This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tpbradbury(talk | contribs) at 18:20, 20 June 2024(Assessment: banner shell, Israel, Palestine, Islam, Lebanon, Terrorism, Crime and Criminal Biography, International relations, Military history, Syria, Yemen (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:20, 20 June 2024 by Tpbradbury(talk | contribs)(Assessment: banner shell, Israel, Palestine, Islam, Lebanon, Terrorism, Crime and Criminal Biography, International relations, Military history, Syria, Yemen (Rater))
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.
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.
Q: Why is the article named the way it is? Should we name it something else?
A: Please consult the list of "requested moves" listed at the top of the talk page to see the history of multiple extensive discussions that have led to the current name.
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)
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.
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.
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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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.
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, when it received 13,647,220 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report9 times. The weeks in which this happened:
It doesn't expire for another two weeks; while the moratorium discussion was closed three months ago, the closer specified that it was to go into effect upon the conclusion of the current RM. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OMG yes. This. These "war on Hamas", "war on terror", "war on drugs" framings are so absurd. That's not how wars work. We (thankfully) didn't go along with Russia's "special operation to denazify Ukraine" propaganda renaming but here Wikipedia messed up. And more people died. Jikybebna (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the current name is inadequate, the idea that Wikipedia's framing had any measurable impact on how many people died is presuming this site has more power than it actually does. RM (Be my friend) 07:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to Israel–Gaza war (2023–present) or simply Israel–Gaza war. RS is pretty split on describing it as Israel–Hamas and Israel–Gaza war, but otherwise describe it as the Gaza war for shorthand (rather than Hamas war or Israel war), which helps to sway my opinion on titling it as such. There are also other belligerents involved in this war, so Israel–Hamas war simply isn't accurate anymore. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this an acceptable alternative, but I think Israel-Gaza war is more technically correct since this is the only of the century's Gaza wars with a substantial, organized Palestinian advance into Israel. Unbandito (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at this point it's difficult to justify characterizing this as just Israel v. Hamas... not only because of the sheer amount of non-combatants being killed and civilian targets being destroyed, but also because, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of sources demonstrating that Hamas aren't even the only combatants on the Palestinian side. Actually, given the annexations, escalations, and sporadic fighting in the West Bank (such as described in [1]), it's difficult for me, personally, to even say this is just Israel v. Gaza, but that at least is far more accurate given the amount of belligerent parties than "Israel-Hamas War." If there are sources saying it's an "Israel-Palestine War" then I might support that, though given the comparatively smaller scale of what's going on in the West Bank, I would understand if others opposed. Gaza War (2023–2024) would be perfectly fine. Albert Mond (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I previously argued against the change but have changed my position especially in light of the ICC allegations. Clear at this point that the war is being waged against the people of Gaza. JDiala (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per arguments above and the usage of the word widespread. This could go in the body of the article, but is unnecessary in the lede. Jebiguess (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given that:
Since the last discussion of this, there has been reporting in reliable news media about the commission of rape on a systemic scale during the 7 October invasion;
There has been a UN report to support this;
The ICC chief prosecutor has just announced that he is seeking arrest warrants for Hamas (and Israeli) leaders, with the commission of rape and sexual violence among the charges;
Rape and sexual violence are no less significant war crimes than the others mentioned in the lead, including (relatedly) murder and abduction;
Their non-inclusion does injustice to their significance in the context of these and other war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in this war;
I propose the following amendment:
'During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage to the Gaza Strip. Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged.'
There is also a UN report that Israeli soldiers have raped Palestinian women during this war. Would you want to include that in the lead too? VR(Please ping on reply)05:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise that the format of my prompt has not followed normal RFC formatting, something I have subsequently realised. Nonetheless I believe the question warrants discussion. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to include one, then we should include them all. Alternatively we can collect up RS following the warrants announcement, see which ones they focus on and include only those. Including them all would mean including these on the Israeli side.
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
and these on the Hamas side
Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
@Selfstudier All of them should be included in the article. As it comes to murder and extermination these may be inferred by the other crimes mentioned in the lede. I believe the inclusion of sexual violence, something which isn't at all, gives further weight to the imperative for this to be included. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is a dedicated child article for war crimes to consider, normally we would only want a summary of that here and then a summary of that summary in the lede of this article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little early to jump right into another RFC although this has been discussed previously at Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 42#Lede 2, where you can see that there was already an earlier RFC about this (nocon). So need to judge whether enough things have changed since then to warrant another RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section in the article about the attack on October 7 has a link to an article about it and there and another article devoted entirely to these rapes. In the wider context of the war I don't think it has sufficient weight to be in the lead of this article which has rather a lot of other stuff in it. People who are interested in the war will find it easily enough NadVolum (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think this should be procedurally closed, the RFC is not neutrally worded (apart from having been set up wrong initially and still wrong now), if we consider the section Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 42#Lede 2, the prior no consensus RFC and the comments here thus far, it seems this is unlikely to go anywhere just at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as currently written, mainly because of the word "widespread", and without a quantifier I would be more likely to support. I do not think the prevalence of rape has been fully investigated or confirmed. We should not give too much to credence to unconfirmed reports. starship.paint (RUN)04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in any form. This is the article about the war as a whole; individual blow-by-blow aspects of the October 7 attack don't belong here (it is given mention in the lead at 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, where the weight is more appropriate.) Note that it currently only has a single, brief one-sentence mention in the body (without the "widespread" qualifier); that isn't enough to justify placing it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: "widespread" has already been proven to be false and would be misleading to characterize it this way. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of the body and this would give undue weight, given that no information is provided on the horrific conditions of Palestinian prisoners taken from Gaza, who were likely tortured to death like Adnan Al-Bursh or forced to stay still in humiliating sexual and physical conditions as was reported by CNN. Very important to note that the ICC was explicit in saying the supposed sexual violence crimes were committed against captives and not on October 7. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary in lead but should be in body. I think the tight concise lead now is good and this detail too specific to the first day to be relevant in this article lead. However, I think the mention of it should be beefed up a little in the relevant section of the body, i.e. the start of the timeline. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced about this either, it's parent lead only provides one sentence "Many cases of rape and sexual assault occurred, but Hamas officials denied the involvement of their fighters" at present, suggesting that this is all that is due as part of a summary. The 7 October attack section is already an overly detailed "summary" of the main article, it should look more like the lead of the article it attempts to summarise, as a concise summary, rather than focus on unnecessary detail – even if users argue these details are essential parts of this article, they clearly aren't, as it doesn't follow basic guidelines. The only reason it looks like it could do with more detail regarding sexual/gender based violence, is because that section isn't well summarised in the first place. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but I think (a) that sentence from the parent lead would go well in that section of this article and (b) that lead needs to expand beyond one sentence on the topic to reflect the long section in its body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a fair point. My issue is more with the lack of summary in that section. If it were more refined, then certainly more of an expanded summary for this would make sense. I shouldn't be conflating two separate issues though, so generally just fair point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in question is a child topic of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, not Israel–Hamas war. Per WP:SUMMARY it should be summarised in that article, not this one, which it is, as well as referenced in the lead. 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is otherwise summarised in this article, as well as linked in the lead, for those who want to know more. Sexual and gender-based violence is already wikilinked in the correct section summary in this article. The structure works. We can't include references to all grandchild articles in the lead, especially those that are children of single events, and not the war as a whole/overall. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support without the term widespread: I would say that this is as relevant as the amount of farmland that was destroyed. The content in the article could probably use some more numbers and another sentence (maybe two). - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AquilaFasciata I should've asked a broader question. It all could be summed up in one sentence: 'During this attack, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals including 766 civilians and 373 security personnel were killed, while 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage to the Gaza Strip and reports of rape & sexual violence by Hamas-led militants emerged.' Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint I'm pinging you as the above seems like it might gain your support. @Makeandtoss I would support a broader statement in the lede about reports of sexual violence in the war, given that Palestinians have been victims of it too. My main contention is that the element of sexual violence in the war needs acknowledgement. It could be mentioned in the context of reports/allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel and Hamas. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Willthorpe: It seems fine, though from the other comments here it seems like the body doesn't have much content on it. There could be some body content taken from Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#UN report of March 2024, that in March 2024, the United Nations reported that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang-rape, in at least three locations": the Nova music festival and its vicinities of Road 232 and kibbutz Re'im. The report also found "clear and convincing information" to show that Israeli hostages in Gaza had been subject to "sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Also, yes, this article should mention sexual violence suffered by Palestinians. starship.paint (RUN)01:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It should be in the relevant article, which is not this one. All that should be here in this top level article is summary to the effect that both sides are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity without any further details because those details are or should be in the relevant child articles, with a level of detail that is due for the particular child article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The paragraphs on Hamas' and Israel's attacks currently describe each attack's characteristics (scale of casualties, hostage-taking, aerial bombardment...). Sexual violence appears to have been a significant feature of one, but not the other. It's not critical to mention (and the wording above might not be optimal), but it's perfectly appropriate given the current lead. An alternative would be to cut down most of the above details. Ornilnas (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as before, undue weight for this article. We have an article on the October 7 attacks, it is 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. That has details of the attack in its lead. This however is a war that has spanned over 6 months, and the weight given to sources to the alleged sexual violence is significantly less than the weight given to what we do cover in the lead. nableezy - 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy There is strong weight to it now and it can hardly be called 'alleged'. It has been widely reported by reliable sources, both in the news media, and from the UN/ICC chief prosecutor ('Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity)'. (emphasis mine based on what reads to me to be correct; not the absence of a comma before 'in the context of captivity') Will Thorpe (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Associated Press: 'The United Nations and other organizations have presented credible evidence that Hamas militants committed sexual assault during their rampage... However, debunked accounts like Otmazgin’s have encouraged skepticism and fueled a highly charged debate about the scope of what occurred on Oct. 7 — one that is still playing out on social media and in college campus protests.' Will Thorpe (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged is the usual word used for things that have been accused but unproven as true. As far as weight, that is determined by sources. And the weight in sources given both to the allegations and in some causes refutations does not compare to the weight given to the topics we can and do reasonably cover in a lead. This is a a sub-topic of a sub-topic, that is the war (this article), is the parent article to the oct 7 attacks (that article) which itself is a parent to the article on sexual assaults, (that article). This doesnt have the weight in the wider context of the war itself that the other topics in the lead have. nableezy - 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may meet the threshold of lead-inclusion for the 7 October attack article but not this article. It's like including Red Army Berlin rapes in the article for World War II. Furthermore many of the allegations have been discredited by reliable sources e.g., The Intercept. JDiala (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support mentioning but in a way that makes it clear that the hostages also suffered from sexual violence (see the article for the evidence from one of them). Alaexis¿question?20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WP:UNDUE. The main characteristics have been hostage taking, mass displacement, indiscriminate killings and destruction, and the use of starvation as a war method. Reported instances of sexual violence have been far and between, with questions raised about reporting reliability. That said, we're yet to learn about the scale of sexual violence among the Palestinians in the Strip, since a collapse of law and order (here, deliberately brought about by Israel) always, invariably leads to a spike in sexual violence. Its scale will be much higher than the current Israeli accusations. So, once there's good, reliable material on the actual scale of sexual violence during the war, it may warrant inclusion also in the lead. — kashmīrīTALK14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to sustained and significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead is long, as is the article, so UNDUE does not apply. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it's well-documented in RS and was no doubt a core element in the attack that led to the war. I agree with Figureofnine and other commenters that sexual violence against hostages should be mentioned too. Gawaon (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
Weak Support without "widespread", maybe beef up the body so it has a little more weight. But seems like it meets requirement for inclusion. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Not to mention that these allegations have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, on the contrary - multiple RS have discredited them. - Ïvana (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has been reliably reported on, and contextualizes some of the other significant aspects of the war (e.g., Israel's brutal response). —Compassionate727(T·C)01:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1
Support without "widespread" This has received significant enough coverage to justify inclusion in the lead. It's a highly notable aspect of the conflict and I agree with MaximusEditor about the body as well. Removing "widespread" seems like a reasonable compromise. Nemov (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per, among other pieces, the Times piece that has now emerged further debunking the presence of serious evidence on the matter of anything 'widespread' or 'systematic', yada yada. This topic is more notable within the context of the conflict principally due to its role in atrocity propaganda than anything else. Something along those lines would be more pertinent. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Times article is here "Israel says Hamas weaponised rape. Does the evidence add up? The Israeli government insists that Hamas formally sanctioned sexual assault on October 7, 2023. But investigators say the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. Catherine Philp and Gabrielle Weiniger report on eight months of claim and counter-claim."
