Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Expansion to war crimes section

@Nableezy: I noticed the war-crimes section had been expanded again, with a second paragraph on allegations against Israel being added in this diff. Given the split, I don't feel that addition was appropriate; one paragraph on Israel, one paragraph on Hamas, and one generally seems like the best option under WP:BALASP.

For editors generally, see also this discussion, regarding the photo in that section which was added by a different editor. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an extended quote on a Hamas war crime and are ignoring the most severe accusation against Israel. That isn’t BALASP, sorry, Israel’s actions have gotten as much if not more attention in the last two weeks. nableezy - 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy At this point I strongly agree with you. I previously thought we were giving too much weight to the Israeli war crimes section around a week ago, but at this point there is clearly more sources talking about Israeli war crimes (probably for a good reason I'd argue). I don't think there's any undue weight being given to Israeli war crimes currently. Just thought I'd mention that given my previous disagreement. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the balance problems would be with this, given the episodic nature of the Hamas war crimes, and the ongoing and compounding nature of the Israeli war crimes in this conflict. The longer the war and its war crimes continue, the more this section is going to naturally shift towards reflecting the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The topic of war crimes is sensitive especially as it relates to two opposing sides. There are strong feelings about which side is doing more harm. However, I believe applying the concepts of WP:BALASP is especially important and I would focus on the factor of "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance". It seems that it has been suggested that both sides be given equal attention, yet WP:BALASP specially talks about how this can create a false sense of balance. As we evaluate what should be in the War Crimes section, we should not feel the need to balance actions against each other as that is not the intent and purpose of including the information in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and just looking at the child article shows that there isnt an equal amount of material to summarize here. Currently the Palestinian war crime section is 4292 bytes of readable prose (646 words), and the Israeli war crime section is 10193 bytes (1547 words). But the request is to pretend like they should be given the same space here? Doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. nableezy - 16:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue here is whether we should allow this diff.

I understand the above fellow editors' views to be that extended coverage of alleged Israel war crimes is due because Israel has allegedly committed more war crimes than Hamas.

The merits of this view aside, it doesn't excuse the requirement that edits must sourced from a reliable source. This requirement still remains.

My problem with this diff is that it contains extended reference, to the point of quoting verbatim at length, one opinion of an associate professor (named Tom Dannenbaum), published on a website called JustSecurity, which introduces itself as an online forum.

According to WP:RS, a reliable source is a reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On a topic as controversial as the one at hand, the requirement for WP:RS should be heightened.

How did we come to allow this opinion piece on an online forum such airtime and limelight that it was given?

I oppose the incorporation of this diff, along with BilledMammal and ask that it be removed, unless the editor can meet the WP:ONUS in demonstrating why this should stay in the article. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That is called an expert view and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are welcome to challenge the reliability at RSN. nableezy - 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are relying on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I list the wikipedia's relevant requirements/indicia on this policy:

(i) Prefer secondary sources,

(ii) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

(iii) Citation counts

(iv) POV and peer review

Please explain how does this opinion piece on an online forum satisfies any of the above criteria?

As per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which is you.

You are also the one who is trying to incorporate this source, you need to ensure that your source is reliable, and complies with WP:RS.

Respectfully, you should demonstrate how and why is this source reliable, and why the disputed content should be included, in light of the aforementioned concerns.

Kindly do. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read WP:SPS youll see Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. You can see his relevant publications. nableezy - 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? How do you think that edit is acceptable? nableezy - 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's not mass delete RS and subject-matter experts. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight your removal of that content was correct.@HollerithPunchCard Mindhack diva (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

also as per WP:SPS :Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. also there is a note stating "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Mindhack diva (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And what do you think is relevant there? nableezy - 09:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mindhack diva: Perhaps you should make more than 5 edits in main space before you start spouting policy and wading into contentious topic areas. Your opinion is duly noted, but this is not a vote, and if it were, you would not be eligible (pending acquisition of extended confirmed permissions). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

please be civil and do not make personal attacks.i can cite any policy i want irrespective of how many edits i made.i know its not a vote but just because you are pushing your pov in wikipedia for a very long time and i am new dosent make your opinion any more valuable or correct than mine.thank you for duly noting.you might be very knowlegeble .i just cited it for others to review who are disputing the edit. Mindhack diva (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from the applicable Wikipedia policy: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., see WP:ONUS. Editors who aim to reinstate the contentious content should first establish a consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ONUS is not a "reason" for reversion and there is no consensus here for removal. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that discussion, especially after the "Undiscussed revert" edit summary. Some concerns were raised about the content. Can you direct me to where there's an agreement for its inclusion? WP:ONUS is a policy. Those looking to restore the disputed content should first work on building a consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I missed that as already explained at my talk page. An agreement for inclusion isn't required, it was added via the usual editing process, reasons for removal are required and ONUS ain't it, especially when you have this discussion sitting here where there is clearly no consensus for removal so QUO is a better way of looking at things pending some clarity in this discussion (in which I have not as yet commented, for instance, until now). Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, we all slip up from time to time. Just linking the discussion for the record. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You havent made an argument for removal, sorry. And you are edit-warring. You are not entitled to repeatedly revert material so long as it is once a day. Beyond that, there appears to be consensus among users in this section for the material, your repeated unjustified reverts included. nableezy - 15:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Haven't made an argument for removal? Really?

