and tactics employed by Israel and Hamas
	C. Humanitarian impact and civilian casualties
	D. Role of media and propaganda

			{{tq\|"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."}}<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html</ref>
	V. International Response
	A. Reactions from regional and international actors
	B. Mediation efforts and peace initiatives
	C. Role of the United Nations and other international organizations
	D. Arms trade and military support to the conflicting parties

			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. ] (]) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	VI. Aftermath
	A. Ceasefire agreements and negotiations
	B. Impact on the Israeli and Palestinian societies
	C. Political consequences and power dynamics in the region
	D. Rebuilding efforts and humanitarian aid

			: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. ] (]) 21:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	VII. Controversies and Criticisms
			::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. ] (]) 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	A. Allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses
			:::None of these US forces fight against Hamas in Gaza. Otherwise, one would need to include all US battleships in this area, etc. ] (]) 23:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	B. Debate on proportionality and self-defense
			::::If those 100 troops are part of a different conflict, should they be removed from the infobox? (Or should the area warships be added?) —⁠ ⁠] (]) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	C. Criticisms of international community's response
			:::::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 \| ] \| ] 02:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	D. Challenges to achieving a lasting peace
			::::::That sounds like WP:OR, as the cited source says US troops are deployed "in combat". ] (]) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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 \| ] \| ] 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"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.
			::{{tq\|"about 100 American troops to operate it"}} and {{tq\|"The move will put American troops operating the ground-based interceptor,"}}
			::{{tq\|"Components for a terminal high-altitude area defence (Thaad) missile system, alongside a crew to operate it,"}} and {{tq\|"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system"}}
			::Therefore the troops aren't sent there to train and maintain, but to actively "operate" the system. ] (]) 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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 \| ] \| ] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] "Combatants are persons who are authorized to use force in situations of armed conflict" 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 ] with the war here.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*My very best wishes is correct that none of these US troops are fighting in the Gaza theatre. Which is why the United States could be added to "Allies in other theatres". But I think the better option here would be for this infobox to only focus on the Gaza war, and we should not have "other theatres" for either side.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Support addition to "Allies in other theatres" similar to Iran. ] (]) 10:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'd also support this. ] (]) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
			:The US troops were deployed in the context of the ], not the Israel–Hamas war. ] (] · ]) – <small>(] <span style="color:#4dac8b;">♥</span>)</small> 05:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

			:WP:RS say the THAAD battery was sent after the 7 October attack by Hamas, tying the deployment directly to Hamas' actions.
	VIII. Analysis and Perspectives
			:{{tq\|"The US sent a Thaad battery to the Middle East after Hamas attacked southern Israel on 7 October last year."}}<ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20jye8v5dro</ref> ] (]) 05:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	A. Evaluation of the war's outcomes and achievements
	B. Examination of long-term implications for the region
	C. Perspectives on the future of the Israel-Hamas conflict
	D. Potential for reconciliation and peace-building

			== Trim Review ==
	IX. Notable Individuals and Organizations
			{{atop \|status=Trim Endorsed \|reason=There are no opposition to the trim as a whole, only some opposition to the specifics. ] (]) 21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	A. Key political figures and military leaders involved
			@] 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.
	B. Humanitarian organizations and activists working in the region
	C. Analysts and experts providing insights on the conflict

			I picked one of their edit that removed 4.5K bytes, which I see as representative of how the trim was carried out. Please explain your approval or disapproval with that edit.
	X. See Also
	A. Related conflicts and wars in the Middle East
	B. Notable peace agreements and negotiations
	C. Other articles on the Israel-Hamas conflict

			Edit summary: {{tq\|merge paragraph to enforce ] size guidelines; again, this top-level article, per ], is not the place to detail minutiae of individual attacks unless notable themselves}}.
	XI. References
	A. Credible sources and citations for the article's content
	B. Books, academic papers, and official reports
	C. News articles and interviews with experts