This investigation casts doubt on the claims and I reiterate that the details on all this should be dealt with in an appropriate child article and not in the lead here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment because the descriptor "widespread" may not be appropriate. The Times UK recently published an investigative piece titled "Israel says Hamas weaponized rape. Does the evidence add up?". The response to this investigation requires sufficient time under observation - perhaps months. Breaking Points released a monologue examining the article titled "Mass Rape Claims DISMANTLED By Times Of London" that people may find useful. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
The argument that this only happened on October 7 which has been made by many editors who !voted "Oppose" should be disregarded. We have reports about the hostages suffering from sexual violence (see the article for details). The proposed text does not say that the sexual violence was committed only on October 7. If the concern is that the reader would misunderstand it, the text should be amended. Alaexis¿question?20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s an allegation. That isn’t something that makes it so every vote you disagree with should be disregarded. The weight given to the accusations of sexual assault as part of the overall war is tiny compared to what we do cover in the lead. We have allegations of Israeli sexual assault on Palestinian prisoners taken from Gaza as well, should we add that to the lead too? nableezy - 01:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is an inappropriate level of detail for this top level article. And why focus on one particular war crime when both sides are accused of many that are more grave, relatively speaking. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disingenuous argument as the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, when discussing rape in the context of the war, refer to the events of 7 October. Subsequent rapes are far rarer. We only seem to have a single account (your linked NYT piece) of sexual assault in captivity. This account has not been verified, and even the person making the allegation failed to specify details, such as the nature of the sexual act. It is ultimately nowhere near lead worthy. There is far more evidence of Israeli sexual violence against Palestinian post-7-October e.g., this Haaretz piece.JDiala (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It warrants lede inclusion somehow, as well as sexual violence committed against Gazans, and other war crimes for which there is credible evidence and charges. Perhaps at the end of the lede. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 29 May 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. The two camps are in roughly equal numbers: support and opposition number about 25, give or take a few. The burden, then, rests on supporters to make a strong argument to tip the discussion towards consensus in favor of the move.
In this case, supporters fail to meet their burden. The proposer provided evidence on consistency. But WP:COMMONNAME is still the dominant criteria for titles and departure from it requires strong evidence/argument. The commonname quantitative evidence on the proposed new title is weak. There is definitely no consensus to remove Israel from the title currently, given its commonname frequency in reliable sources referring to this war. Even many/most wanting a move, advocate having Israel in the title e.g. "Israel–Gaza war".
There is no consensus on moving to the proposed title. An alternate suggestion of "Israel–Gaza war" or similar was suggested many times, and been tried before. It may, or may not, be a successful alternative if proposed again. For now, the title remains as is. (non-admin closure) Tom B (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War (2023–present) – The previous discussion has concluded that WP:COMMONNAME does not stand as other names are also in common use. In such case, WP:COMMONNAME states that When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. I believe the proposed title is better in consistency; previous wars involving Gaza, Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War, use Gaza War in the title, so this article should also follow suit. NasssaNser03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Those other wars took place almost entirely in Gaza, aside from rocket strikes. This war saw considerable fighting taking place within Israel; it isn't sufficiently similar for WP:CONSISTENCY to apply, and it would be an WP:NPOV violation to not include that aspect in the title. The proposed title also fails WP:PRECISE, as disambiguating with "2023" is inaccurate; the war continues to be fought in 2024.
Oppose the current title is generally accurate, and as the fighting is not contained to Gaza, it would be improper to exclude that part from the title. Considering it's both the public and legal justification for the continuation of the conflict, it should be appropriately reflected in the title, preferably by naming both main parties as it does now. Secondarily, there is also @BilledMammals argument regarding the frequency of use.
Yet events in the West Bank and Lebanon are included in all timelines. Plus there are Hamas cells that claim responsibility there. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you could tone down your sarcasm. I have had enough of being fired upon by people from both sides and your mocking response to my sincere and civil replies raises doubts as to whether you are worth working with in this encyclopedia.
Again, Hamas isn’t taking responsibility for any Israeli strikes. If you don’t get how absurd that statement is I can’t help you. Those are Israeli attacks, not Hamas ones. Sheesh. nableezy - 13:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, I opposed a change because there have been attacks linked and sometimes claimed by Hamas outside Gaza. Yet for some reason you misinterpreted my statement as saying that Hamas claimed responsibility for Israeli attacks elsewhere. Yet even when the headlines to some of these links read Hamas Fires Rockets Into Israel from Lebanon or a stabbing/ramming attack you chose to claim it as an Israeli attack. My only mistake was that I didn’t immediately realize that you were moving goalposts because I was exasperated with your tone. If you also don’t get how your absurd your line of questioning has led to then I also cannot help you. Good day. Borgenland (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the recap is my very first question to you was "Hamas is claiming responsibility for Israeli attacks on the West Bank", showing the absurdity of saying that this is only a war between Israel and Hamas when Israel is attacking non-Hamas targets in the West Bank, with drones and fighter jets. This has been utterly pointless, so I’ll take my leave from this thread now. nableezy - 13:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not really engaging with the thrust of the point. Your objection to the proposed title is that it fails to capture the hostilities outside of Gaza (in for instance southern Lebanon). But this objection would equally apply to the current title which fails to capture hostilities not involving Hamas. In particular, the current title also fails to capture hostilities in southern Lebanon (since the belligerent there is Hezbollah, not Hamas). Your comments are also a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. JDiala (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, the proposed is outdated and even less common, while in the meantime the current title seems fine. DankJae11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title badly needs to be changed. It's unbalanced and implicitly frames the war through a pro-Israel lens, it's internally inconsistent (State vs. the governing party of another territory), and inaccurate (because the war includes other Palestinian resistance factions and significant damage to civilian life and infrastructure, not to mention Hezbollah and Ansarallah). The presence of "Israel-Hamas war" in reliable sources can't be disentangled from the systemic pro-Israel bias in the Western press, especially at the beginning of the war, so this shouldn't stand as a strong justification for why that is the "right" title. The number of move requests that have apparently already taken place should serve as evidence that the "Israel-Hamas war" label is not going to be historically durable. I begrudgingly support this change because I believe 2023 Gaza war has less issues than the current title, but I prefer2023 Israel-Gaza war because it is more accurate and, in my opinion, a balanced compromise. Unbandito (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of "Israel-Hamas war" in reliable sources can't be disentangled from the systemic pro-Israel bias in the Western pressWP:RGW; even if reliable sources are collectively biased we are not here to correct that bias; we can only wait until it has been corrected in the real world and then report on that correction.
I also disagree that it is internally inconsistent; Israel and Hamas both have armies, but Gaza does not - we are merely reflecting the way that Hamas has chosen to organize itself and the territory it governs. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no military of Gaza; if I am incorrect I would be interested in reading about it - could you link the article? BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are the armed wing of the government of Gaza. Either way, it isnt the Qassam Brigades that have been bombed and starved to death, that would be the civilian residents of Gaza. nableezy - 14:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, non-neutral sources can be and often are reliable, and the bias of reliable sources doesn't absolve us of our obligation to present a neutral point of view. There's more than enough support in the reliable sources for a change to a more neutral name, even if that name hasn't been the most popular throughout the war. This isn't about righting a great wrong, it's about using the backing we have in the reliable sources, supported by the facts and arguments editors have brought up with in this discussion and others, to enforce the NPOV policy rather than using the systemic bias of Western sources as an excuse to accept and proliferate their biased framing. Unbandito (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand NPOV; NPOV means giving positions weight proportional to their treatment in reliable sources. This means that even if reliable sources are collectively biased we need to match that bias - as if we failed to do so we would be giving positions disproportionate weight. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. I see your point per WP:NOOBJECTIVITY that our aim here is to describe debates, not take part in them. However, I believe that per WP:ASSERT, applying WP:NOOBJECTIVITY policy to this naming discussion in this way amounts effectively to asserting the dominant opinion in Western media (that the war is between Israel, a legitimate state, and Hamas, an illegitimate organization that Israel has a right to eliminate from Gaza) as fact. This is the point of view that has led Western sources to opt in many cases for the Israel-Hamas war framing, and I believe we're within the scope of our duty as editors to use reason to discern that this is an instance of biased language which makes the encyclopedia worse. Moreover, WP:NPOVFAQ addresses English Wikipedia's "Anglo-American" bias directly and says that editors should address it by "removing examples of cultural bias that they encounter," so I think that in this case, we ought to make the call to use language that no reasonable person can disagree with, even if it's not the "common name". Everyone knows the war is taking place in Israel and Gaza. The scope of the war's combatants and the combatants' aims is the subject of highly contentious debate, and using language that naturalizes a particular perspective on that debate is, in my view, an obvious problem for Wikipedia's credibility. Do you not believe that the title is an instance of biased language, or do you not think that systemic bias is a problem for an encyclopedia? Unbandito (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we are merely reflecting the way that Hamas has chosen to organize itself and the territory it governs.