I raised numerous issues with your edit. I first pointed out that an associate professor's opinion on a self-founded online forum is not WP:RS and in any event, your substantial quotation of this opinion, in the context of this extremely controversial topic is not WP:DUE.

In response, you alleged that opinion falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

And when I asked which criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP does this opinion actually satisfies, you fall back to rely on WP:SELFPUBLISH. In this vein, you provided a link showing that this associate professor has published a few articles on international law with a few dozens of citations, which you claim to make him a subject matter expert on this topic.

First of all, I disagree that this associate professor is a subject matter expert that you allege. Based on the link to his cited publications you have provided me, he has written nothing on the topic of Israel and Palestine, apart from this opinion piece on an online forum.

Secondly, WP:SELFPUBLISH is a policy of last resort. Wikipedia's policy on use of self-published sources is peppered with caution.

According to WP: WP:SELFPUBLISH are "largely not acceptable as sources" and "caution should be exercised" when using them, because

"if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

This is especially true in the topic at hand (i.e. Israel-Hamas conflict), which has been the main headline for media and governments around the world for the past two weeks. There are no shortage of reliable sources on this subject matter, which you could easily find, instead of picking an associate prof's opinion on an online forum.

For these reasons, your extension quotation of this online forum opinion piece is inappropriate and should be removed, as it is not a reliable source, and qualifies neither as WP:SCHOLARSHIP nor WP:SELFPUBLISH.

In any event, your dedication of almost a paragraph to quote this associate professor's one-sided opinion on an online forum on this serious, controversial topic, is [WP:UNDUE]] and strongly appears to be POV-pushing.

As I have stated earlier, there is no consensus to your edit, for the concerns stated above, and until you have reasonable response to these concerns, you have not met the WP:ONUS to maintaining this disputed content.

As a result, this disputed content should be removed, and Infinity Knight and Mindhack diva's removal of this content should not be reverted, which is being wrongfully done here. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Afaics, wall of text notwithstanding, the majority disagrees. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. There is a super majority here in support of keeping this material. nableezy - 22:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Who are the supermajority? Name them. Because I don't see your supermajority, and there are multiple editors here opposing your edits.

I note the lack of response to my various concerns with your edit, and a head count of bare voices supporting your contentious edit, without any attempt to engage the WP, is not a reason to insist on its inclusion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to you, but my response was to Infinity Knight there, who still has not made an argument for removal. And in this section, in favor of retaining is myself, Iskandar23, Selfstudier, Objective3000, DFlhb, Chuckstablers, and I *think* Jurisdicta. Whereas opposed are you, Infinity Knight and BilledMammal. This is material by a noted scholar in the field who has been cited by other reliable sources. Your objection on the basis of reliability is entirely without merit. nableezy - 01:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

He's removing the content that I've made arguments for removal. The problem of the content has been raised, and the problem is the same, regardless of who does the removal.

And nope, Chuckstabler, Jurisdicta and Objective3000 made no opinion on the inclusion of the Prof Associate's opinion, Tom Dannenbaum's opinion published on his online forum. They only opined on their desire to have extended coverage of Israel war crime, which is beside the point of whether this opinion should be included despite not being WP:RS.

Just because he's published a academic articles on international crimes with some citations, doesn't mean that his opinion published on whatever forum, whatever platform, can be quoted substantially on this serious, controversial wiki article, in disregard of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Objective3000 made no opinion on the inclusion 80columns, I oppose this removal of expert opinion as per nableezy and Selfstudier. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Chuckstabblers wrote he strongly agrees with me and there is no undue weight given to Israeli war crimes when that material was included. But sure, whatever you say. This is getting tedious so unless something new is raised I’ll continue abiding by the consensus of this section. If somebody else doesn’t want to they can do that and face the consequences of that action. nableezy - 14:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the removal; we look to proportion in reliable sources to determine what our balance should be, and so far, the focus on Israel's actions has been pretty overwhelming in RS, as reflected in the child article. To preserve WP:NPOV, the summary-style section here should reflect that. DFlhb (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, see Deutsche Welle: Tom Dannenbaum, an associate professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, told DW that there had "clearly been violations" of international law perpetrated by both sides.

He said that the siege of Gaza qualifies as "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a war crime itself."

The Hamas attack also "implicated a number of war crimes, including murder as a war crime, torture, outrages upon personal dignity, hostage taking," Dannenbaum added.

nableezy - 15:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are war crimes on both sides. One would imagine that the Israeli war crimes are now getting more attention as they are perpetrated against 2.2 million people, half of whom are children. Certainly doesn't mean we should ignore Hamas atrocities. But, we follow WP:BALASP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, if this associate professor is opining that both Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, as you are putting forth, then your selective coverage of his opinion against Israel, and selective exclusion of his opinion against Hamas is clearly partisan, in breach of WP:NPOV and strikes as POV-pushing. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Then add that per the source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasnt the source cited, I was just demonstrating other sources consider him an expert in the field. We already say Hamas committed obvious war crimes, but if you want to add him to the list of people who said then sure. nableezy - 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, the content is being added to the article without consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus here. nableezy - 04:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

you not liking it doesn’t change fit much sorry. Revert again if you like but edit warring against consensus is disruptive and will be reported. nableezy - 09:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be civil Infinity Knight (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am. Please do not make unwarranted accusations. nableezy - 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the one who is edit warring is you and Selfstudier who restored contested edit without consensus. This is the third time I'm repeating WP:ONUS, which states, "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

The disputed content? This. Who is seeking to include this disputed content? You. Therefore, whose responsibility for achieving consensus? You.