			Before edit: {{tq\|An ] in Nuseirat refugee camp killed at least 18 people.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=13 September 2024 \|title=Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff \|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn400rm68o \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name="theguardian20240912">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=12 September 2024 \|title=Six Unrwa workers among estimated 18 killed in Israeli strike on Gaza school sheltering displaced \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/12/idf-airstrike-gaza-school-nuseirat-refugee-shelter-six-un-unrwa-workers-among-dead \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB \|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Mccready \|first1=Alastair \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Marsi \|first3=Federica \|last4=Siddiqui \|first4=Usaid \|last5=Varshalomidze \|first5=Tamila \|last6=Jamal \|first6=Urooba \|date=11 September 2024 \|title=Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18 \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/11/israels-war-on-gaza-live-deadly-attack-on-al-mawasi-prompts-global-outcry?update=3173185 \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> In September, an Israeli strike on a home in Nuseirat refugee camp killed 10 Palestinians.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Rowlands \|first1=Lyndal \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Siddiqui \|first3=Usaid \|last4=Motamedi \|first4=Maziar \|last5=Najjar \|first5=Farah \|date=16 September 2024 \|title=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. \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/16/israel-war-on-gaza-live-children-among-10-killed-in-gaza-city-attacks \|access-date=16 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Rowlands \|first1=Lyndal \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Siddiqui \|first3=Usaid \|last4=Motamedi \|first4=Maziar \|last5=Najjar \|first5=Farah \|date=16 September 2024 \|title=At least 10 Palestinians killed and 15 wounded in another Israeli attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/16/israel-war-on-gaza-live-children-among-10-killed-in-gaza-city-attacks \|access-date=16 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> An Israeli air strike on Zeitoun school in Gaza City killed at least 21 Palestinians.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Rowlands \|first1=Lyndal \|last2=Rasheed \|first2= Zaheena \|last3=Jamal \|first3=Urooba \|last4=Siddiqui \|first4=Usaid \|date=23 September 2024 \|title=Most victims of Saturday's school attack were women and children: Rights group \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/23/israels-war-on-gaza-live-israel-reportedly-planning-north-gaza-siege \|access-date=23 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=21 September 2024 \|title=Israeli attack on Gaza school sheltering displaced Palestinians kills 22 \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/21/several-killed-in-israeli-attack-on-gaza-school-sheltering-displaced-palestinians \|access-date=21 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=21 September 2024 \|title=IDF says airstrike targeted Hamas command room in a Gaza school; Palestinians say 10 killed \|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-drone-strike-targeted-hamas-command-room-in-a-gaza-school-palestinians-say-10-killed/ \|access-date=21 September 2024 \|work=]}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=25 September 2024 \|title=Israel sends unidentified bodies to Gaza as Palestinian officials demand answers \|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-unidentified-bodies-war-gaza-palestinians-answers-rcna172645 \|access-date=28 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> An Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter in ] killed at least 15 Palestinians.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=26 September 2024 \|title=Death toll from Israeli airstrike on Jabalia school surges to 15 \|url=https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/149667 \|access-date=26 September 2024 \|work=]}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Mohamed \|first=Edna \|date=26 September 2024 \|title=Israel's military confirms attack on Jabalia school \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/26/israel-attacks-lebanon-live-72-killed-in-latest-wave-of-israeli-attacks \|access-date=26 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> Israeli forces bombed two houses on the Nuseirat camp, killing at least 13 people.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|first1=Alastair \|last1=Mccready \|first2=Urooba \|last2=Jamal \|first3=Edna \|last3=Mohamed \|first4=Usaid \|last4=Siddiqui \|first5=Tamila \|last5=Varshalomidze \|first6=Farah \|last6=Najjar \|date=30 September 2024 \|title=At least 11 killed in Israeli attack on central Gaza \|url=https://aje.io/ohd77t?update=3212664 \|work=]}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Mccready \|first=Alastair \|date=1 October 2024 \|title=Death toll rises following Israeli attack in central Gaza \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/10/1/israel-attacks-lebanon-live-israelis-launch-ground-operation-in-lebanon \|access-date=1 October 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref>}}
	XII. External Links
	A. Links to relevant websites, official statements, and reports
	B. Organizations working towards peace and conflict resolution
	{{Collapse bottom\|outline}}
	{{div col}}
	Bot structure extract:
	*Background
	*Causes and Triggers
	*Course of the War
	*International Response
	*Aftermath
	*Controversies and Criticisms
	*Analysis and Perspectives
	*Notable Individuals and Organizations
	{{No col break\|
	Current structure
	*Background
	*Historical context
	*Events
	*Other confrontations
	*Casualties
	*Humanitarian situation
	*Destruction of cultural heritage
	*War crimes
	*Negotiations and diplomacy
	*Reactions
	*Regional effects
	*Media coverage}}
	{{div col end}}

			After edit: {{tq\|An ] on 11 September killed at least 18 people.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=13 September 2024 \|title=Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff \|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn400rm68o \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name="theguardian20240912">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=12 September 2024 \|title=Six Unrwa workers among estimated 18 killed in Israeli strike on Gaza school sheltering displaced \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/12/idf-airstrike-gaza-school-nuseirat-refugee-shelter-six-un-unrwa-workers-among-dead \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB \|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Mccready \|first1=Alastair \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Marsi \|first3=Federica \|last4=Siddiqui \|first4=Usaid \|last5=Varshalomidze \|first5=Tamila \|last6=Jamal \|first6=Urooba \|date=11 September 2024 \|title=Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18 \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/11/israels-war-on-gaza-live-deadly-attack-on-al-mawasi-prompts-global-outcry?update=3173185 \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref>}} ] (]) 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	There are issues with the bot's suggested structure, but it's right that the current structure is bloated. I.e currently there is background and historical context, these should be amalgamated. Other consolidation is achievable, ] (]) 17:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			{{ctop\|title=References}}
	: Tom, I am very wary of relying on an LLM bot (with experience, it's not hard to pose questions that have demonstrably false or irrelevant results; in fact, if you call them on it, they'll even apologize very politely for getting it wrong in their next response!), nevertheless, here's a tip you may enjoy if you decide to try again. If you word it carefully enough, an LLM chatbot can learn in one question how to emit properly formatted nested Misplaced Pages section headers instead of the default Harvard outline, if you just say "outline". On a different tack, if you ask for specific sources, it will generally emit a plain-text format with minimal data, and you can coax it to expand it somewhat, but it only goes so far; however beware, because there is a higher level of hallucinations when generating sources, and they all ''look'' very persuasive, and some might be real, and some might be pure invention, and some might be half and half. Once you've got your list of refs, you can teach it in one or two comments to reformat it into Misplaced Pages cite book or cite journal format.
			{{reflist-talk}}
	: Coming back to your question, I asked it your question, and explained Misplaced Pages section headers, and it came up with a decent format. But our expectations play tricks on us, because it "looks good". After that query, I asked it this question, and you can view the results:
			{{cbottom}}
	{{cot\|bg=#FCEDC1\|indent=1.6em\|Write a detailed outline for a Misplaced Pages article on the topic "2023 New Zealand–Tasmania conflict".}}
			:As noted in the edit summary, this trim was done to enforce ] size guidelines per ]. 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 ] 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. ] (]) 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hatnote\|Prior to this question, I had explained Misplaced Pages section header structure in a previous query.}}
			::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". ] (]) 15:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	User: Write a detailed outline for a Misplaced Pages article on the topic "2023 New Zealand–Tasmania conflict".
			:::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 ] 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 ] style guidelines. Apart from the reference to the child article, none of the other details are relevant to the summary of the ] 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. ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			::::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. ] (]) 17:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Chatbot:
			* '''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. ] (]) 16:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	<pre>
			*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. ] (]) 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	2023 New Zealand–Tasmania Conflict
			**{{u\|My very best wishes}}, these are stated in the second sentence of the second lead paragraph. ] (]) 22:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			:::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. ] (]) 22:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Background ==
			::::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. ] (]) 05:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			::::Misplaced Pages isn't about making one side or the other look worse, we go by what ] say. ] (]) 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Historical Relations ===
			{{abottom}}

	Overview of the historical diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties between New Zealand and Tasmania
	Past conflicts or collaborations that shaped the relationship

	=== Pre-Conflict Tensions ===

	Examination of pre-existing issues and disputes that contributed to the strained relations
	Analysis of political, social, and economic factors leading up to the conflict