Hamas is the government of Gaza, and it is not the only faction fighting in or over Gaza. The PFLP and DFLP are in Gaza as well, and the belligerents outside of Gaza can still be said to be fighting "over" the Strip. The current title doesn't do a good job of capturing that at all. Unbandito (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War, the claim that this is a common name is bogus, if it were the common name you wouldnt see the Washington Post, The Guardian and so on all use Israel-Gaza war as the name of the conflict. As before, Gaza is what has been systematically bombed, Gaza's universities have been destroyed, Gaza's hospitals have been destroyed, Gaza's residents have been displaced and starved. This name is and has always been an attempt to push an Israeli POV that it is a war on Hamas. Gaza is what has had its water, electricity, and food cut off, Gaza and Gazans are what have been targeted throughout this campaign. Wikipedia is effectively pushing Israeli propaganda with this title, and it is non-neutral. Since this is a descriptive title, and not like people are falsely claiming the common name, it is required to abide by Wikipedia:NCENPOV: use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. The POV implications here are that Hamas is what is being attacked here, and that is and always has been POV-driven BS. nableezy - 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian does use Israel-Gaza war, but the Washington Post prefers Israel-Hamas war; in the past 24 hours they have published four articles (1, 2, 3, 4) using "Israel-Hamas war", compared to one using "Israel-Gaza war" (1).
The Washington Post has its entire section on the war titled "Israel-Gaza War". Literally anybody can see that. The articles you are pretending show their viewpoint are actually AP wire articles. Every. Single. One. The Washington Post itself uses Israel-Gaza War. Please dont misrepresent the sources here. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 15:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet far more articles use "Israel-Hamas war" than "Israel-Gaza war". All that matters is the term most often used by the articles that make it through their editorial process and are published, regardless of whether they came from a staff writer, a freelancer, or a wire service. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various wikis handle the obvious NPOv problem (apart from the implicit denial of what the war is: it is not only against Hamas, as we all know) in creative ways
(German) Krieg in Israel und Gaza seit 2023(War in Israel and Gaza since 2023)
(Japanese) 2023年パレスチナ・イスラエル戦争 (2023 Palestine-Israel war, since it is also being waged on the WB)
The Hebrew title is as biased as "Israel-Hamas war" since it's the official Israeli name and pretty much nobody besides Israeli Zionists call it that (I know several Hebrew-speaking Arabs in Israel and they don't use that name either). Arabic Wikipedia uses the term "2023 Israeli-Palestinian war" but this is obviously inaccurate as the war didn't end in 2023. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The war is not being waged by English speakers, and the pro-Israel bias of the Anglophone press is known to all. The title we have is not accurate, whatever shorthand lazy newspapers prefer to adopt. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that’s nonsense, AP articles don’t go through their editorial process, they go through APs, and even the internal links are to the AP site. Those articles are not the Washington Posts and any claim that they are is completely false. Why one would make something like that up is rather beyond me, but maybe you can enlighten us as to why you would make that up entirely. nableezy - 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to claim that the Washington Posts editorial policies don’t apply to articles originating at wire services, and that they instead blindly mirror them, you will need to provide a source. Nothing I have seen suggests an exception applies - absent such a source I will step back from this discussion, as we will just be repeating ourselves. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to claim that a wire service article reproduced in dozens of newspapers and websites is edited by each of those places then you provide the source. The articles you provided are all clearly AP articles, and if you were to cite them you would be citing the AP. I’m not going to engage in this sophistry any longer, it has gone past being wrong to being dishonest. nableezy - 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: We've been here before. Main consensus was to wait and see in the past. We've waited and seen, and to argue that this title has consensus as anything more than a stopgap is silly. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea what prompted you to consider the title "2023 Gaza War" when the year is 2024 and the war is still ongoing. This just makes the discussion confusing as now many editors on your side have to clarify that they want a different wording making it clear that the war is still ongoing in 2024. JDiala (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually Levivich's proposal in the last discussion. Quoting their rationale:
There is a secondary, but also very important, aspect of the title, and that's framing. The title, if it's in "X-Y" format, tells the reader who is fighting whom: X v. Y. If we call it "Israel-Hamas," we frame the war as a fight between Israel and Hamas. If we call it "Israel-Gaza," we frame the war as a fight between Israel and Gaza. And to dispense with pleasantries: if it's Israel v. Hamas, it's Israel v. terrorists. If it's Israel v. Gaza, it's Israel v. civilians. It's very understandable that a lot of people would strongly object to one or the other (or both) of those framings. That's why there's so much controversy over whether we call it "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza." I am sensitive to that, and also aware that the sources are rather split on this issue (like the rest of the world), so I am unable to make up my mind between which of those two framings Wikipedia should adopt. My preference is not to use either framing, at all, because neither is neutral and neither is totally accurate.
Instead of going with "X-Y" to name the parties, I would use the neutral alternative of naming the location: Gaza. Yes, it's true that not the entire war is in Gaza, but the overwhelming majority of it is in Gaza, and Gaza is the indisputable center of the conflict. Besides, insofar as "Gaza" is an incorrect location (because it's incomplete), it's less incorrect than the way in which "Israel-Hamas" and "Israel-Gaza" are incorrect descriptions of the parties to the conflict (because it's more incomplete, and because the framing is far less neutral).
So I'm not voting on "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza." I'm voting support for "2023 Gaza war" (and I would rename all the other articles "[Date] Gaza war" for the same reasons). It's recognizable, it's concise, it's precise enough, it's natural, and it's consistent (or it could be). It avoids the problems of framing, it instantly tells the reader that this is the conflict that's going on right now in Gaza. Everyone knows what the 2023 Gaza war is. (And I don't think people will think it's over unless we call it the "2023-2024 Gaza war," but even that title would be better than either Israel-Gaza or Israel-Hamas.)
That's a strong argument which I hadn't considered before. Changing my position to a strong support for Gaza war, with support for Israel-Gaza war as a second choice. Unbandito (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War per Nishidani and Nableezy. I also note that per WP:COMMONNAME, "when there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" and the title "Israel-Hamas war" is problematic as it implies the war is not a war against the people of Gaza, and gives credence to the narrative that Israel is only fighting Hamas and not the people of Gaza. There is ample evidence at this point that this is questionable at best (the most recent of which being the massacre in Rafah). JDiala (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BilledMammal, in particular since the first battles of the war were in Israel rather than Gaza. Also while there isn't one canonical name for the war, "Gaza War" seems particularly uncommon. — xDanielxT/C\R19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable. My understanding is "Israel-Hamas war" seems somewhat more common, but open to being corrected there.
It should probably be a separate RM though? We know it will be controversial, based on the previous RMs for that title, and interpreting consensus for names besides the original RM proposal seems particularly hard. — xDanielxT/C\R20:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mainly devoted to the events in Gaza. Related skirmishes in for example Lebanon are relevant but not the principal focus (and they have their own dedicated articles). JDiala (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The events in Gaza are linked with the events in Israel to such an extent that it would be a strained effort to present them in separate articles. Heptor (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support an alternative, 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War. As a previous supporter of the current title, I think the tide in sources has clearly shifted. The proposed "2023 Gaza War" is bad for multiple reasons as pointed out above by others. Yeoutie (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Plus:
From the new name it is not clear who is fighting with whom (Fatah and Hamas fought there as well, etc.)
This name may be confused with the theater of war in Gaza City or Gaza strip
Not the most popular name, but a thousand times less popular than another
The war is not in Gaza City, but in the Gaza Strip, Israel and the North Bank so new name would mislead even if the most of the article is about Gaza strip.
Oppose, keep "Israel–Hamas war" — The clear WP:COMMONNAME (NYT, Reuters, WaPo, The Independent, Haaretz, and more) for the war, while also being the name that doesn't require any disambiguation, making it (in my opinion) the WP:NATURAL disambiguation of the article title, with Hamas as the primary belligerent (aside from Israel) differentiating this war from the others in the Gaza Strip. DecafPotato (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to provide some follow-ups on my opinion based on what I've seen in some other comments, but to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion I'll put them all here.
1. Gaza is not a country — obviously the nature of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict makes classifications like these difficult, but I don't agree with the premise that "we typically describe wars using the name of the countries, not the combatants" applies here. Palestine is a country, yes, but Gaza is not.
2. Israel's target not being Hamas is simply an allegation — it seems false to me to proclaim that Israel's prosecution of the war has been targeted not at Hamas or other militants but at the civilian population of Gaza. This is something that can be argued but this is not something that can be simply asserted without evidence, especially when all public Israeli officials, as well as other countries like the U.S., have stated that the goal of the Israeli operation in Gaza is to remove Hamas from power.
3. The existence of other belligerents does not discredit "Israel–Hamas" — in most wars titled in an "X–Y" format, there are not just two belligerents. The war is titled for its primary belligerents, and Hamas is both objectively and considered in reliable sources and common nomenclature the primary belligerent on the Palestinian side.
Support with lower case 'war' as my preference. Reporting has been shifting towards referring to this event as simply 'Gaza war'. i.e at CNA (Apr 4 2024, 29 May, 30 May, BBC 29 May. Alternatively Israel-Gaza war is my second choice as of now based on how media is classifying the event: WaPo, SCMP, etc. – robertsky (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems a no-brainer – it aligns with WP:COMMONNAME, with Wikipedia naming tradition (for conflicts between two countries, we simply name these countries), and in view of the many other strong arguments repeatedly brought up (incl. that the actual Israeli target has not been Hamas). — kashmīrīTALK10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is no longer 2023; and the current name is better. Perhaps there is a better alternative, but the proposal is not the way to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The title needs to change to square with the facts: that Israel is waging a war on Gaza, and that Gaza and its people have suffered destruction, death, etc., etc. Israel may be fighting Hamas, but that is one part of the whole. To call this an Israel-Hamas war is to frame the title from an Israeli point of view and narrative, or mix the whole with the part. Language has a remarkable effect on people's thoughts on a subject. Call it something, and one begins to think those are the facts. Better titles would be (date) Israel-Gaza war (or date) or, to a lesser extent, (date) Gaza War (or date). GeoffreyA (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no war named “Israel-Gaza” war so if it were to be mentioned then a date is no need. If it were to be named “Gaza war” then (date) should be mentioned as 2 wars have been waged on Gaza in the past 15 years The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing has changed in the past 3 months. The war is still between Israel and Hamas per above sources per DecafPotato and others. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am specifically against the suggested name. I do not see a large need of name change but I would be open to Israel-Gaza War but I don't like how it is a political state against geographic area. Another solution I would tolerate (and prefer to Israel-Gaza War) is 2023-2024 Israeli invasion in Gaza. ✶Quxyz✶17:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 2023–2024 Gaza war per Nishidani, Nableezy, JDiala and various other reasons from my prior vote.
WP:COMMONNAME — Despite being less popular than the current "Israel-Hamas war", it shouldn't matter unwaveringly. Common, but not misleading. Otherwise, no, I do not think this is the most common name for the war. Still, the rule has its exceptions.
WP:CONSISTENT — Could align with 2008–2009 Gaza War.