Why is consensus not achieved? Because these reasons and these reasons. Most of which have not been responded to, let alone rebutted, to date. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

They have all been responded to and rebutted. nableezy - 13:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus at present, to include. ONUS handwaving doesn't cut it, that's not a reason to exclude. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really Infinity Knight (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your dislike is not something that matters for consensus. nableezy - 13:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please try to stay WP:CIVIL Infinity Knight (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have. You also removed a comment of mine. Kindly restore it. But, and this is totally civil making your repeated accusations WP:ASPERSIONS, you not liking the result of a discussion does not mean it does not have consensus against your position. Full stop. nableezy - 14:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You still have not given a reason for removal. ONUS is not a reason for removal, and regardless it has been met. The RS claim by the other user has been demonstrated to be wholly without basis. So, there is a super-majority in favor, and no policy basis for removal. Whats that spell? C-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s. nableezy - 13:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Article becoming too long. Suggestions.

I don't know too much about Wikipedia editing etiquette but I would suggest Events be given their own pages by month like 'October events of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war', I suggest this due to the relative high level of detail we're seeing and so far, that's just from October.

I also suggest Reactions get their own article, something like 'Reactions to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war' should do nicely.

I'm aware my suggestions may not be optimal, especially the monthly split suggestion as it pertains to the events, but given how much information there is right now, I see it as the best way to currently proceed. Lafi90 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Reactions It appears quite substantial, and it likely can be condensed without compromising the article's quality. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been going through it, problem is I'll delete a bunch of stuff then people will get angry and complain on the talk page about it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone working on Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, should make a dent. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete the Israeli and Palestinian Politics Section. Politics could in theory be relevant but as the two sections are currently written they don't add a lot to the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Beyond that, the problem the article has is that it's kind of all over the place. Information is repeated in different sections. The presentation is extremely convoluted. It's difficult to see a reader coming here, reading the article and better understanding the subject. I think the article would really benefit from taking a step back from the breaking news and the impassioned arguments over what constitutes a war crime, and deciding on a basic structure. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting current-event articles into month-specific articles generates cruft and isn't a good way to organize information. Information should be split to logical child articles when appropriate, and some of the WP:PROSELINE sourced to breaking news should be replaced with birds'-eye view summaries that better higlight the significance, impact and context. That'll also make the article less tedious to read. DFlhb (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the "Historical context" section is duplicative of what the "Background" section is supposed to be. I think those two sections should be merged, with a careful eye toward removing duplicate information. ETA: Per Alcibiades979's suggestion, perhaps the discussion of Israeli and Palestinian politics in the background should be essentially replaced with information from the "Historical context" section. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I tried that, merging the Historical Context and background, but my edit got reverted. Another possibility would be to create a timeline page, then delete the timeline section from this page and simply summarize it -> "alot of bombing happened". Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging those sections. See for example, Iraq War#Background and Iraq War#Pre-war events, similarly Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background and Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude.VR _talk 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to repeat errors made in other places; I believe the context and background sections essentially overlap and could be merged seamlessly. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

After taking a closer look at both sections, it appears that the Historical Context section may not be necessary, and I'm in favor of trimming most of it. Do you have any suggestions for which references should be retained? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed before, it was removed and then restored, see archives, I suggest not doing that without discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally get your point about the content objection, and I'm not seeing a consensus for adding it, unless I'm overlooking something. If there are any references you think are worth keeping in the Context section, feel free to share your thoughts. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: Why after observing that the page is too long are you expanding the background section with unnecessary biographical expositions on individual political figures like [1] - this is not helping move the background section towards a useful summary, but bloating it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Just created a fresh section to address your question right here. Hey, someone raised an objection about Context content. Can you help me find a consensus for its inclusion? I could've missed it. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: What are you talking about? I am talking about the unnecessary biographical material that you are adding in the middle of complaining about length (although yes, while also apparently removing properly summarized material on war crimes - this is a disastrous and pretty disruptive edit that should be reverted). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to my comment, just search "Historical context·" in the archives. Also, why did you remove the well sourced war crimes material? It says "see talk" but I find no discussion of that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the war crimes deletion as undiscussed, best open a new section if you wish to discuss it (in case I missed it somewhere point me to the talk discussion you mentioned in the edit summary).Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Those "properly summarized material on war crimes" that you allege is anything but. Reasons against its exclusion has been discussed at length by me at here and here, and some of these reasons have been raised for a few days.

You can disagree with these arguments, but you cannot purport that they don't exist. Thus far, the only response to these arguments is essentially that there are more of us than there are more of you. That's not a constructive discussion and not a reason to revert the exclusion of this disputed material, which you have done. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is being updated with content without community agreement. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Infinity Knight. The content was first introduced by Nableezy.

After I raised numerous issues and concerns with this content, primarily for not being WP:RS, Infinity Knight removed this content.

@Selfstudier restored this content without addressing any of the expressed concerns with this content, and without consensus, and despite most of my arguments not being addressed in the discussions.