	== Causes ==

	=== Immediate Triggers ===

	Detailed exploration of the specific events or incidents that sparked the conflict
	Analysis of how these triggers escalated into open hostilities

	=== Root Causes ===

	Examination of deeper political, economic, and social factors contributing to the conflict
	Historical grievances or systemic issues that played a role

	== Participants ==

	=== New Zealand's Involvement ===

	Overview of New Zealand's political stance, military contributions, and diplomatic actions
	Key figures and decision-makers in New Zealand during the conflict

	=== Tasmania's Role ===

	Overview of Tasmania's position, military strategies, and diplomatic engagements
	Key figures and decision-makers in Tasmania during the conflict

	=== International Actors ===

	Roles and contributions of other regional and international actors
	Involvement of neighboring countries, international organizations, and peacekeeping efforts

	== Timeline ==

	=== Early Events ===

	Chronological account of events leading up to the outbreak of the conflict
	Political developments, diplomatic tensions, and military buildups

	=== Key Battles ===

			== Ceasefire ==
	Detailed chronology of significant military engagements and operations
	Naval, air, and ground battles with strategic importance

			{{ping\|AirshipJungleman29}} Thanks for rewriting the lede in a proportionate way, which better reflects the events of the war.
	=== Diplomatic Developments ===

			As for 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 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. ] (]) 14:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Overview of diplomatic efforts, negotiations, and peace talks throughout the conflict
			:I am satisfied with that reasoning, and will self-revert. ] (]) 15:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Key milestones in diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Tasmania
			::Thanks. ] (]) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Edit request from ] ==
	== Impact ==

			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	=== Humanitarian Consequences ===
			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.) . ] (]) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> possibly already done now ] (]) 01:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Second edit request from ] ==
	Examination of the impact on civilian populations, refugees, and displaced persons
			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	Assessment of humanitarian aid and response efforts during and after the conflict
			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.
	=== Economic and Environmental Impact ===

			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 ] (]) 21:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Analysis of the economic toll and environmental consequences of the conflict
			: Not done. Change is not supported by the sources. ] (]) 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Long-term effects on industries, infrastructure, and ecosystems

			== Third edit request from ] ==
	=== Post-Conflict Challenges ===

			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	Assessment of the challenges faced by both New Zealand and Tasmania in the aftermath
			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 Misplaced Pages 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".
	Reconstruction, reconciliation, and efforts to rebuild trust
			Please check sources of this statement. ] (]) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			: ] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 00:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ~~International~~ ~~Response~~ ==		== 2023 attack ==

			The recent edit to lede changed describing Israeli victims from "killing" to "deaths." This should be reverted. ] (]) 14:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Diplomatic Reactions ===

			:I restored the previous version, folding in the civilians addition. ] (]) 18:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Overview of how the international community responded diplomatically to the conflict
	Sanctions, condemnations, or endorsements from other nations and organizations

			== Hannibal directive in the lead ==
	=== Peacekeeping Efforts ===

			I'm not seeing what's ] about the material removed in ; 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. --] (]) 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Roles played by international peacekeeping forces, if any, during and after the conflict
	Successes and challenges in maintaining peace and stability

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

	=== ~~Media~~ ~~Narratives~~ ===		== Scope of article ==

			The lead of the article would state: {{tq\|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.
	Analysis of how the conflict was portrayed in the media of New Zealand, Tasmania, and internationally
	Impact of media narratives on public perception and international opinion

			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 ]. 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.
	=== Propaganda and Misinformation ===

			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''. ] (]) 04:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Examination of any instances of propaganda or misinformation during the conflict
	Impact on public understanding and international relations

			:In reference to the ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ], this just seems misplaced as it is directly about the Israel–Hamas war, not other confrontations, so would be better moved elsewhere. ] (]) 13:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Controversies and Criticisms ==
			:As an update have expanded the Other confrontations section with summary from child article, and reduced Iran section to the notable events for MEC child summary. 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 ] that was removed here, though is highly unlikely, unless there is updated information to add (based on maintenance template there). For anyone here from ] after the notification to talkpage, 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. ] (]) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I also think it's done here, this is all consistent with prior consensus. On the American involvement, I treated it as part of Biden's stated "red line" diplomatic strategy. ] (]) 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Please leave this topic open for a bit longer for others to comment or critique. Your close of ] was arguably premature as well as unnecessary. It's best to wait a week for discussion to die down. ] (]) 22:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

	=== ~~War~~ ~~Crimes~~ ~~Allegations~~ ===		== 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 ] and ]. There is presently an RfC occurring at ] that makes actioning this problematic at this immediate point; however, I would be proposing to implement this once the RfC has been closed. ] (]) 04:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Overview of any allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses during the conflict
	International responses and investigations into these allegations

			== Lede ==
	=== Criticisms of International Actors ===

			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.
	Examination of criticisms directed at regional and international actors involved in the conflict
	Evaluation of the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and peace initiatives

			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. ] (]) 10:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Reconciliation Efforts ==

			:It would make it easier if you linked the diffs that you are opposing and proposing.
	=== Post-Conflict Diplomacy ===
			:''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.
			:Deadliest day for Israel is also fairly common, but less so. 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.
			: 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. ] (]) 10:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::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." ] (]) 10:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"characterised" is a good term here, to avoid ] or ]. ] (]) 22:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Start of second lede paragraph ==
	Overview of diplomatic initiatives aimed at rebuilding relations between New Zealand and Tasmania
	Bilateral talks, agreements, and joint efforts for regional stability

			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 ] 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. ] (]) 10:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction ===

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

			== Links from live pages need to be archived ==
	== See Also ==

			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. <nowiki>https://www.aljazeera.com/news/</nowiki>'''liveblog/''' or <nowiki>https://www.bbc.com/</nowiki>'''live''' ''YOU NEED TO ARCHIVE THE LINK!''
	=== Related Conflicts ===

			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, ].
	Links to articles on conflicts with similar themes, causes, or outcomes

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

			I just fixed two links that I came across by accident. I shudder to think how many dead links litter the article. ] (]) 12:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Links to articles on diplomatic efforts and negotiations involving New Zealand and Tasmania