WP:NPOV — People use this both for and against the requested title. Some may argue that the current title is biased against Israel, not accounting for Gaza as a belligerent. I argue that the current title is, however, biased against those in Gaza. I believe that, while Israel has claimed this a war against Hamas, the conflict has caused widespread destruction to Gazan society, resulting in extreme impact -- namely, displacement. The bombings have targeted not only residential areas but also essential facilities. Also, note that it doesn't matter if the people is involuntarily participating. Albeit devastating, war isn't always an agreement.
WP:NCWWW — Refer to the previous note first. Now, consider the WWW naming convention. It's quite appropriate to frame such a war of this size in terms of geographical effect rather than focusing on individual characters. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support either a Gaza War or an Israel-Gaza war, it is quite inconceivable that anyone can see the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and destruction of their property, universities, mosques, hospitals and the general leveling of Gaza as anything but an attack on Gaza and its people, essentially a more intense form of prior attacks on the Strip, where the opponent was also Hamas. This is not a war against Hamas and it is also not a war that began on October 7. We should describe the situation consistently and accurately rather than in accordance with an Israeli POV, a state accused of genocide and the officials of which government will shortly be subject of ICC arrest warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may address the moral aspect of your vote justification. Do you think that Israel could have achieved its stated security goals with much less collateral damage, but they are purposely not doing so because they have ulterior and nefarious motives? Heptor (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are far too many stated goals issued by numerous executive authorities in Israel for anyone to grasp what Israel's actual goals are. Whatever editors' private views might be, the reasons for a vote must emerge from assessments of the quality of arguments based on what is known, and, in this case, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the terms in a title to the realities of the war, which are those, in good part, cited by Selfstudier. Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should also change. It shouldn't talk about this as a conflict between Israel and Hamas, but as a significant escalation of the already ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict triggered by the October 7 attacks, which was followed by the Israeli invasion of Gaza, itself triggering further escalations between Israel and the wider region. Sr. Knowthing¿señor?02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the above because the title more accurately captures the scope of the conflict while more appropriately referring to both sides as appropriate entities and contains a date that serves to disambiguate from other past conflicts. EvilxFish (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The current title has a more NPOV; current title seems to remain as the COMMONNAME. This war also differs from previous Gaza-related wars, in that part of this war was the killing of 1,200 Israeli citizens within Israel (Green line), which had nothing to do with Gaza. Josethewikier (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were several hamas ground incursions into Israel proper during the 2014 war, that did not affect the overall name. If need to be acknowledged, then Israel-Gaza war should be the name The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in order of preference: Gaza war, 2023 Gaza war, 2023–2024 Gaza war, 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza war, or any variation on that theme, per my comments quoted above. Levivich (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move but Oppose "2023 Gaza War" I was very strongly against the title "Israel-Hamas War" and I wrote extensively on why it is both inaccurate and in violation of NPOV, but the new title is factually inaccurate. The war did not end and is not contained to 2023- in fact, most of it has happened in 2024. Will support any move to Gaza War (2023–present) or the like. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:45, 1 June 2024)
Changing my vote to Support. My concerns over the factual inaccuracy in just having "2023" has been addressed and I believe "Gaza War" is the best and most accurate way to describe the ongoing conflict, as well as addressing the NPOV issue where Hamas fighters represent less than 10% of the dead on the Palestinian side. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This term is far more accurate than the current "Israel-Hamas war" title. Even if we limit our focus to Gaza alone and ignore the other actors and theaters of this conflict (Hezbollah in northern Israel, the Houthis attacking Red Sea shipping, etc), it's clear that limiting the other side of the war to just Hamas when there are numerous other militias fighting in Gaza as well is extremely inaccurate. While the "Gaza War" title still does not include the Hezbollah and the northern Israel theater or the Houthi activities, it remains far more accurate and encompassing than the narrow "Israel-Hamas war" title, along with the fact that many prominent news agencies[15][16][17] have switched their dedicated sections to "Israel-Gaza War" and other Gaza-related terms instead of "Israel-Hamas war". RealKnockout (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment A few of the oppose votes & comments centered around the fact that the original move request inaccurately included "2023" as the year despite the fact that the conflict lasted through 2024. In light of this move request being edited to correct that, such comments should be re-evaluated. RealKnockout (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per WP:POVNAME, the current title definitely seem[s] unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later. In fact, both the Washington Post and the Guardian have first used Isreal-Hamas war (which can still be seen in the URLs (1 and 2) as a heading for their news section on the war and then changed it (after a very understandable outcry) to Israel-Gaza war. This proves that the quoted policy is already becoming applicable. Now the objection that other theaters are involved is irrelevant. The Gulf War didn't actually take place in the gulf or only between countries on the gulf either, did it? As much as descriptive titles are more encyclopedic, the use of figurative language is still pragmatically inevitable. Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Adding a disambiguating parentheses is unnecessary if there is already an option which does not need parentheses. ―Howard • 🌽3317:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The current title is bad, but "Gaza war" is worse. Israeli agency and the West Bank both already get ignored too much. MWQs (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above user was stating that the Gaza War" proposed title was inaccurate because the war has not been restricted to within Gaza, what I said was that since Hamas is not the only entity fighting Israel, the current title is even more inaccurate. RealKnockout (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it started in Israel and continued in Gaza. Attacks from other countries and groups are in solidarity with Palestinians and/or Hamas, and I wouldn't say they're part of the war. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably it started in Huwara and Jerusalem then escalated in the Negev. But even if we ignore everything before 7 October there's war in the West Bank now, which would be big news if not for a bizarrely intense war in Gaza. The groups in the West Bank are all the same groups as Gaza (except lions den and Israeli settlers). MWQs (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Gaza is the main theater of the war, and media outlets have been moving away from "Israel-Hamas war" to avoid the name's inherent bias (and inaccuracy). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGaza War (2023–present), and Israel-Gaza War would also be acceptable since sources such as [18], and [19] use it. In addition, the reference cited in the very first sentence of this article notes that three other organizations are operating as belligerents on the Palestinian side, including two secular political organizations whose only commonality with Hamas (an Islamist organization) is their shared opposition to Israel in this conflict. It's plainly misleading to use the "Israel-Hamas war" name for the same reason that it would be misleading to call the Iraq War the "Iraq-GOP war," or even the "US-Ba'ath war"; even if such terms had been popular, there would still be a good editorial reason to give preference to "Iraq War" provided that "Iraq War" was in use. For the sake of accuracy alone, there is editorial reason to give preference to "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza war," names which have common usage and aren't contradicted by the contents of this wiki article. We have more than one term in common use, we should choose to use a term which accurately reflects the conflict. "Israel-Palestine war (2023)" or a similar name would also be acceptable given the raids in the West Bank, and if that term is in common use then I would support it. Albert Mond (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (for "Gaza War (2023–present)" or "Israel–Gaza War"): I see the main arguments against the title change are based on the fact that some fighting took place in areas not in Gaza. However, Israel is clearly not only waging war against Hamas, but against civilians residing and/or taking refuge in various areas of Gaza. This alone renders the title "Israel–Hamas War" inaccurate. In addition, the terms "Israel" and "Hamas" do not fall under the same category: "Israel" is a country/nation/region, while "Hamas" is a militant group (or simply an organization that engages in warfare); and a militant group fighting against a region makes no sense. Rather, it would be more suitable to place "Israel" and "Gaza", which is also a region, in the title to represent a war; if anyone insists on "Hamas" being in the title, then it should be dubbed the "IDF–Hamas War" due to IDF being an organization of a similar nature. Chong Yi Lam (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing to "Gaza War (2023–present)" FYI: as of today a Google search returns “Israel Hamas war 2023” – 45,700 hits, and “Gaza War 2023” – 76,700 hits. However, there are many other issues, including: the lede says “An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups has been taking place chiefly in the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023.” I would consider that the adversaries are the Israeli IDF and Hamas militant groups. While Gaza is the location of the conflict. And we have an article addressing that: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) So, rather than trying to identify the conflict based on where it is (Gulf War) or who the adversaries are (Sino-Japanese War) or some other criteria (World War II), I think we need to identify conflicts by the most commonly used term, which hopefully will coincide with the largest number of secondary sources. and which are bound to change over time. • Bobsd • (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MWQs, I agree with you from a polity standpoint ... it is a mess. Which is why I am saying that we should call it "whatever" most secondary sources call it. Or come up with a rubric for naming geopolitical conflict articles, and stick with it. Unfortunately, that would take some type of top-down authority in WP, whose culture does not seem to be willing to consider. • Bobsd • (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza War per Nishidani, Nableezy, JDiala, Urro and others. The current title is inaccurate, imprecise, misrepresentative and fails to abide by WP:NCE, specifically WP:NCWWW, or maintain consistency with the various other Gaza wars that this parallels. The current title is weak descriptively as a "war" title due to its contrasting of a country/state actor with a political group/non-state actor. This is in keeping with the sort of POV that presents the event as an extension of the "war on terror", and this conflict as something precise or limited (grossly misleading at this point) against a terror group (which is POV), but it is inconsistent with what the event actually is, which is a major conflict or war – events that are usually defined by geography – against the entire civil administration, civilian infrastructure and civilian population of Gaza through a combination of direct warfare and collective punishment, including through starvation as a weapon of war. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is the correct place to reply, but sources (I believe RS too) have also started referring to as such. For example: the guardian
Move to 2023-2024 Israel–Gaza war. It seems that reliable sources more often describing this as a war between Israel and Gaza than between Israel and Hamas at this point in time, so WP:COMMONNAME would favour this move. It should be a descriptive title though, no capital War, and definitely worth including the year as there have been countless different confrontations between forces from Israel and forces in Gaza over the years. — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIsrael–Gaza war or 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza war. I don't really care if we include the date or not; this war is probably more historically significant than the previous Gaza wars due to its much higher death toll, so it will likely be the primary topic for the term "Israel–Gaza war" even in the future.