Respectfully, I see this is as a disregard of WP:ONUS and an instance of WP:EDITWAR.

I would kindly ask that Selfstudier revert your restoration of this disputed content until consensus is achieved through reasonable discussion. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is about the length of the article. There is a separate discussion about the war crime material where you have just now commented so this repetition is quite unnecessary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, you can try that here as well, but there is a clear consensus for that material. Ignoring that is tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 13:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm on board with @HollerithPunchCard. The best move for @Selfstudier is to self-revert and work towards reaching a consensus for inclusion. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Also best discussed at the relevant discussion and not here (the details of the current consensus are there). Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s already consensus, a super majority in fact and the next person to ignore that is being reported. nableezy - 13:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing an edit comment summary with a link to the discussion is one thing, but flat-out ignoring the clear recommendations from multiple angles on the talk page is a whole different story. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents (Adding Options - US, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah)

Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah

Option 1 – Add X
Option 2 – Do not add X
Option 3 – Neutral (no comments) on X
(X = Country)

RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion2

• RfC Creator Comment – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), Ecrusized said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to Axios, the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to advise ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given the new report from the Wall Street Journal saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. eyal (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. Ecrusized (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. eyal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A new report by WSJ states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by Saudi Arabia. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just added it to the list of options. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment 2 NBC News reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. Ecrusized (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option * Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait Selfstudier, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral? If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I made my comment and I explained it as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Let the closer worry about what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, my understanding is that @Selfstudier would respond your question Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent? with the answer Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no. I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA — MaterialWorks 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I think WeatherWriter was confused because, while Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any being listed as belligerents Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.

I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @Cinderella157 because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.

It may interest other editors to peruse Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and its archives, for an interesting case study.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, Parham wiki made the comment that consensus can change. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article Israeli–Palestinian conflict), then it can be used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. Bermicourt (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bermicourt, not sure if you made a typo, but the current version of the article lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose adding most; support adding the US: The US now appears to be putting significant boots on the ground, in addition to its other forms of material and personnel support. There are reports that US special forces entered Gaza.[2][3] And Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction.(Biden's administration even moronically posted about it).[4][5][6] The country has clearly crossed the lined into active participation and belligerence. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Iran has now accused (Wall Street Journal article) the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that directly supports that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves. nableezy - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did in my original reasoning. The US is supplying Israel with weapons and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify. nableezy - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  “US military equipment pours into Israel”[7]. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am WP:COALing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. BogLogs (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all additions.Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents, as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Add: United States, Houthi, Iran.

Do not add: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Germany. Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all additions until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note – Hezbollah was added to the RfC discussion as there was a disagreement between editors and agreement to merge Hezbollah's belligerent discussion into this RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all except Hezbollah. None of these countries have deployed their own militaries for combat, and "supported by" has been deprecated. Hezbollah, on the other hand, initiated a low-intensity war on day two officially "in solidarity" with the Palestinians. ([8]) Hamas has operatives in Lebanon who can only operate with the cooperation and the consent of Hezbollah, and they have done so since the start of the war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn Parham wiki (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Close RFC there's no way we're realistically getting a consensus from this RFC query, which is simultaneously too complex and also too simplistic (encouraging voting rather than citation of sources that actually describe these entities as belligerents, and inherently inviting false equivalences). These should be discussed group by group. Also, it's worth noting that the situation in this conflict is changing more or less daily at this point so a month-long RFC is going to be a challenge. There should be no rush to get belligerents added, of course, since we're not a newspaper and there's no deadline. VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn and also Add Syria Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Editors here are coming up with their own arguments for including Hezbollah (or anyone else) rather than pointing to the many sources recording the escalation - which undoubedly would exist - if sources considered these 'border skirmishes' really were part of (not loosely related to) this war. Doesn't that concern anyone? That editors here have decided there has been an escalation before sources or official bodies have! Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, basically every RFC about combatants or status or maps has been a series of exercises in original research. nableezy - 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." [...] "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle." [9] Original research, was it? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because all that supports is a Hezbollah leader saying they are in the heart of the battle. It does not provide a third party reliable source saying that to be true as a fact. I dont get how this doesnt make sense to so many people who have been here as long as they have. A source has to directly support the material you want to include in a Wikipedia article. This source directly supports that Naim Kassem said these things. What is still needed is a third party source saying this makes them actively engaged in this conflict. nableezy - 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Restore Hezbollah to the infobox and add the Houthis - Hezbollah has clearly stated that it is participating in the conflict and is actively participating, there has been sustained combat on the northern border with israel since the war began. The Houthis have also launched attacks.XavierGreen (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Add Hezbollah per users above. W9793 (talk)

Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body

For reasons including WP:COMMONNAME, the article title is Israel–Hamas war. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier; see above. However, I have a follow up question.) Does that mean we should use "Hamas" when the the folks with guns and bombs from Gaza do something and should use "Israel" when the folks with guns and bombs from Israel do something? It makes it seem like the Gazan militants do not have the support of the Gazan civilians, but that the Israeli militants do have the support of the Israeli civilians. Unless we have citations to support that asymmetry, I think we are misleading the reader. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the circumstances may vary, but if you notice in the infobox, "Hamas" and "Israel" are listed as the primary belligerents (with the other Palestinian factions as lesser belligerents). So language in the article that "Hamas" or "Israel" conducted some kind of action in the conflict is just reflecting who the belligerents are, and does not imply anything about the level of domestic support for each entity. There may be certain circumstances where specifying which element of Israel's forces (e.g., IDF, Israeli Police, Shin Bet, etc.) were involved is appropriate, but on the whole, as you say, we are following the COMMONNAMEs. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The "belligerents" are the guys with the guns, or do they also include the civilians eligible to vote in the elections that put those people in power? The term "Israel" seemingly casts a wide net whereas "Hamas" casts a narrow net. That asymmetry makes it seem as if the battle is between "all of Israel" and "only the Gazan militants". Unless citations can back this asymmetry, I want the article to clarify that the facts don't match the WP:COMMONNAME. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I belive it is wrong to consider "Hamas" as primary belligerant and the other Palestinian groups as secondary because we know that they are acting as one unitary belligerant side, comprised of the various militant groups as various armed forces, but with a joint command, joint operations and common tactics. Also, outside of Gaza Hamas is not the main Palestinian group involved. That is why "Hamas" in the name should be replaced with either "Palestinian Armed Factions" or "Palestinian Resistance" Ernesto Rosso (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I object to the use of the term "militants" to describe Hamas combatants. They are terrorists in every sense of the word. Militants do not attack civilian communities, murder civilians, decapitate people, burn families alive. Please change this designation, it is an insult to intelligence to mis-labrl these killers. 2A00:A041:2420:4A00:740D:76F7:E4C7:DC2A (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Well problem with that is the US military in Vietnam burned down villages, killed civilians, and burned children with Napalm.[10] Do we call the US military terrorists? We just follow reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC on infobox casualties

How, or should, casualties in the infobox be presented?

1. Attributed with an endnote as in the current version as of this writing
2. Attributed for all numbers inline as in this version
3. Attributed only for Gaza numbers and Israeli numbers for Palestinians killed in Israel as in this version
4. Not in the infobox at all

Nableezy 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• 1 - standard across a range of articles, and both sets of data generally get the same level of attribution. Examples: ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.; WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.; Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed. A wide range of sources attribute Gazan deaths to the Gazan authorities and Israeli deaths to the Israeli authorities, and of course they would because who else would have these numbers? But, as the Washington Post reported, there isnt anything particularly odd about using numbers from the combatants, and for the Gaza ministry "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." There isnt a reason to clutter up the infobox with inline attribution to what is already attributed with an endnote, and there certainly is not cause for treating the figures differently in the infobox as though Israeli numbers are unassailable and Palestinian numbers are presumed suspect. nableezy - 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Id like to add in response to the supposed random sampling of sources, those arent sources that are typically focused on Israeli casualties, because they have not largely changed in the past weeks it has become background information to the topic the sources are focused on. But when sources actually focused on casualties report on them they always attribute both Israeli and Palestinian casualties to the respective authorities. For example the UN reporting on casualty counts: "According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict." nableezy - 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2 or 3, weakly leaning towards 3. We are required to follow reliable sources; if reliable sources agree on something and present it without qualification then we can do so. If, however, they don't - if they disagree, or consistently present it with qualification - then we are required to do the same.

In this case, in a random sample of 20 sources I found that 80% attributed Palestinian casualties; see below for evidence and methodology. It would be highly inappropriate, and a violation of WP:V, for us to go beyond what sources do and present this as uncontested fact.

Sources are more confident about Israeli casualties; in a random sample of 20 sources, I found that 25% attributed while 75% did not; see below for evidence and methodology. As such, it would be more appropriate for us to put those casualties in Wikivoice.

In general, the option of attributed with an endnote is not acceptable; if we need to attribute then we need to attribute in a way that the reader will see the attribution, and while I don't have the figures I doubt endnotes are typically read; I know I rarely read them. and with only one in seventy page views resulting in any engagement with footnotes we know that vanishingly few readers will see them. 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I went through the first 10 "Sources for Israeli casualties" and found 90% of these actually attribute them at some point in time, but not consistently, which is why we arrive at different results.