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

			== Someone here please review pending edit requests ==
	=== Citations ===

			Would some of the regulars here please periodically reivew ] 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. ~] <small>(])</small> 16:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Citations and sources for information used in the article

			:I reviewed all three, if anybody want to act upon my finding at ], feel free to do so. ] (]) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Further Reading ===
			::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. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Fourth edit request from ] ==
	Additional resources for readers interested in more in-depth exploration of the topic
	</pre>
	{{cob}}
	: Looks great, doesn't it? Except for one, wee little problem. ] (]) 09:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	::thank you, yes if you put rubbish in, you'll get rubbish out e.g. a fictitious conflict. My mine takeaway is the current structure of this real article is bloated, so it's been helpful: it suggest where you might rationalise and neutralise. i might even have a go at putting that into the article. simplifying some of the headers. 'Generating sources' sounds wrong! so i don't do that. i only use it for summarising and reformulating existing content. the worst case scenario is that it recopies existing mistakes if you don't manually check, but the risk is massively reduced when you're reprocessing existing content. generating anything new creates some risk. there's a link on my userpage to a user who's developed the tool i was using. in testing they were asked to remove the more risky elements. it sounds like you might have suggestions on how to reword the questions to the bot, you could give him? thanks again, ] (]) 19:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	== Statistics in infobox ==

			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." ] (]) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	<blockquote>There are other, wider indications of the IDF’s problems. Official casualty figures have shown more than 460 military personnel killed in Gaza, Israel and the occupied West Bank and about 1,900 wounded. But other sources suggest far greater numbers of wounded. Ten days ago, Israel’s leading daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, published information obtained from the ministry of defence’s rehabilitation department. This put casualty numbers at more than 5,000, with 58% of them classed as serious and more than 2,000 officially recognised as disabled. There have also been a number of friendly fire casualties, with the Times of Israel reporting 20 out of 105 deaths due to such fire or accidents during fighting. ], ] 22 December 2023 </blockquote> ] (]) 00:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
			:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:RFPP#done --> 40 minutes after the edit request . ] (]) 18:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Fifth edit request from ] ==
	:I'd add it to the casualties section. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	==RfC on sexual violence in lead section==
	<!-- ] 05:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1706331686}}
	{{rfc\|pol\|soc\|reli\|hist\|rfcid=6ADD541}}
	Should the lead section contain a few sentences concerning the sexual violence during the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023? ' If so, should the Hamas denial be included? '''Option A''' would be to include a few sentences with no denial. '''Option B''' include with a denial. '''Option C''' do not include. ] (]) 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			In the section labeled "Initial Israeli counter-operation (October 2023)" it states the following:
	===Survey 2===
			"A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the Hannibal Directive to be used, killing many Israeli civilians and soldiers. 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.
	* '''Option A''', Failing to include the sexual violence in the lead would violate ]l and ] as well as ].There are 45 million hits when you google "Hamas" and "rape" (without quotes), 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: Title: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced" It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by ] ''While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.'' Note that the denial is in the body of the article, in the relevant subsection.'
			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.
	:One point re the denial that needs to be stressed. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, is not followed by a response or denial from Israel, even though Israel has indeed responded to or denied every single element of the lead. Putting in the perfunctory Hamas response to the rapes, and only that response out of everything else in the lead, would be unbalanced and not neutral. ] (]) 04:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)<small> second paragraph added. ] (]) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::Could you list a couple of these 'everything' please. ] (]) 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A, will accept B.''' I do not think the denial is helpful, per ], but if it will help this pass I will accept that compromise. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' would accept B as well, but A is a non-starter to me. The 45 million general google hits are completely irrelevant, as we arent going to start counting random blogs and twitter accounts as reliable sources all of a sudden. The USA Today article is relevant in that it reports {{tq\|The Israeli military official said that, just as authorities know that many women were sexually assaulted during the Supernova music festival and at their homes on Oct. 7, "we know they were raped in Hamas captivity."}}, somehow presented as though the USA Today is undersigning that claim from an Israeli military official in the opening comment here, but it does not. The USA Today article also includes {{tq\|Despite this evidence, Hamas has consistently denied accusations it used sexual violence on Oct. 7. It has claimed the allegations are part of an attempt by Israel to distract from its mass killings of civilians in Gaza. International human rights groups waited two months before finally condemning the sexual violence.}} Nearly all the sources that include any accusation of rape includes the denial by Hamas as well, if it is to be included it has to include the denial per NPOV. But why should it not be included? Because the rape charges are almost entirely focused on the ], and the sourcing here in relation to the overall war does not show that it is a prominent controversy for this subject and not the child article on the attack. There are news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", for "rape" "hamas" (many overlapping), nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes ( results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023"). Or to with 78,400 news results. gets 25,900 news results. For the overall topic, this just does not have the weight in coverage to merit inclusion in the lead. For the 7 October attacks? Yes, of course it does. But for the war that is entering its 11th week and not limited to one day in October, this is not a prominent controversy to be included in the lead. ''']''' - 05:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''C'''. The initial reports, endlessly recycled since, were extremely confused, internally contradictory, and endlessly touted despite numerous corrections, or dropping off the radar of serious reportage, over time. We still don't appear to know if the rape incidents reported reflect a Hamas strategy, are attributable to other militant groups, or the general flux of indiscriminate groups ranging over the landscape and wreaking violence. A large number of similar, specific reports about burning, decapitating, ovening babies etc., are now viewed sceptically, and until we have specific forensic evidence of the scale or scope of these reported crimes, any statement formulated to assert, as was done from the outset in Israeli news reports, that this was a systematic aspect of the 4 hour Hamas onslaught on the border communities, will reflect a partisan claim, not an ascertained fact. ] (]) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:This dismissive rejection of overwhelming evidence and testimony comes disappointingly close to the kind of sexual violence denialism that has been deprecated and rejected worldwide over the past few decades.]] 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''': this war inside Gaza has been going on for 2 and a half months, the 7/10 attack last several hours. ] (]) 07:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC
	*:The duration of these events is irrelevant to our content policy. It's also false that the sexual violence occurred only on the first day.
	*:The nature of the initial attack and the ongoing treatment of the hostages has received ongoing coverage in RS, and the coverage is increasing as new investigations reveal the extent of the conduct. It also has been cited as enabling Netanyahu's refusal to moderate the intensity of Israel's counterattack.
	*:Pearl Harbor/WW2, Archduke assassinationi/WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Boston Tea Party, etc. were all discrete events the significance of which is not diminished by their brevity. We are continuing to see daily coverage, testimony and forensic evidence, and no credible information to the contrary.]] 15:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::You dont need to badger people and make this an unreadable mess; if you want to discuss somebody's vote do it in the discussion section where they may ignore you at their leisure. ''']''' - 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C'''. This is a ] issue and a matter of ]. Option A (including "a few sentences") is, in addition to violating NPOV and failing to follow reliable sources (by omitting the denial), totally excessive. The Israeli captives have been a larger story in relation to the war as a whole, and they have a single sentence, which is appropriate; an (as yet unconfirmed and strenuously denied) allegation of something that happened on a single day in the course of an eleven-week war should not be given more prominence. As well, as a matter of BALASP, highlighting these allegations skews the POV of the lead. I don’t want to speculate about anyone’s intent, but I get the feeling that highlighting the events of October 7 is a way to undercut the more prominent aspects of the war as a whole, namely, Israeli atrocities and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In effect, “well, Hamas also did bad things”. But we have a litany of articles about that: ]; ]; ]; articles on individual October 7 attacks. This article is about ''the entire war''. It is not just about October 7. The bottom line is that when news stories about the October 7 attack refer to sexual violence, they include attribution of the claims, and they include Hamas denials. Overwhelmingly, if not exclusively. We can’t independently weigh the evidence, determine it’s credible, and then depart from RS by failing to include attributions and denials. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' The nature and ferocity of the 10/7 attack was the predicate for the Netanyahu government's unprecedented response. The rapes and sexual mutilations have received broad ongoing coverage and increasing investigations and condemnation. No RS treats any denials as serious or credible, so MANDY applies. If mention is to be made of denials, as in option B, we would also need to convey that those denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned. But that would be excessive detail for the lead. Note that WP is ] and the fact that the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials does not tell us what we must convey as an encyclopedia.]] 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C'''. Lacking weight for the topic of this article.] (]) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A'''. This is important to understanding how Hamas precipitated the war. Denials are not credible and not worth including. Far more important than the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which was Hamas's desired outcome resulting from the atrocities committed to provoke the war. ] ] 18:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''C'''. but B would be acceptable. The allegations are absolutely a huge flashpoint in coverage of the war, but every RS article I read includes the denials alongside the accusations. ''A'' just doesn't make sense from a ] standpoint. ] (]) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. I don't think the denials should be mentioned, considering that they are given very brief treatment by RS. However I don't see much harm in mentioning them briefly ('''Option B'''). ]<sub>]</sub> 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''C''' It can be treated a major part of the 7 October attack but it is a very minor part of the war and that's what this article is about. The lead is already a bit stuffed. ] (]) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option B''' currently, but am fine changing to Option A if somebody shows that a plurality of reliable sources don't include the denial. It seems like enough do for it to warrant a brief mention. I am opposed to option C; I don't find the arguments in favor of it compelling. We have an article on the topic for a reason; there's an articles worth of sources about it. Enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Polite reminder as well to assume good faith and not to speculate about the intent of editors, don't think that's going to be helpful. ] (]) 04:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. Including the denial by Hamas would be a form of ]. There is clear, dated, evidence of the sexual violence so mentioning the denials would create a false sense of ambiguity. If people do indeed think that there's enough uncertainty to include the denials then I would be in favor of '''Option C''' as that means that it's a he-says she-says situation that takes away from the main point of the conflict. ] (]) 05:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