Regardless, the current title needs to go, as it implies that Israel is "just defending itself against Khamas terrorists", which we all know isn't true. Wikipedia shouldn't tell blatant lies. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 06:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support the new proposed title. It's most descriptive to the reality of the current war, so far there is no proof that the war has exclusively targeted Hamas only as most of the destruction and casualties are not Hamas exclusively. Palestine48 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the policy-based reasons I gave here in the previous discussion. I hope the closer won't mind if I don't copy/paste my arguments here. DFlhb (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIsrael–Gaza war or 2023–2024 Israel–Gaza war. Like others have said, this title makes it seem as though all of Gaza is fighting under Hamas when many factions are fighting for other parties. This also overlooks the death of the 30,000+ Gazan civilians as simply being Hamas civilians rather than Gazans. This war has taken place in both Israel and Gaza and is between both entities as a whole. RamHez (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and honestly time for a moratorium on name changes. There are a lot of arguments above I'd reiterate, but I'll say that 1) it doesn't appear to be the common name, 2) the war is not restricted to Gaza, and so it is inaccurate, 3) I see now issue with the current title, which has consensus and is more accurate. — Czello(music)11:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reverse order: A lack of consensus previously to move from this name is in no way equivalent to a consensus for this name. The war is not restricted to Hamas and Israel, so there is no argument that this name is more accurate than one with Israel-Gaza. This is not the common name either, all of these are descriptive titles. However, this as a name in sources is at least as common, if not more, than Israel-Hamas war. And finally, imposing a moratorium in the absence of consensus for this name is an attempt to maintain a title by inertia rather than consensus. nableezy - 14:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order: a consensus for this title was found here. The war is primarily between Israel and Hamas. This is the common name, to the extent that many of the sources editors have referenced as preferring a different title actually prefer "Israel-Hamas war". And finally, moratoriums are imposed to avoid wasting editor time on discussions unlikely to be productive, and to prevent proposals being repeatedly made until they finally achieve consensus by virtue of having worn down the opposition. If proposed, I would support one here. BilledMammal (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney, commonnames are bolded in the lead, this is a descriptive title, nothing more, and a pretty irrelevant one at that, inconsistent with past practice and completely unreflective of actual facts. We had one moratorium, don't need another one, everyone has had plenty time to think it over. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus was supposedly found for this as a base title after you asked the admin to change their close, and based on the fact that most of the options had this as a base title. Please don’t misrepresent the past move requests. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you felt the close was incorrect you should have taken it to WP:MRV. In the absense of that close being overturned, it's false to claim that there was not a consensus for this title. BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t do that either, now did you. You just lobbied the admin to endorse your preference. An admin that I’ll note has voted for this change. Shrug. nableezy - 01:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
False Balance re: genocide
The following quote in the article Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of attempted or imminent genocide, and several other war crimes implies a false equivalence. The genocide accusation against Israel is far more notable and involves ongoing legal proceedings. The accusation against Hamas is comparatively minor and there is no legal proceeding alleging Hamas is engaged in a genocide. I propose it be changed. JDiala (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters in that it refutes your point. There can be no ICJ case against a non-state actor like Hamas, so the absence of such a case says nothing about the strength of the genocide accusation against Hamas.
Certainly the genocide accusation against Israel gets much more coverage, but I think that stems from one accusation being actionable (with legal actions which are having real impact) and the other not. — xDanielxT/C\R00:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one accusation gets much more coverage in reliable sources, it's WP:OR and a violation of WP:NPOV to say that that's for unrelated reasons and position the accusations as parallel. Loki (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is about content we publish though, not about editorial judgement calls related to the application of policies, which we sometimes have to make e.g. in the context of WP:FRINGE. — xDanielxT/C\R02:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't refute the point. Wikipedia includes views depending on their notability. The underlying reasons for that notability don't matter. You're tacitly trying to appeal to some notion of fairness based on your personal opinion, namely that Wikipedia should be fair in its treatment of allegations of state actors versus non-state actors unlike the ICJ. This is not this project. JDiala (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was mainly just that "ongoing legal proceedings" shouldn't be a factor here, since that's a matter of ICJ jurisdiction.
WP:Notability doesn't apply to content, there isn't a rule against including non-notable content in an article. WP:PROPORTION is related and does apply to content, but allegations of genocide on Hamas' part are only briefly mentioned in passing, so it doesn't seem like they're given too much weight. — xDanielxT/C\R02:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on a misconception that only the ICJ can declare an act to be a genocide. That's incorrect – other bodies can do it, too, and anyway see Tamil genocide and the related deletion discussion. Primarily, the issue is about accusations, not about a court case, and about FALSEBALANCE present in that sentence. — kashmīrīTALK07:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your point, the original argument here seemed to be about ICJ case. If there are separate declarations of genocide which have received significant coverage, that could be relevant, though it would be a separate point. — xDanielxT/C\R19:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas' genocide allegations are small. Israel and John Kirby (U.S. official policy is that it wasn't genocide) say Hamas had genocidal intent, and that's not fully saying it was genocide. Some academics say it was, I guess. But most sources don't really discuss the issue, and the ICJ case got way more attention. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's pretty classic false balance. It's also just pandering to a POV. Only Israel and its political supporters have seriously made this counter claim, which is clearly a DARVO tactic aimed at diluting the charges through false equivalence. It is not a claim repeated by human rights bodies or genocide experts. It fails the basic smell test entirely. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes, including genocide.
I didn't add this to the article but I understood it to mean that both have been accused of war crimes, not that both have been accused of genocide. Ben Azura (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque
The article currently states that Hamas said that its attack was motivated, in part, by threats to the Al-Aqsa mosque. Was there any substantial threat against the Al-Aqsa mosque, or did Hamas make it up? Heptor (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Aqsa is a long standing flashpoint issue, it was a major cause of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, for example. This is well known, I am surprised that you would ask the question, unless it is that you are not really familiar with the conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks user:NadVolum. There is a statement in the lede, "Hamas said its attack [..] was in response to [,among other things,] threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque". The way I read it, it suggests that there were legitimate and perhaps immediate threats to the mosque. It doesn't appear to be the case, and therefore the statement about threats to the mosque in Wikipedia's voice should be made with due reservations. It's hard to be sure of a negative, which is why I asked the question here before editing; I hope this answers your concern, user:Selfstudier. Heptor (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The perceived "threat" is the "risk" of Jews being given equal rights to Muslims to pray at the site (which is holy to both religions)– Hamas believes that only Muslims, and not people of any other religion, should be allowed to pray there. This should probably be made clear. Chessrat(talk, contributions)09:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat: so "[perceived] threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque" would be more precisely described as "concerns that Jews and Israelis would be allowed to perform religious ceremonies at the Al-Aqsa Mosque"? Heptor (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is decidedly a POV construction. The status quo states that Jews are not to pray there, and this has been accepted by the Israeli government since 1967 and has halakhic endorsement- The 'equality' argument was invented quite recently.
It has nothing to do with equality, but a tenuous status quo, which in the past has been challenged constantly in order to create 'facts on the ground' that have always lead to a complete loss of Muslim rights (as at the Western Wall). By analogy, the whole concept of Israel is based on dispensing with 'equality', since it has ethnocratic distinctions inscribed in its foundational document. The church of St.Philip the Apostle in Ortygia is built over an ancient Jewish synagogue. Were someone to say that, given this archaeology and historic association, the Catholics worshipping there should be restricted to a certain age group, that Jews be allowed special praying times inside, that indeed it should be policed by Jews if the inhabitants object, and that diasporic Jews have a right to rebuilt the synagogue in part of the church, they would not be asserting 'equality' in the modern sense, but using 'equality' to claim property rights. Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you a different question. Nishidani. If full souvereignity of the Al Aqusa Mosque was given to the PA (or to Joran or Egypt for that matter), so that there would be no risk of further Jewish encroachment; would you then consider it reasonable that Jews should be allowed to perform religious ceremonies there alongside with the Moslems? Heptor (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one can stop anyone of any confession visiting a religious site and silently praying in a place traditionally integral to another society's identity and owned by their culture (this is a waqf) . Politically, I don't think it would be sensible to allow Muslims to pray openly (ritually) in the Vatican, nor Christians to pray aloud in Hagia Sophia or Jews to slaughter lambs or recite the Amidah at Al-Aqsa. This was thoroughly understood by the Israeli leadership in 1967, when a rabbi proposed blowing up the whole of Al-Aqsa. It would depend also on the wording. (This is a fundamental issue. Even a misplaced comma (Patrick Wintour,How a single comma is allowing Israel to question ICJ Rafah rulingThe Guardian 29 May 2024) can have consequences not foreseen by (at least Palestinian) drafters, as the incompetent underwriters of the Oslo Accords quickly discovered) if Israel were to allow Moslems to pray at the Ḥā'iṭ al-Burāq, which formed part of the Western Wall one would gain some confidence that the kind of accord you suggest might be a rational and functional step forward. Every right puts limits on someone else's power, and every universal right assumes reciprocity. If one claims a right, then that is validated by acknowledging an identical right to all other parties. Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"would you then consider it reasonable that Jews should be allowed to perform religious ceremonies there alongside with the Moslems?" Please refrain from making these kind of unrelated questions as this discussion is not a WP:FORUM. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It currently IS officially managed by n Jordan? but that doesn't seem to be happening. Is 67 when Jordan took over management from Palestine? No, that doesn't work, because until 67 the West Bank was occupied by Jordan. If there isn't a Wikipedia article with a timeline info graphic of this, then there should be. MWQs (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's attributed now so hopefully the reader will not believe that this is the case just because Hamas said it. Probably it'd be a good idea to do a review of sources and clarify, here or in some other article, that Al-Aqsa has never been in any material danger. The organisations that want to build a third temple there are a fringe of a fringe (see Third_Temple#Modern_rebuilding_efforts). Alaexis¿question?10:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Aqsa has often been endangered, something signalled when postcards circulated showing the figure of Theodor Herzl looming in the glorious sky over it in the 1920s. It has been the object of several suggestions, and even an attempt or two, to blow it up. The brainless repetition of core words like 'libel' and 'lie' in the trash article you cite fly in the face of a very long and intricate story that is fairly well documented in several wiki articles. Jews are justly proud of their historic memory, and the Muslim experience of how often Al-Aqsa has been exposed to expropriative or usurpating claims and acts is powerful and acutely felt, and should be respected, regardless of what entities like Hamas do with it.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani I heard about a very recent bombing? But I couldn't find anything because all the search terms I could think of are swamped by other stories. MWQs (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Someone might have already convered this, I've not read the whole thread yet) Religious extremists in Israel (and overseas) want to demonised Al Aqsa to build the third temple on the temple mount, and they've imported five red heifers to prove it. They plan to sacrifice these cows, and then burn them to ash and use it in a ritual to "purify" themselves to.… I am not sure why? I think their ultimate goal is to accelerate the end times. They a bit fringe, but they're being taken increasingly seriously, and they've got as far as importing the special red cows. Also, in 2022 and 2023 Itamar Ben-Gvir et al. led increasingly frequent and aggressive marches into the al Aqsa compound, which included hundreds of settlers. There's a bit of it covered in Far-right politics in Israel. Based on the way Ben Gvir et al. were acting - active and seemingly delicate provocation - a lot of people were expecting an explosive violent response for about a year before one happened. Look at the coverage in Haaretz or Times of Israel from late 2022 and early 2023. I think the temple cult - I'm not shut what they call themselves? - were even at Al-Aqsa on about 4 October. MWQs (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation vs liberating
I think the previous version that mentions the Israeli occupation as one of Hamas' motivations is better than the current version of that Hamas aimed to liberate Palestinian lands, as the former version is the more used phrasing by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Netanyahu had any sense he would have toned down immediately when he saw that Egypt wouldn't fall for having the people of Gaza driven there as refugees. But you'll need some citations for saying anything like that Hamas was winning. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has not achieved any of its objectives of destroying Hamas or rescuing the hostages
Hamas continues to use its network of tunnels to ambush israeli soldiers and they continue to fire rockets at Israel
The brunt of Israeli response had hit Gazas civilians, not Hamas; Hamas is also able to seize what it needs of food supplies from the aid intended for the civilians
Israel is subject to a massive international pressure due to the suffering of the civilians
The Israeli-Saudi agreement to normalise relations has been derailed, at least for now
Hamas remains a deadly threat to the communities in the south of Israel
Thanks for sharing the article, NadVolum. I did find it interesting and it may well be that Netanyahu is underestimating the practicability of reaching an agreement with Hamas. My post was about the political results of the war so far, which I believe should be mentioned in the article. At the risk of running afoul of WP:NOTFORUM however, I can mention that a major motivation for expanding the settlements is aquiring strategic depth. It's not as good as not being attacked. Heptor (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strategic depth and security concerns are just excuses for land grabbing, which remains illegal regardless of the reasons for grabbing it. And the transfer of settlers is a war crime on top of that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lede structure
@Heptor: I think the previous structure was better, as now the paragraphs are uneven. Also "alleged" is redundant as the sentence already starts with "Hamas said". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: the previos paragraph organization was a mess. Now we have a structure:
the first paragraph gives a brief introduction to the conflict and its historical context
the second paragraph is about the initial Hamas-led attack on Oct 7 [ed: and the reasons why Hamas went to war]
the third paragraph is about the Israeli incursion into Gaza
the fourth paragraph is about the international response
The third paragraph is currently rather too detailed for the lede. For example, the statement "Israel's ground invasion initially focused on northern Gaza, which it had reoccupied by January 2024. After a seven-day truce involving exchange of captives, Israel moved south to attack Khan Yunis on 3 December." could well be left for the article proper.