VR _talk 03:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 3 or 2 this is one of those cases where sadly what would be normal elsewhere on wikipedia, ie using end notes, this topic area doesn't sit comfortably within those norms. There is a distinct credibility question here given past example where casualty numbers have been inflated and when subject to external verification found to be exaggerated. I would imagine this is why so many sources attribute the source of the information. If this doesn't fit then I'd support 4 with a suitable explanation in the article linked to the Infobox. WCM_email 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for readability. While I understand the credibility issue with the different governments involved, I believe that endnotes are sufficient as readers with inquiring minds will read the notes (I always do). I would guess that most who wouldn't read the endnotes are also those who generally wouldn't pay it any mind if it were inline. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 For reasons said by AquilaFasciata. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, stating who the claim belongs in the infobox bloats what is supposed to be a very brief summary of the article. In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. Ecrusized (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  In line notes are going to be seen by whoever is checking the reference as references are placed in the notes. According to a 2020 study, just one in seventy pageviews result in at least one engagement with footnotes. Ideally, readers would engage with the little blue boxes at the end of our sentences - but they don't, and we can't write articles operating under the assumption that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Infoboxes need to be KISS, not complicated. If we want to discuss reliability (rather than trying to imply lack of it), then let's do that in the article itself and trust our dear readers read that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we can't provide all information necessary to comply with core policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV, which includes attribution, without overly complicating the infobox, then we can't include any of the information in the infobox; we should instead direct the reader to a more expansive section which can provide this information. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. If there is some debate about reliability, it can be addressed properly within the article itself, rather than trying to do that in an infobox.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. The reliability of the Gaza estimates has been, as it always is, questioned by the two major adversary actors, the United States and Israel. These are political statements. Over the past 4 wars, independent analysts have generally found the Gaza figures quite, if approximately, accurate, and not overblown for propaganda purposes. Cf. Chris McGreal, Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? The Guardian 26 October 2023. 1 is how we typically do this, and we should not make exceptions here, where the (d)fog of war also consists in heavy infofare.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Other sources, like this one, say that while historically the figures have tended to be reliable, recent events have called them into question. Further, there are issues in that they claim all casualties to be "victims of “Israeli aggression.”" - regardless of whether they were killed by Israeli action or Palestinian. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 - infobox is a place for the best available information, not over-complication. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Succinct and reasonable, well said. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 Reading the recent Guardian story analysing the claims [11], it seems that the claims from the Gaza health ministry have been historically regarded by the media as reliable, and the deaths are proportionate to the actual volume of destruction Israel has inflicted on Gaza during this conflict, compared to the deaths reported in previous Gaza conflicts. Israel is a belligerent in this conflict and its ally the United States cannot be considered impartial when it comes to their criticism of these numbers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 for: simplicity. Hemiauchenia's Guardian article is a good argument for 1 too (and a good argument against 3). Readers know attribution is available in the footnote, if they're interested in that. But I think it's pretty self-evident that the numbers are sourced to each party. DFlhb (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Echoing Hemiauchenia's argument, and the complete absence of any sources that give competing numbers. Inline attribution in this case would be similar to using "scare quotes" or when we use the word "claim" (WP:WTA); in both cases we are not being neutral but we are casting doubt.VR _talk 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2. The doubts regarding the figures do not come only from Israel and the US. The Guardian article mentions the opinion of a former Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem calling for skepticism. Also, even HRW's Shakir says that the "estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data." Alaexis_¿question? 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Shakir goes on to say "“Generally this data is catalogued in a way that there are detailed breakdowns that include identifying information about each person. That’s part of why we believe this to be reliable.” The identifying information includes such details as ID numbers, so any exaggeration or falsehood would be easily detectable. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 1 as it does not clutter up the box so much, but readers can tell where info is from, and determine the trustworthiness of the sources. As I said before, these figures can get much better clarification in the section of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: Less clutter, and the data seems reliable enough, per the WHO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1: per Hemiauchenia. --Andreas JN466 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 survey of the reliable sources seems to make the distinction only for the Gaza Health Ministry reported numbers, and above all else we really should be striving to follow secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 4 per User:Meeepmep here, which should be fixed to redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article. Also OK with 3.5 it seems that option '2' adequately addresses this 2 The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text. During a war, it's typical to view casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both fighting parties with some skepticism. When we include these figures in our text or infobox, we should explicitly identify the source of the numbers rather than concealing the attribution in a footnote. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• 3 Per Joseph Biden, here, "But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." Me neither. With those doubts, especially from the guy who is not me, we need to be as clear as possible as to the source. Maybe a bit more clutter than some would like, but we're being straight with our readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: its important to note this RfC question is only about the infobox, not about the body of the article. For the infobox, just like the WP:LEAD, we must necessarily be concise. I support in-line attribution (along with necessary context) for the body of the article, but not the lead or infobox.VR _talk 03:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2 The second item (2) looks to be more informative and appropriate for the readers; i.e. "Attributed for all numbers inline..." Ali Ahwazi (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 There is no reason to reinvent the wheel for a particular case. per Selfstudier and there is no reason to think the GHM figures are any less accurate than the 'fog of war' allows - despite what Joe Biden may think. Indeed, HGM according to the Gdn and others "also issued a 212-page list of the names and identity numbers of every Palestinian it says has been killed in the Israeli bombardment. Unless doctors and admins are complicit in fabricating death certificates etc, these numbers are about as cast-iron certain as they could possibly be, and it would easily provable if significant faking or exaggerating were happening. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• 2 or 3. An explicit attribution of such numbers to the sides of the conflict is important. Version "1" does not really provide such attribution. Even if one follows the footnotes in version "1", it is not immediately clear which side is responsible for which number. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  If one follows the footnotes, this information is absolutely clear. And it's also clear in the body of the article. VR _talk 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

<-- Please add your vote above this line -->

References

Previous discussions

• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_20#Gaza_death_toll
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_21#Casualties_infobox
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_22#"Per_the_Gaza_Health_Ministry"
• Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#infobox_attribution_inline

Discussion3

Feel free to add other options, those are the four that seem to have had any discussion at all from my memory. nableezy - 13:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight, Vice regent, Graeme Bartlett, Mistamystery, WillowCity, JM2023, and Hovsepig: Ping all editors eligible to participate who have participated in related discussions and have not participated in this one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Hovsepig, WillowCity; I assumed you were both eligible without checking, but you are not. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You missed one off the top of my head, Jayen466. nableezy - 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I did; I overlooked them at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war. (I also didn't ping ScottishFinishRadish, but that was deliberate because they weren't participating as an editor but as a moderator).