			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.".
	===Discussion 2===
	:Regarding the completely made up claim that the denials {{tq\|are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned}} and {{tq\|the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials}}, sources to this day include that Hamas denies the accusations of rape, the overwhelming majority of sources that refer to any claims of rape or sexual assault include the denial. The most recent one I am aware of is writing about the Israeli military saying they know hostages were raped includes the denial. Such a series of unsubstantiated assertions as made in that comment should have evidence provided for it or it should not be taken seriously at all. ''']''' - 16:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Yes and the denial is in the body of the article. No one is arguing that the denial should not be in the body of the article, only not in the lead. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, has drawn a response from Israel or a denial. But such denials are not mentioned. Putting in the Hamas denial, and only the Hamas denial, would be unbalanced and not neutral. ] (]) 17:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::What accusation by Hamas against Israel is included without a response? ''']''' - 17:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Nableezy, you keep acting like Hamas and Israel deserve to be treated as 50 50 equal players on every question, and what we do for one hand we must do equally for others. It's not a good model for NPOV or life or justice. Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. Hamas is a small group with a small quasi-territory that launched an attack against significant odds, alone, with no support, and is basically an international pariah due to the atrocities during that attack, and we don't need to act like it's possible that they didn't happen or that they weren't terrible, or that whatever denials issued by Hamas are credible, unless some credible academic or journalistic source does so. We also shouldn't act like those events didn't precipitate this entire war.
	::::Israel is a large, well-armed, wealthy and powerful state backed by the US, UK, France, Australia, and basically every Western and English speaking powerful country, under quite a bit of scrutiny and being accused of all manner of things from apartheid to genocide, and we should absolutely treat those as complex both-sides type issues inasmuch as there are people debating them who are reliable (though, in my view, the genocide allegation goes too far and is inaccurate). On some issues yes, there's a complex narrative and we must balance the views of Palestinians versus Israelis, each group has separate factions, such as Fatah, or the different Israeli groups that range from Meretz and Labour to Likud to Blue&White to Shas and Yisrael Beteinu. And no, there are not credible allegations that Israelis are raping Palestinians, not like there are of Hamas. So we don't need to act like these things are the same. The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists. So not every atrocity needs a response. We should simply cover them as the majority of sources do, and not try to both-sides every issue.
	::::The point is to describe in the lead what the majority of yes, Western, yes, English-speaking, sources think are the most pertinent issues. Yes, there have been widespread calls for a ceasefire and widespread reports of indiscriminate civilian deaths in Gaza. We do not try to include Israeli denials of that or whatever weak PR Israeli spokespeople put out about it trying to spin or downplay those massive civilian deaths. Because that wouldn't be credible, and it's not edifying. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::'The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists.' Sure, so Hamas went and raped peace activists all along the border.
	:::::To repeat, we are caught up in the furor of reports from 7-8 Oct of rape, mutilation, beheadings, burning babies. rare later reports tell us forensic doctors and police are sifting through these reports meticulously and exhaustively, but that so far we have no statistical evidence other than an indication from interviews with hostages who have been returned that slightly under 10% reported experiencing some form of sexual molestation.
	:::::This is what Hadas Ziv, policy and ethics director for ] stated 10 days ago, guardedly>-
	:::::<blockquote>“What we know for sure is that it was more than just one case and it was widespread, in that this happened in more than one location and more than a handful of times. . .What we don’t know and what the police are investigating is whether it was ordered to be done and whether it was systematic.” Sam Mednick ] 15 December 2023 </blockquote>
	:::::That means that we have some sparse facts of sexual violence befalling a number of the several hundred civilians, and extensive allegations that this was systematic and specific to Hamas policy. Not enough for the lead, ''as yet.''] (]) 11:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