This restructuring has changed the proportions of the lede since it gives one day on 7 October an entire paragraph while it crams up >200 days of war in Gaza into one unreadable paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the introduced lack of balance is a POV eyesore. The analogy doesn't work. An event, the massacres of Oct.7, is not the only 'cause', but the cause for Israel's response, as opposed to the numerous 'causes' attributable per RS as to why Hamas went to war (the failure of the Great March of Return being one, where 221 (not 223 since 2 constituted threats) demonstrating Palestinians were shot dead by snipers shooting on orders behind berms from a safe distance, over almost 1 and a half years every Friday). Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons why Hamas went to war should be stated more clearly. I dare say it is not a problem with the new structure, but rather a problem the new structure is exposing. Instead of “Hamas said..”, there should be a thorough presentation of what RS are writing on the topic. Heptor (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial Hamas attack is an integral part of the Israel-Hamas war. There is a proposal to change the title of this article to “2023 Gaza War”, which perhaps would imply a change the scope of the article. Heptor (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much oppostion either, perhaps in part because the previous structure was a mess. Maybe you could formulate the structure you prefer for the lede, and we can put it to a poll? Heptor (talk)
I think that the older reading where "After clearing militants from its territory, Israel tightened its blockade and launched [...]" should be restored, linking to the 2023 blockade article. That was part of what happened chronologically.
To trim the third paragraph, the point about scholasticide can probably be removed; the destruction of schools and universities is already mentioned. I feel that using these new -cide terms weakens older words like genocide, etc. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoffreyA: This is a different point. But for the ongoing discussion, do you support restoring the previous structure, which "After clearing militants" is at the end of the second paragraph, which is concerned with how the war started? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading and comparing the two versions. The older version, with clearing the militants at the end of the second paragraph, reads more cohesively, being part of the same action, and then the third paragraph flows neatly to the conclusion, so to speak, the situation in Gaza. The newer version, while it is logical---Oct. 7 attack in one paragraph and Gaza in another---there is a break between the paragraphs, jarring on the reader. In my opinion, the older version is more cohesive and I support its being restored. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the break between the paragraphs, thanks for noticing. I tried to fix it, so that maybe we get the best aspects from both options. What do you think? Also, to me it seems like chronography of the events is becoming less important with time, so the fact that the bombing campaign started slightly before the ground invation may no longer be worth mentioning in the lede. Heptor (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I looked at some of the edits, and it was getting confusing which was better or worse. The current text is economical for the most part. Regarding the chronology, I think it's critical to keep the order intact, though certain events are weightier. Of course, length should be in direct proportion to importance. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoffreyA: thanks, I am still trying to improve it. I would also prefer to keep the chronology, it's just that I find it difficult to separate the events and their order. Specifically, the bombing campaign began before the Hamas-led militants were fully cleared from the Israeli territory, but it did not become one of the most destructive in the modern history until after the invasion. There is a mixup in both versions. I don't have a good solution to this, and I am concerned that it could lead to stiff and convoluted writing. Heptor (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps part of the solution is to remove "After clearing militants from its territory" if it's not that important? That way, the problem about when the bombing began is eliminated. Or changing "After" to "While" or "Whilst." GeoffreyA (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me this ordering comes across as the lead, in the sense that tightening a blockade seems relatively much less consequential than launching one of the most destructive bombing campaigns in modern history. Of course I agree that this ordering is chronologically correct, do you think it's more important than emphasizing the more central piece of the story? I fully agree with regards to trimming "scholasticide". Heptor (talk)
Fair enough. Let's leave aside the tightening of the blockade for the time being. But I do note that while the bombing and destruction were the main parts of the war, the blockade was notable, leading to the ongoing problem in the Strip, essentials running out, etc. Of course, that is mentioned lower down. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are on the same page then. The blockade is definitely important enough to be mentioned in the lede, but not repetetively. Heptor (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: we are discussing the structure in the comments above. Hopefully we can make something that both has a logical structure and a natural flow, while also presenting the chronology of the events. This is not a straight-forward piece to write. Heptor (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above where? As mentioned by @GeoffreyA:, we should not be giving undue weight to minor events, which your paragraph restructuring did by moving the start of the invasion to the third paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a viral photograph of a beheaded child from the Rafah massacre a week ago. I think it's worth inclusion. I think it's a double standard that in terms of media of visibly deceased bodies, we only have the video of the aftermath of the Hamas operation at the Re'im festival, and nothing for the 15,000 dead Palestinian kids. I don't think the article's choice of images does justice to the unprecedented suffering of civilians in Gaza. A few body bags and airstriked buildings (what we currently have) is not enough. JDiala (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question. Wikipedia is not a news or social media platform; you cannot put any photo you'd like on it without proper permission from the photo's author(s). I'm afraid that in this case, it would be very difficult to obtain such permission. Yue🌙02:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be a kind of rightous comeback for the lies Israel put out about babies - but this is Wikipedia not Instagram. I think the body bags depict what is happening better with the scale of the deaths. An individual death could be from anything. And I also object to the bloody floor photo in the article - that could be from any crime scene - we haven't the foggiest even if it was an Israeli, and it comes from the Israeli government press office. NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What determines weight for wikivoice is not whether there exist some sources for it. WEIGHT requires it to be the dominant way RS describe it. Can you demonstrate that? Consider the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Ukraine, and Africa. SPECIFICOtalk17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aside from the verification of WEIGHT among RS, the text did not limit it to the 21st century. At least 2 of the US' post WW2 wars were far deadlier. SPECIFICOtalk18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: The Vietnam War for example which lasted 20 years in a country with a then population of 28 million cannot be compared to the ongoing Gaza war. The experts who have characterized the Gaza war as deadliest have taken into consideration the length of the war, the number of the population, the percentage of the casualties, etc.. Do you have any RS refuting this information or making these sort of points to challenge it? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That claim seems unlikely, even calculated as rate of killing.
The Second Congo War certainly had a higher rate; 350,000 killed in three years gives a rate of killing of 320 per day.
The population of Congo in 1998 was 46 million, Ukraine 38 million in 2022, Ethiopia 117 million in 2020, and Sudan 50 million in 2023. Gaza's population is two million. This is clearly an invalid comparison. There is a reason why WP does not allow original research and leaves these kind of information to be formulated by experts and reported in reliable sources, of which the Associated Press is one of the world's most prominent and cited RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's our role to assess whether a source is reliable for a specific claim.
However, reviewing the sources the issue doesn't appear to be that they are wrong, but that we are misrepresenting them - they aren't simply saying "deadliest", they are saying "deadliest based on these criteria". If we want to include this information we need to include the full context, although I suspect that would be excessive detail for the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not misrepresenting them, the AP article starts with a clear lede without going into details: "JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history." WP reflects RS, and since there are no conflicting RS, we can safely assess that this claim is both reliably sourced and mainstream. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But again, finding one or several sources does not supporte the inference you propose us to make in wikivoice, that it is the doninant judgment. It's far more important to give our readers description rather than unsettled or dubious evaluation. SPECIFICOtalk20:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP 6 April "The Israel-Hamas war has stretched on for half a year and become one of the most destructive, deadly, and intractable conflicts of the 21st century." So they are consistent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually the long-standing version, which I restored, and did not insert. One more time, do you have any RS refuting this information? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to distinguish between "among the deadliest" and "the deadliest". The RS cited here (and the actual edit that was previously in place) all has the "among" qualifier (or a synonymous variant thereof e.g., "one of the"). @BilledMammal: comparisons to the Congo war etc. are thus not relevant as citing another possibly even deadlier war does imply Gaza isn't among the deadliest wars. I support Makeandtoss' proposal as there are a large number of reliable sources (AP, UN, Oxfam, Al Jazeera etc) making the claim. JDiala (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Among the deadliest" is true but also not very informative. Every major conflict has been described this way by the media UkraineEthiopiaYemenSyria. This is also a major conflict, I don't think anyone would dispute that, but it's not evident what additional value this characterisation would have. Alaexis¿question?11:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the central point. And our multi-generational, diverse readership will date "modern" beginning anywhere from 1900 to 2010. We need to present article text that precludes ambiguity. SPECIFICOtalk12:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Shakespeare said, comparisons are odorous. It is difficult to compare one war with another with any great level of accuracy. The Israel–Hamas war is notable for the large number of civilians who have been killed compared to members of Hamas, but it is inviting controversy to say "this is the deadliest".--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "modern" is not used by the sources linked by Makeandtoss. It's either "recent" or the more explicit "within the 21st century." The latter is entirely unambiguous. The former ("recent") is slightly ambiguous but not so ambiguous that people would think of Vietnam or WWII. Most standard English speakers would place "recent" as since the 90s at the earliest. In any case, if the word is good enough for a multitude of RS it is good enough for us. It does appear that in the previous version of our article "modern" is used. I'd prefer the more RS-consistent and less ambiguous "recent" or "21st century." JDiala (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that "every" major conflict has been described as such. For instance, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or Iran–PJAK conflict are clearly not within the category. It is true that Syria, Yemen and Ukraine are in that category but I'm not sure what that means. If you want to edit the Syrian Civil War article to call it "among the deadliest" as well, I doubt you will hear many objections. The extent, rate and magnitude of killing, especially of civilians, in Gaza is nearly unprecedented and indisputably among the worst in recent history. This has been repeatedly emphasized not just by one sources, but by multiple of the most reliable sources. I am in favour of using wording used by numerous of the most reliable sources. I am also open to honest suggestions on alternative wording which can help us meet half-way. JDiala (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus?