Thank you for correcting that; I've gone through the discussions again and don't believe I've missed anyone else. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Palestinian casualties are *only* being provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. The almost immediate pronouncement of 500 dead (and a “destroyed hospital” that later turned out to be a parking lot) has thrown a massive shadow on any numbers the ministry provides and has provided. While I appreciate that the Ministry has generally considered to have been reliable during past periods and conflicts, the sheer nature of this conflict (especially the significance and severity of initial casualties on the Israeli side) gives the Hamas government ample cause to break this precedence and put the reputation of the Ministry on the line.

I see a large list of news sources above regarding Palestinian casualties, and it doesn’t change a simple fact that - as of today - has still not changed: there is no independent verification of casualties happening in Gaza, and we already have a major falsification event having already transpired.

I absolutely do not doubt that there are significant casualties on the Palestinian side, but - given the above information - I can only vouch for a (claimed) tag to be next to any/all Gaza casualty claims until their numbers can be independently verified…which may only happen after this phase of the conflict.

Mistamystery (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s no independent verification for the Israeli numbers either. nableezy - 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[12] As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported. VR _talk 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources:- Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? Time 26 Oct"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?" "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies." Hard to avoid the impression that the only reason for all the kerfuffle is the hospital explosion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In a war, it's common to take the casualty reports and enemy kill counts from both sides with a grain of salt. For example, the Russians claim to have destroyed more M142 HIMARS systems in Ukraine than were actually provided to Ukraine has turned into a meme. It's important to note that numbers provided by both Israel and Hamas are often marked as "not verified," so attribution is essential when using them. What complicates things further is that Hamas is among the well-known international players. During this war, especially in incidents like the one at the hospital, independent sources had varying results when trying to confirm the numbers. As a result, news outlets like AP began using "disputed" since the hospital count was included in the overall figure. That's why we can't hide the disclaimer in the footnotes. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss it in the article. If GHM were up at RSN for analysis, a generally reliable (which does not mean always reliable) result is likely based on the sources above. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent AP John Kirby said: “The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, and I think that all needs to be factored into anything that they put out publicly.”

Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The NSC spokesman is a reliable source for the public position of the United States, thats it. nableezy - 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Is AP a reliable source? , according to the Health Ministry run by Hamas. That includes a disputed number of people who died in a hospital explosion earlier this week.

Are you saying that you want to use the unattributed numbers from Hamas as those are "generally reliable" ? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has suggested no attribution. See straw man. nableezy - 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the functional difference between your method of attribution, where our readers won't see it, and no attribution? BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I know you posted something on percentage checking footnotes, but I dont know if that also refers to end notes, or if they are more likely to check some notes than others, as in for an ongoing war will they check references more than they would for an article on rainbows and flowers. So I dont put a whole lot of stock in to this our readers wont see it mantra, and I dont see the need to respond to it. But the functional difference is one has an attribution with an endnote and no attribution has no attribution at all. nableezy - 02:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

but I dont know if that also refers to end notes If refers to all footnotes.

as in for an ongoing war will they check references more than they would for an article on rainbows and flowers The paper addresses this question; readers are less likely to check references on articles that are above start and stub class (this article is B-Class) and readers are less like to check references on longer articles (this article is very long). Readers are also more likely to check footnotes that are related to people's social and private lives; "baby", "wife", "instragram", etc; readers are less likely to engage with references on this topic than they are on other topics.

The figure I gave above is that one in seventy will engage with footnotes; what I didn't say, as the detail seemed unnecessary, is that for this article that is a hopelessly optimistic figure; this article ticks all the boxes to drag that engagement down. Further, one in seventy engage with any footnote; the chance that those engagements relate to these footnotes is far lower. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What I see in the paper abstract is it is discussing citations. And I dont really think you have any way of determining the percentages on this article, but I also dont find it especially relevant. Does it break down notes in an infobox vs footnotes in the lead vs later in the article? Does it break it down by how in the news an article is? There are way too many things that are unanswerable about how a reader will engage with this article that it seems totally pointless to even pretend like it is relevant to the question here. nableezy - 03:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What I see in the paper abstract is it is discussing citations. The paper is focused on citations but also discusses footnotes.

And I dont really think you have any way of determining the percentages on this article, but I also dont find it especially relevant. It's not relevant that all the evidence we have tells us that readers won't see the attribution when it is in the form you propose? Saying "we know readers don't normally see these, but maybe this article is an exception" isn't a productive or convincing argument, particularly when it is in regards to something as important as compliance with core content policies. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like something you should bring elsewhere for a discussion of infoboxes and reader interaction with them across all articles, seems particularly lacking in relevance here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The question here is whether a particular method of attribution is functional; whether readers will actually see the attribution. Strong evidence that they won’t is highly relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You have seen my !vote? That's what I am saying viz a viz the RFC, the generally reliable is based on my own analysis of the recent RS (those above + WAPO) debating the question of reliability of GHM in general, not news snippets where there is no consistency, I can easily find articles where they don't say. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