			I propose that the sentences be re-worded as follows:
	== Requested move 23 December 2023 ==
			"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.. 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." ] (]) 05:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:RFPP#done --> 4 hours 37 minutes after the edit request, UN report which substantiates both claims were added , although I am unable to open the paywalled Haaretz article and not think ABC article is the correct reference for this. ] (]) 19:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Sixth edit request from ] ==
	{{requested move/dated\|?}}

			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	] → ? –
	* '''A:''' ] → ] <small>or</small>
	* '''B:''' ] → ] <small>(as per ])</small>
	With almost a week left for this year to end, I think it is about time we start the discussion for renaming this article <small>(Admins please don't move the article before 1/1/2024)</small><br/>
	''']]''' 07:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''B'''. Not "–present" because of ], and also because it adds nothing. There is no other "YYYY Israel–Hamas war" or "Israel–Hamas war of YYYY", so per ] ] is sufficient, and per ] it is best (and it's already a redirect). If there's another one at some point, the title can be taken up again at that time. <small>(Note: in this edit, I added the 'A' and 'B' prefixes to the choices above.</small> ] (]) 08:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:thanks for adding the prefixes! ''']]''' 08:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:@] wouldn't ] not apply here given that there have been multiple recent conflicts between Israel and Hamas? ] (]) 05:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

			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:
	*'''B''': Only name. The article Siege of Mariupol is not called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of the Battle of Mariupol (1919). Per ], disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per ], concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. not only is there still no other article titled ''Israel–Hamas war'', but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the ]. ] (]) 09:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			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,...."
	:Option B for the same reason as those commenting above. ] (]) 12:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			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,..."
	*'''Premature''' and also fails to give sufficient options, such as "leave alone for now." After Jan. 1 we can determine how or if to rename this, perhaps to ], which is the option I would favor after Jan 1, consistent with ] on the previous major conflict. I certainly see the point of this nomination and we do want to think about renaming going forward. But right now the name is correct. Option B' is no good because there were indeed wars in 2014 etc. and it is too broad. ] (]) 15:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:{{!xt\|Option B' is no good because there were indeed wars in 2014 etc. and it is too broad.}} Read my comment. ] (]) 15:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			This change is supported by multiple references:
	*'''Oppose''' either of those options. I was opposed to the war being titled anything after Hamas from the start and I reaffirm my opposition, even after mainstream news outlets have adopted this name. I fundamentally believe that at no point of the conflict would it be accurate for the name "Hamas" to be in the title- Hamas was not the only group to participate in the October 7 invasion, and the overwhelming majority of people killed in the conflict are not Hamas. My suggestion has always been ] as it makes it clear the war is between the inhabitants of Gaza as a whole versus Israel, even if this is not the name most sources use- it is the most neutral and accurate name one can give the conflict. ] (he/him • ]) 16:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
			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
	*:I agree with your reasoning, and if I had created the article I would have called it that. My first thought was that we are bound by ] but a Google search indicates that both are in use, with Israel-Hamas war being about 20% more popular. ] ] 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Yes, I acknowledge that the name "Israel-Hamas" war is more widely used in sources. However, I believe that despite ], going with the name "Israel-Gaza" would avoid a ] violation.
	*::I argue that these names are not interchangeable or equivalent as it doesn't fully comprehend the scope of the war. Imagine if the conflict was titled "IDF-Hamas War"- of course, this would be inaccurate, as many Israelis who were not in the IDF and were mere civilians were massacred in October 7. The same applies for this situation- Hamas militants are only a fraction of the 20,000 Gazans dead, which includes thousands of very young children who obviously can not be a part of Hamas. The name "Israel-Hamas" violates neutral point of view in that it ignores the large proportion of the war with no affiliation with Hamas, even if it is what reputable news outlets use.
	*::(Getting into ''why'' most news outlets use the name "Israel-Hamas" probably goes beyond the scope of this talk page discussion.)
	*::] (he/him • ]) 06:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:I strongly concur with this reasoning. AJ uses Israel-Gaza War and all the hip kids you want using Misplaced Pages in the future key very keenly on phrasing. Right now, we're a hummus joke. Everyone knows that's just a cherry-picked bogeyman being used to perpetuate a genocide. It doesn't say NPOV, it doesn't say global perspective, it says we are old and drink kool-aid. ] (]) 09:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

	~~:Hi~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~changed~~ ~~page~~ to ~~"Israel–Hamas~~ ~~war"~~ ~~before~~ 1 ~~January 2024 ok~~ ~~Thanks~~. ] (]) 22:32, 23 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		The change is necessary for accuracy, balance, and neutral point of view. ] (]) 06:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done'''<!-- Template:RFPP#notd --> 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. ] (]) 19:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:09, 24 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel–Hamas war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 7 October 2023, from October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict to 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Not moved, WP:SNOW, 11 October 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Gaza War, see discussion.
No consensus, 15 October 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Gaza–Israel war, see discussion.
Not moved, WP:SNOW, 31 October 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Not moved, early close, no consensus, 1 November 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Hamas–Israel war, see discussion.
Not moved, moratorium on requested moves, speedy close, 26 November 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Hamas–Israel war, see discussion.
Retain "Israel–Hamas war", no consensus on year disambiguation, 23 December 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Procedural close, 10 January 2024, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Moved, 12 January 2024, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
No consensus, three month moratorium from date of close (28 February 2024), 23 January 2024, from Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Gaza war, see discussion.
No consensus, 29 May 2024, to Gaza War (2023–present), see discussion.
No consensus. Listed at WP:MR; Result was endorsed, 13 August 2024, to Israel–Gaza war, see discussion.
Not moved, 30 December 2024, to Gaza war (2023–present), see discussion.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Other talk page banners