@JDiala: I that you have restored "deadliest" text to the article, "per discussion." But this discussion has not yet reached any such consensus. Please restore the status quo as we continue to hash this out. SPECIFICOtalk23:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a response in like two days, plus it doesn't seem appropriate that the non-long-standing version is the default during the discussion. But I self-reverted anyway. JDiala (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in how many of the most active editors at this page have Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit watchlisted. This talk page is currently extendedconfirmed protected, so requests are temporarily centralized. This accidentally makes it an opportunity to test the centralization of WP:PIA related edit requests. So, who's watching Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To get a little more concrete: we get requests for edits to this page here quite regularly: would you like to have the requests made copied to here? Because the edit requests tend to sit around unprocessed for longer periods of time. Lectonar (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the worst person to ask because I would rather run a centralized PIA request experiment than do anything that actually helps people who need help. So, I better leave it to others to decide what is best. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: I meant all the people who work on this page, not you specifically :). Tbh, I find the whole situation rather unsatisfying, with the talk page also being ec-protected. I know that's how we have to do it, but I don't have to like it. It impedes work on the article to a great degree, imho. Lectonar (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I had to pretend that it was to me to crowbar the joke in...apologies. ec-protected talk pages are very rare in the topic area as far as I can tell. I don't know the background to this particular protection. I'm not sure what the "per consensus at WP:AE" in the log is referring to specifically. I guess it got pretty wild here around the end of October last year. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern trolling. Headline could have been written as, terrorist use of civilian areas leads to 80% of buildings destroyed or damaged in crossfire. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. They have done controlled demolitions of multiple universities, including universities fully cleared out of militant presence. JDiala (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other sources for that in the lead, but I agree a special section on the damage is due; it has been reported in numerous sources. For instance [2] describes the destruction of farms and that half the trees have been destroyed so far. NadVolum (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it need to list damage to housing (on both sides), food production, universities, the archive, cultural heritage sites + competing estimates of % tunnel system destroyed + on the other side, the wall, the surveillance towers, some Kibbutz housing, and police / emergency services communications at Sderot police station, Erez crossing, and I think the base at Nahal Oz and a few others was burnt down? But they were making people work there so much have rebuilt. MWQs (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly reminder to any editor (or editors) who might be t-banned from this page & the topic-in-general. Best to stay clear, so not to risk a block. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some editorializing happening in the 7 October section, namely "in what has been described as the bloodiest day in Israel's history and the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust."
This claim, which is somewhat common and strictly speaking true, strikes me as unencyclopedic, editorializing and propagandistic in nature. It is a thinly-veiled way to suggest Hamas is a Nazi-like organization. It is also factually misleading as it suggests Hamas deliberately targeted Jews for being Jews, when in reality they appeared to have targeted Israeli Arabs and Asian foreign workers as well (there was no ethnic discrimination once Hamas entered Israel).
Stating a fact can be editorializing if said fact is there only to promote a particular disingenuous framing of an issue. A comparison to the Holocaust is not obviously necessary for the article and only exists to appeal to the reader's emotions. It also unfairly demonizes Hamas. JDiala (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true in some cases, but doesn't apply to this one. Certainly one could use a shamefully veiled expression such as "since 1945" instead, but that would be a clear euphemism since everyone knows what ended then. No, let's stay honest. Plus, "since" is not a comparison, it's simply context. Gawaon (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite notable that when we want to add something like the "#deadliest" to the article, let's stay honest falls by the wayside. Hum. Perhaps we can find an equally picturesque quote in the other direction and see what happens with that. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably get rid of "bloodiest", but I don't think worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust is equivalent; it contains the context needed for it to be accurate and for readers to understand the claim, while #deadliest lacks that context - for deadliest to be accurate we would need to say something along the lines of deadliest conflict on a per capita per day basis in the 21st century. BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It in fact does not contain the context needed to be accurate or easily understood. Even putting aside the Nazi issue, the word "massacre" is quite vague in this context. Is every killing of a Jew that day counting among "massacre"? But many Jews killed were in fact soldiers. Surely they should not be counted as "massacre" victims; they were KIA in legitimate warfare. This distinction is not made in the sentence. Furthermore, is the entire day one big "massacre" or a collection of individual massacres (Be'eri, Re'im, Kfar Aza, etc.)? This is not clear from the surrounding context. Should the word "massacre" even be used in reference to the entire 7 October attack and in wikivoice? We do this for the individual smaller-scale massacres in Be'eri, Re'im etc. but we don't call the entire day a massacre in wikivoice, we usually prefer "attack", rightfully so since the 7 October attack taken in totality was a military operation ("armed incursion") with concrete objectives, not a massacre per se. There's far too many NPOV and vagueness issues here, much worse than the "deadliest" thing which is frankly just tendentious. JDiala (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But many Jews killed were in fact soldiers. Surely they should not be counted as "massacre" victims; they were KIA in legitimate warfare.
Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that the soldiers who were killed include demobilized reservists (who under international law are considered civilians), as well as unarmed soldiers. Neither of these were "KIA in legitimate warfare". BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid point that we do not refer to the entire events as a massacre, though, probably because some elements were military in nature and/or at least involved armed personnel or military installations. Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, we use "has been described", so it's not even wikivoice. That it has been described as such is true without any reasonable doubt. Gawaon (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been described by the Economist as such. Have other outlets published articles describing Oct. 7th in this fashion? If yes, those need to be cited. If no, the language of the claim needs to specify the single source that is cited. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that this edit was originally suggested by JDiala who is now topic banned. Personally, I see a lot of potential issues with this article overall, but not with this specific statement as outlined above. It's sourced and not in Wikivoice. The point that this unfairly demonizes Hamas sounds like a biased argument to me.
We could argue about changing "massacre" to "massacres", since the overall operation is indeed called an attack, while we have severalindividualmassacres that took place during it. But imo that is nitpicking and the single additional "s" won't change the sentence in any meaningful way.
That it's the "bloodiest" might sound tabloid at first, but is actually echoed by rather non-tabloid outlets such as Foreign Policyhere. It is also used – albeit not in the specific context discussed here, but more generally – as one of the bloodiest attackshere by Reuters, which definitely is not tabloid.
OP even admitted that the claim is strictly speaking true, so I don't really see this specific discussion going anywhere. Let's focus on more important parts of the article.
(A side note: Better avoid words like surely, unfairly and rightfully even when presenting your arguments on talk pages. That reads POV since it implies your suggested phrasing is "obvious".) –LordPeterII (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The adjective "bloodiest" does indeed appear in the two articles you reference. However, neither claim that Oct. 7th was the "bloodiest day in Israel's history". Therefore, they cannot be used to support the assertion that Oct 7 "has been described as the bloodiest day in Israel's history", even though Oct 7th was likely the "bloodiest day in Israel's history" with respect to Israeli deaths. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Economist says "bloodiest in Israel’s history", Reuters says "one of the bloodiest attacks in its history" (granted, a slightly weaker claim), NPR and Haaretz both say "the single deadliest day" which seems quite similar.
I guess we could change "bloodiest" to "deadliest" or "bloodiest or deadliest", but I think "bloodiest" also works, since one source uses that exact language and several use very similar language. — xDanielxT/C\R16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "bloodiest" as a descriptor is that it cannot be quantified precisely without further clarification of definition. The descriptor "deadliest" is precisely quantifiable by number of deaths. However, JDiala took issue with the claim "...has been described as..." which does not require quantification so long as more than one source has described it as such. Does there exist at least one other WP:RS that describes Oct 7th as both the "bloodiest day in Israel's history" and "worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust"? If not, the claim should be modified to specify the single source that likely generated it - the Economist. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yachad (NGO) also says bloodiest although that might not be a good source to cite. I think one source is technically enough for "has been described as" to work, while the sources with similar statements help corroborate the reasonableness of the claim. But no objection to "deadliest" if you think it's better for verifiability. — xDanielxT/C\R19:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Yachad source may hold up for a time, or not, as someone may claim it is biased. You're right, a single source is technically sufficient to state "has been described as". Now consider an edit that terminates the beginning of the sentence at " Netiv HaAsara massacre". The remainder of the sentence begins a new one with, "An analysis published by the Economist described the attack as..." The edit summary would state, "precision, neutrality, readability". What would be a reasonable cause for reversion? Chino-Catane (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a technical problem with the claim you highlight independent of your perception that it constitutes "editorializing." The claim is supported by only one reference. The fragment "has been described" without qualification implies "more than one". The claim requires at least one more citation, though in my opinion, two more. If these citations cannot be generated, the claim should be modified to "...in what the Economist has described as..." Chino-Catane (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think something similar to this should be kept, since it's important context about the casus belli from an Israeli perspective.
The language could be tweaked to be slightly more dispassionate, such as changing the last "massacre" to "attack" (since several specific massacres are mentioned in the same sentence). — xDanielxT/C\R16:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since it's important context about the casus belli from an Israeli perspective Got a source saying that this quote is context for the casus belli? Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's worth pointing out that we seem to be in WP:BLUESKY territory here. Everybody in this thread seems to agree that these statements are factually and undisputably true. But if that's so, a reference isn't even needed. Gawaon (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the quote, the fact That's a no, then. Didn't think so.
we seem to be in WP:BLUESKY territory here. It may seem like that to you, I can assure you it isn't, else I have a slew of things I can add unreferenced. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what are your candidates for the bloodiest day in Israel's history and the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust then? Gawaon (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "...has been described as the bloodiest day in Israel's history and the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust" can be interpreted by readers to imply that many have described it as such. If many such descriptions exist, at least two additional should be cited. If other such descriptions do not exist, the claim should be modified to specify the single source that likely generated it - the Economist. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting adding content about the casus belli, so we're not in territory where content policies like WP:V would apply, it's just a matter of editorial discretion where we follow consensus. Do you not agree that this is useful context to help explain what led to the war? — xDanielxT/C\R20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clarify things , I have reverted out bloodiest based on the discussion here, now by WP:ONUS, it is required that you obtain consensus for the material retention. Right now you don't have that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure WP:ONUS is a good reason for deleting stable text in the middle of a discussion where we're ascertaining what the consensus is. Your deletion goes against WP:NOCONSENSUS, which favors keeping the prior text. — xDanielxT/C\R04:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, I'm contending that these facts are significant enough to warrant inclusion. I'm not suggesting including any content about the significance of these facts. Content policies like WP:V only apply to the facts themselves, not to arguments about the facts' significance. — xDanielxT/C\R04:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least the current version with "has been described" is a fact. I suspect it would be a fact without that, though perhaps "bloodiest" leave a bit of ambiguity. Would you agree with "deadliest", which is perhaps less ambiguous and has at least a few RSs? — xDanielxT/C\R15:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the surprise attack that started this war was the worst attack on Israel in Israel's history, most civilian casualties, deadliest, deadliest per-capita terrorist attack in the world in 50 years... basically a huge f'ing deal... seems to me to be a key aspect of the war. "Bloodiest" seems both vague and sensationalist. But I'd support content in the body and the lead conveying the magnitude or severity of the Oct 7 attack.