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Israel Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Top‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Lebanon Mid‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[REDACTED]

Yemen Low‑importance

[REDACTED]	Yemen portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Stephen Harrison (2023-10-26). "Misplaced Pages Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X". Slate.
Mark Klugman (2023-10-22). "'The Sabbath Massacres': Naming Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on Israel - opinion". Jerusalem Post.
Hava Mendelle (2023-11-02). "Misplaced Pages at war". Spectator Australia.
Aaron Bandler (2024-05-23). "Seven Tactics Misplaced Pages Editors Used to Spread Anti-Israel Bias Since Oct. 7". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved May 24, 2024.
Avior Byron (2024-06-03). "Truth held hostage: Language differences in Misplaced Pages's 'Israel-Hamas War' page – opinion". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved June 3, 2024.
Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research". The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 18, 2024.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This page is currently under extended confirmed protection.
Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023 and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 24 November 2023. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Section sizes

Section size for Israel–Hamas war (37 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	21,624	21,624
Names	6,048	6,048
Background	22,783	22,783
Events	140	166,687
7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel	18,868	18,868
Initial Israeli counter-operation (October 2023)	13,730	42,948
Blockade, bombardment, and evacuation of Northern Gaza	29,218	29,218
Initial invasion and truces (October–November 2023)	12,909	12,909
Resumption of hostilities (December 2023 – May 2024)	18,883	35,589
Build-up to the Rafah offensive (February–April 2024)	16,706	16,706
Beginning of the Rafah offensive (May–July 2024)	18,702	18,702
Rafah, Khan Yunis, and general bombardment (July–September 2024)	10,848	10,848
Continued operations throughout Gaza (October 2024 – present)	14,495	25,376
Encirclement of Northern Gaza	10,881	10,881
Second truce	1,307	1,307
Other confrontations	7,450	41,122
West Bank and Israel	23,772	33,672
Attacks in Israel	2,522	2,522
Israeli prisons and detention camps	7,378	7,378
Casualties	1,373	1,373
Humanitarian crisis	12,292	12,292
Scale of destruction	9,628	9,628
War crimes	18,837	18,837
Diplomatic impact	9,980	9,980
Reactions	382	17,953
Israel	3,223	3,223
Palestinian territories	1,569	1,569
International	8,491	8,491
Evacuations of foreign nationals	4,288	4,288
Impacts	58	13,473
Regional impact	5,778	5,778
Economic impact	7,637	7,637
Media coverage	2,841	2,841
See also	402	402
Notes	138	138
References	2,387	2,387
External links	1,824	1,824
Total	349,392	349,392

A news item involving Israel–Hamas war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 October 2023.

[REDACTED]

Misplaced Pages

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Hasson, Nir; Yaniv, Kubovich (2024-11-11). "The Israeli Army Is Allowing Gangs in Gaza to Loot Aid Trucks and Extort Protection Fees From Drivers". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2024-11-19. …looting of the convoys reflects the complete anarchy that prevails in Gaza due to the lack of any functioning civilian government. … Defense officials confirmed that the IDF is aware of the problem. (the Israeli government) considered making the clans to which the armed men belong responsible for distributing aid to Gaza's residents, even though some of the clans' members are involved in terrorism, and some are even affiliated with extremist organizations like the Islamic State.
"Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel's challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Image". International Criminal Court. 21 November 2024. Retrieved 21 November 2024. The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.
Murphy, Brett (15 January 2025). "A Year of Empty Threats and a "Smokescreen" Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza". ProPublica. Retrieved 16 January 2025.

Split

Iran section removal and Middle Eastern Crisis summary are followed up at #Scope of article 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks like the events section needs another mass trim. Page has grown considerably in recent weeks. CNC (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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♦ 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

The question is what is there left to split? CNC (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

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...")
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...")
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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Moved to Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Other confrontations – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Other confrontations

Moved from Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Split – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's a mistake then. The Hebrew Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

The Gaza War is one front of a multi-front war. Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Survey

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

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)
Support VoicefulBread66 (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
Support Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
Good point, this section should remain. Maybe need to start this again with that 🙄 CNC (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
~~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)
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 Misplaced Pages). I doubt that name will reach consensus on English Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
Gaza genocide is already a separate article. JasonMacker (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Appreciated, cheers JasonMacker ! <3 SP00KYtalk 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
Support DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

Support because it's become just way too much Barnt Toust 19:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support As above, it's simply to long already as many people have already mentioned and with all the sections as well as being ongoing-news the article IMHO will always be subject to 'scope-creep' for a lack of a better term, and so i believe there will be many events and so on that simply won't have the space to be properly explained in the detail they could be. Things can still be mentioned with things like inline links, and {{main}}, {{see also}} or {{Further Information}} templates to articles which will go into more depth anyways. SP00KYtalk 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support: The recent events involving the IDF are intertwined with each other. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support The article of multiple separate that Other confrontations should be merged into Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) in this article, thank you. Andre Farfan (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Slightly oppose to oppose: Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) is bigger than this article. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 02:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
That article has since been split and cut down to under 400k. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Support: this section and the article have the exact same scope. A simple summary of each conflict should suffice under a normal main article tag. Yeoutie (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Support, keep "West Bank" section. I would say the West Bank events are more a theatre of this war, whilst the Lebanon war, Yemen blockades and the others are separate but related.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Support split Splitting the article can help with its consistency. KOLANO12 3 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Support, while keeping section on West Bank and Israel. Firecat93 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the last RM, My !vote, not that it gained any traction. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather, I think Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip should be merged into this article. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war exists but should probably renamed to something less cumbersome. Chessrat 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