Same for the Palestinian side. Deadliest, most displacement, extremely high proportion of civilians, of women and children, one of the most destructive wars in history... again, big f'ing deal... this should be in the body and the lead.
For all involved this has been a big f'ing deal. For the world, from a historical standpoint, it's a big f'ing deal. I'm not sure what the best formulation is but "bloodiest" and even "deadliest," like "big f'ing deal," isn't specific enough. I'd support something with more specifics and sources putting both Oct 7 and the ensuing war in context for Israel, Palestine, and world history.
I'm not sure, however, about the Jews/Holocaust link. Portraying Oct 7 as an attack on Jews (as opposed to an attack on Israel) seems POVish, contrary to sources and fact (many non-Jews were attacked). If the consensus of sources made that connection, then I'd support it, but absent that being demonstrated, leave it out. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would support some form of emphasis on the Oct 7 attacks, the phrase above does seem very POV and I would support removing it or at least changing it to something more neutral. I would prefer reverting to the previous wording of this which seems much more neutral or something like in what has been described as the deadliest day in Israel's history.
I would also support removing the Jews/Holocaust link since multiple RSes indicate Jews were not the only one who were attacked. User3749 (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless it's simply factually true that never since the Holocaust were so many Jews murdered in a single day (let alone in a coordinated attack). Jews weren't the only people murdered by the Nazis either. Gawaon (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing a thing to be "factually true" does not change the requirement for such facts to be sourced. Most of our readers will not know that such a thing is true. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't put something on here in Wikipedia even if they are factually correct - we need a reliable source for it. Unless if you have a source that proves this, it can't go on this page. User3749 (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
does not say "the bloodiest day in Israel's history" nor does it say "the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust" So we have failed verification for both things currently in the article.
The headlines say "Hamas’s attack was the bloodiest in Israel’s history More Jews were killed on October 7th than on any day since the Holocaust" but WP:HEADLINES are not RS.
The last para of the article says "The most searing historical comparison predates Israel’s founding. Not all of Hamas’s victims were Israeli, and not all of the Israeli dead were Jewish. But under reasonable assumptions about the ethnic make-up of those killed in this and previous attacks, the last time before October 7th that this many Jews were murdered on a single day was during the Holocaust." which is not quite the same thing as claimed.
The claim appears technically correct to me, but I can also see how it is misleading. The "Worst single-day massacre of civilians" claim is so specific because it's contoured to exclude other significant calamities in modern Jewish history, like the killing and disappearance of Jews by Argentina's military regime or the several wars and conflicts in Israel's history which have been more deadly for its (conscripted) soldiers than this current one. No doubt 10/7 was profoundly impactful on Israeli society, but I question whether this misleadingly specific statistic is the best way to present that. Unbandito (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"surprise attack" in the intro
The prominent use of the word "surprise" seems like revisionist spin? "…when Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel on 7 October". Aspects of the attack were surprising, e.g. Gaza and not West Bank, and not even Hamas' political wing knew the date in advance, but using the word in the name of the event "surprise attack" makes it seem like it came out of nowhere. It was an expected escalation in a series of exponentially increasing escalations. And even the details weren't surprising to the girls at Nahal Oz lookout base,[25] who had been unsuccessfully trying to warn their bosses in the IDF for a year while watching the allied militant groups practice beach landings, hostage taking, destroying watch towers with drones, and fence demolition. MWQs (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's frequently described as a surprise attack in reliable sources, e.g. NYT, NPR, CNN, AP, etc, so I think it's reasonable to use similar language.
I think the specifics of an attack (time, place, magnitude, etc) can be surprising even if there's some general expectation of future escalation. The Nahal Oz article you linked certainly raises questions, but we don't know how far up these warnings went, how specific they were, how their credibility was interpreted, etc. — xDanielxT/C\R21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that supporters of a move entangled themselves over whether it should be Gaza War or Israel Gaza War (and I suppose whether or not there should be dates appended). This discussion is opened to resolve this issue before proposing a new RM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ranked choice voting is the solution here. The RM question should be something like this:
Please indicate your first, second, and third choice as to title:
Israel–Hamas war
Israel–Gaza war
Gaza war
Please indicate your first, second, and third choice as to dates:
Gaza war has already failed, so lets keep this simple - just ask Israel-Gaza war, with whatever form of disambiguation you prefer. If there is a dispute over the form of disambiguation, it can be resolved with WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and a second RM.
I wrote 'alleged' for the section header because it is more than clear that Israeli intelligence had gained very precise information regarding Hamas's attack plans, and that these were shown to the Gaza division. Both the ES and Egypt had passed on information on the imminacy of the attack three datys earlier.
What the section then states is that this wasn't acted on, for whatever reasons. So rather than an intelligence failure, it was a failure to act on intelligence, on the part of the IDF that had an executive role. So the title without 'alleged' is a misnomer. Soviet intelligence via Sorge provided excellent intelligence on the invasion by Germany. The decision not to act on it, distrust or whatever, was political. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like most plausible explanations still fall into the general category of intelligence failures, e.g.
if the intelligence wasn't accurately conveyed to the right leaders due to some communication breakdown
if the intelligence wasn't perceived as credible
if the intelligence wasn't specific about timing, and the threat wasn't perceived as immanent
Are you arguing that failures like the above are not in fact intelligence failures, or are you arguing that this could have been more of an intentional failure, where leaders didn't act on what they understood to be a credible and immanent threat? — xDanielxT/C\R23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(a) the attack engendered a lot of immediate commentary, or rather speculation. Since it was a surprise, it was immediately assumed that a massive intelligence failure was responsible, and the term sticks. But (b) drop by drop, it has emerged over time that in terms of intelligence, Israel's 8200 unit, together with border guard monitoring officials, had gathered almost all of the elements needed to make a detailed profile of the invasion that was to take place. It was even written up in a report, and given limited circulation. So the humint and sigint specialists had done their work. (c) their work's assessment that an invasion was imminent was independenly confirmed by both US and Egyptian intelligence, duly passed on to Israel.The Sept 19th document shows that the intelligence estimate for the number of hostages Hamas aspired to take was uncannily precise. (e) What then ensued was that no prophylactic action was taken, even when in the early morning hours of 7 Oct. further sigint signaled unusual signs of preparation.
There is a blame game between the political and intelligence wings, as to where to assign the responsibility for the failure to (i) properly assess the intelligence and (ii) act on it. The evidence now in suggests that the intelligence has been properly assessed but that (ii) it had not been acted on (probably because of incredulity and over-confidence in the defensive structure already in place). So it is a failure by military heads to correctly assess the intelligence. They are not in the business of intelligence gathering, Israeli intelligence by all accounts did its job. All that remains obscure is to what extent did the military leaders inform the political heads about the impressive analysis undertaken by specialists. As it stands, therefore, the initial story of an intelligence failure bruited about on 7 Oct when nothing was publicly known of what happened behind the scenes is false. It was a political/military assessment executive failure, which is a completely different matter. Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above is speculation. Everything comes from sources, and the point made over a single word 'alleged' doesn't mean that we rewrite the whole article 'based on our own speculation about the events'. Frivolous remarks like that throw sand in the eyes. In any case, the best paper on the so-called 'intelligence failure' I know of is, James Rosen-Birch, How Changes in the Israeli Military Led to the Failure of October 7 New Lines Magazine 20 May 2024
Read that judicious, meticulous overview, and one can quickly grasp that the leaks, bickering, and reticence characteristic of RS coverage of this so far are simplistic blame games slowly fed to the press by competitive careerists all caught up in a far deeper cognitive blindspot. Probably we need an article on the failure to act on the abundant intelligence, which will generate eventually as much analysis as the Pearl Harbour fiasco has. Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s an opinion article from someone who isn’t an expert on intelligence - it is far from sufficient to outweigh all the sources we have calling this an intelligence failure. BilledMammal (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another silly comment. What is RS is debatable, always, and one cannot evaluate any potential article by reflexely limiting the scope of sources to the anally narrow band of RS. You can't intelligently 'skim' a detailed, complex article in 4 or 5 minutes. You judged its suitability by the unfamiliarity of the journal and its author. And I didn't suggest it be used. I simply said people who edit articles like this should know more than what a general technical reading of wiki policies on RS state.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also kinda ironical that the article has the word "failure" right in the title, so nevermind it's reliability, claiming that article as an argument against failure doesn't sound like a promising move. Gawaon (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you've read as far as the title. And 'it's' is not how the possessive 'its' is written. It means 'it is' and as you spell it, it produces an ungrammatical sentence:'it is reliability'. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This information has come round and round again. From an broad buffet of sources, the narrative recurs that senior commanders simply ignored the diligently gathered intelligence – with contributing factors being arrogance, complacency, incompetence and quite probably more than a little dash of misogyny (that led to the early warning intelligence from the female signals unit to be dismissed). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article surfaced recently, but whether it suggests 70,000 casualties in this war on Gaza’s front or all fronts isn’t clear to me because of the language barrier. Is it worth mentioning?
It's not in this war, it's the total number of rehab patients that receive services from the Rehabilitation Division of the Ministry of Defense - from all wars, all time, and also non-combat-related injuries. The number from this war is given as 8,663, many of them suffering from mental issues- e.g PTSD.
I don't understand the necessity of saying "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", as if implying the Health Ministry's numbers aren't trustworthy or reliable, despite the fact Wikipedia itself acknowledges (at the Health Ministry's Wikipedia article) that several supranational organizations and world-renown human rights advocates consider the organization to provide reliable data and have found no proof that could compromise it.
Furthermore, we don't say "according to Likud-run Bituah Leumi ". We don't even acknowledge numbers come from Bituah Leumi (only that they're form "Israeli social security data"), because what is the point of mentioning that? It doesn't show the reader hard proof (only "perhaps-es") of any potential unreliability of the numbers (which, in case they truly were unreliable, why bother in including them in the first place?), but merely makes them distrust the number without a real reason to do so. Sr. Knowthing¿señor?15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me either. If GHM is reliable, what difference does it make who runs it; for that matter Idk where the idea comes from that Hamas runs it anyway, seems like an assumption. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We mention the nationality of the information if it is run or from the government of a country. For example, on the Israeli-casualty side, we do specify “From Israel” and “From Hamas”. Even in the Gaza-Strip side of the causalities for “Militants inside Israel:”, we specify “from Israel”. There is precedent for doing that for official numbers from involved parties. When numbers from from the Ukrainian government in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Casualties, we say “Ukrainian government” is the source. GHM is a branch of the Hamas-run government in the Gaza Strip, so per precedent, “Hamas-run” is listed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, per how everything else is labeled, I would be ok removing “Hamas-run” and replacing it just with “Per Hamas”, since it is official numbers from the Hamas-government. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