#Requested move 17 January 2025 has been opened by VR with agreed sources. Kenneth Kho (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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" . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

@Vice regent: I'd prefer the binary, since it seems like both Gaza and Israel–Hamas are both considerably dominant over Israel-Gaza. 🐔 Chicdat 15:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 1 2	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)

"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)

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" or "The Israel-Hamas War") but this is also rare.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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 variants	"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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Implemented accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Much improved. Tackle paragraph three next? (Which I think will be a nightmare.) GeoffreyA (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Especially since this article is not the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@AndreJustAndre: Forgot to ping. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK on the hostage edit, but regarding this revert , 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)

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)

Yes, that would suffice, thank you. Andre🚐 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Done QuicoleJR (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think mentioning Nir Oz might be worthwhile Andre🚐 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@Makeandtoss why? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but the Reuters headline 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I can definitely get on board with that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Per above (Iskandar323—Makeandtoss), also please consider adding "mostly civilians", as there does appear to be a consensus of sources at Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Civilian_to_combatant_ratio that 75%+ are civilians.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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, and the killing of artists as a category has been subject to RS coverage.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 17 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War
Gaza War → Gaza War (disambiguation)

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)

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

Discussion

Important to note that this move request, as have previous ones, is being subject to mass campaigning . Makeandtoss (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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" 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)
@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)
@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, 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)
@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)
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)

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)

@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 12:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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."

"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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That sounds like WP:OR, as the cited source says US troops are deployed "in combat". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

"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,"

"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"

Therefore the troops aren't sent there to train and maintain, but to actively "operate" the system. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@Berchanhimez "Combatants are persons who are authorized to use force in situations of armed conflict" 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)

My very best wishes is correct that none of these US troops are fighting in the Gaza theatre. Which is why the United States could be added to "Allies in other theatres". But I think the better option here would be for this infobox to only focus on the Gaza war, and we should not have "other theatres" for either side.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Support addition to "Allies in other theatres" similar to Iran. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd also support this. DecafPotato (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

The US troops were deployed in the context of the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict, not the Israel–Hamas war. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 05:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS say the THAAD battery was sent after the 7 October attack by Hamas, tying the deployment directly to Hamas' actions.

"The US sent a Thaad battery to the Middle East after Hamas attacked southern Israel on 7 October last year." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Trim Review

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

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

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

I picked one of their edit that removed 4.5K bytes, which I see as representative of how the trim was carried out. 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. In September, an Israeli strike on a home in Nuseirat refugee camp killed 10 Palestinians. An Israeli air strike on Zeitoun school in Gaza City killed at least 21 Palestinians. 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. An Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter in Jabalia killed at least 15 Palestinians. Israeli forces bombed two houses on the Nuseirat camp, killing at least 13 people.

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

References

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20jye8v5dro
"Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff". BBC News. 13 September 2024. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
^ "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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Israeli attack on Gaza school sheltering displaced Palestinians kills 22". Al Jazeera. 21 September 2024. Retrieved 21 September 2024.
"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.
"Israel sends unidentified bodies to Gaza as Palestinian officials demand answers". NBC News. 25 September 2024. Retrieved 28 September 2024.
"Death toll from Israeli airstrike on Jabalia school surges to 15". Wafa. 26 September 2024. Retrieved 26 September 2024.
Mohamed, Edna (26 September 2024). "Israel's military confirms attack on Jabalia school". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 26 September 2024.
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.
Mccready, Alastair (1 October 2024). "Death toll rises following Israeli attack in central Gaza". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
"Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff". BBC News. 13 September 2024. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
- My very best wishes, these are stated in the second sentence of the second lead paragraph. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

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)

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

Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

Second edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

Third edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

2023 attack

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

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

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)

I think Lisa got their revert rationale wrong, but Airship got their revert rationale right, essentially the sentence as written is improper, see here . Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be reworded. Alaexis_¿question? 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think after the end of the "On 7 October 2023" sentence, a brief sentence on Hannibal directive can be created. It can't be in the same sentence with the "On 7 October 2023" sentence because we don't have the numbers. But it merits its own sentence as high ranking Israeli witnesses in ABC article said it was a "mass Hannibal". Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

As an update have expanded the Other confrontations section with summary from child article, and reduced Iran section to the notable events for MEC child summary. 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)

I also think it's done here, this is all consistent with prior consensus. On the American involvement, I treated it as part of Biden's stated "red line" diplomatic strategy. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Please leave this topic open for a bit longer for others to comment or critique. Your close of #Trim Review was arguably premature as well as unnecessary. It's best to wait a week for discussion to die down. CNC (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Deadliest day for Israel is also fairly common, but less so. 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)

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)

"characterised" is a good term here, to avoid MOS:ACCUSED or MOS:CLAIM. CNC (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

The shortest I could come up with at present, adding a little bit of context:

"After Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip and Israel imposed a blockade on it in 2007, Israel, Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups have engaged in conflict. On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 815 civilians, and taking 251 captive." GeoffreyA (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Links from live pages need to be archived

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Fourth edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

Fifth edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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. 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.. 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)

Done 4 hours 37 minutes after the edit request, UN report which substantiates both claims were added , 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)

Sixth edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

Categories:

Latest revision as of 15:09, 24 January 2025

Split

Other confrontations

Survey

Elimination of this as a standalone article

Post January cleanup

RFCBEFORE on a future move

News organizations

Scholarly sources

Scholarly sources table with variants

News sources' prose

Lede updates

Lede summarizing proposal 2

Trimming the October 7 section

Lede bit

Casualty figures

Casualties in infobox

Refaat Alareer's death

Date variety?

Requested move 17 January 2025

Discussion

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

Trim Review

Ceasefire

Edit request from WP:RFED

Second edit request from WP:RFED

Third edit request from WP:RFED

2023 attack

Hannibal directive in the lead

Scope of article

Infobox talk page

Lede

Start of second lede paragraph

Links from live pages *need to be archived*

Someone here please review pending edit requests

Fourth edit request from WP:RFED

Fifth edit request from WP:RFED

Sixth edit request from WP:RFED

Links from live pages need to be archived