See [13] which talks to this in more depth. The source for these numbers has proved reliable in the past. Of course this is not a guarantee and the numbers should still be attributed. The USA gov't consistently lied about deaths in the VN War. "In war, truth is the first casualty." attributed to Aeschylus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When incorporating figures from each side into our text, it's important to openly specify the source of these numbers rather than burying the attribution in a footnote. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As suggested by Meeepmep here, I would appreciate the modification of

• 4 change to redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article

* 3.5 The sources of the numbers from both sides should be explicitly disclosed in text seems like a reasonable choice to me. it seems that option '2' adequately addresses this

Infinity Knight (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Joe Biden isnt a reliable source, whereas reliable sources have said they do have confidence in the numbers. But regardless, is there a reason you think we should attribute only one set of numbers in text but not the other set? nableezy - 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden isn't a WP:RS but he has access to a lot more information than you and me. As for the sets of numbers, there seems to be considerably more dispute over one set than the other, and I haven't read of the POTUS questioning the other set in the same manner. Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but why would the political head of an ally of one of the combatants be the person that would determine which set of numbers is in question? nableezy - 23:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict

In addition to points made in previous move discussions - namely that multiple Palestinian factions and indeed the general population have been involved in this conflict - over the past 10 days since the last move discussion, other Arab countries (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt) have been directly involved in the conflict. Moreover, the name (Arab-Israeli conflict) is long established and well understood by the reader. The current title goes beyond inadequate at this point, it is outright misleading, making it wholly unsuitable. عبد المؤمن (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

While other Arabs have been causing some more trouble than usual, I (living in Jerusalem) get the impression from the news that it's primarily a Gaza Strip issue and not a general Arab one. The Arabs are not one entity, and trouble from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while both happen at some level all the time, the peaks tend to be at different times. Animal lover |666| 14:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

While this is true, almost all news reports, etc. of the conflict are specifically focusing on Gaza (or Palestine as a whole, or Hamas). Plus there's the establishment in previous move discussions that "Israel-Hamas" is the best choice under WP:COMMONNAME; while Arab-Israeli is recognizable, that hasn't really been applied to this specific situation as a common name–especially considering that even with multiple other direct involvements, Israel and Gaza(/Hamas, whatever name applies) are still the main parties in the conflict. Feliiformia (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is still refered to internationally as Israel-Hamas war, since these are the two main belligerents. I would not expand it since, then you may have to include the Americans too since they shot down Houthi rebel missiles toward Israel, American forces were attacked by Iranian proxies.[14][15]

Perhaps you'd like to name it? US+Israel vs Iranian Proxies? That would be most accurate but I don't think anybody says this. The international consensus in English Speaking world is Israel vs Hamas. We should leave it as it is. [16] [17] [18] [19] Homerethegreat (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the history of "requested moves" at the top of this talk page for details on the existing name, which has been extensively discussed. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox

Why is Hezbollah listed as a belligerent in the infobox and why are Lebanon and Syria listed as locations? That 'incidents' have occurred involving all three is cited and covered in the body, but none of the sources used comes anywhere near the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Hezbollah is now actively fighting as part of the war or that the war is taking place outside Gaza/Southern Israel. This two sentence article is employed to justify the claim that Syria is now one of the war locations, although it does not even mention Hamas or the 'main' conflict anywhere.

Sources should be clear, unambiguous and near universal to claim that any other group are active participants in the war, whether we are talking about the US or Syria. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For Hezbollah being a belligerent, would you care if that discussion was merged into the larger belligerent RfC earlier in this talk page? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw your post after having removed the info. Personally I would have no objection, but essentially it is up to somebody to come up with cites that explicitly say that Hezbollah is an active belligerent in this war and that this war has spread to adjacent countries. The existence of minor skirmishes/incidents doesn't satisfy that IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the references to Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox - whether Syrian and West bank deaths should be included, I leave to others. That these peripheral incidents are connected is properly covered in the article, but no source I have read says that they are part of the Isr-Hamas war at present. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - For the discussion about Hezbollah being listed as a belligerent, please visit the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) earlier in the talk page. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I agree that the West Bank, Lebanon and Syrian casualties should be removed from the infobox. This article is about the Israel-Hamas for and adding those belligerents without proper references is WP:SYNTH. Ecrusized (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't actually noticed the West Bank, Lebanon and Syrian casualties until I was removing Hezbollah from the belligerents, and leaders and Lebanon and Syria from locations. I'll wait to see whether anyone comes up with arguments for retaining these in the infobox. Otherwise I agree, including every border incident or bit of 'sabre-rattling' here is SYNTH and if the orgs and places aren't part of the war, nor are the casualties. I believe these incidents are properly recorded in the "Other confrontations" section however since they are clearly linked even if not intrinsically part of this war. Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

When Hezbollah carried out its first attack on day two of the war, they officially did so "in solidarity" with the Palestinians [20]. Moreover, if the clashes with Hezbollah are not part of this war, what then of Hamas attacks from Lebanon? Hamas operates in Lebanon in coordination with Hezbollah. I believe Hezbollah qualifies as a belligerent, but hitherto it has played a marginal role in the war and kept things below the threshold of escalation. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a pure WP:SYNTH argument. Sources needs to be found that the broad mass of commentators consider Hezbollah to be an active belligerent, not that a WP editor interprets their own words to mean they are. I can't think of any war situation in which the critical mass of sources are not clear about who is actively fighting that war. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it a SYNTH argument when 1) Hezbollah itself said that it took action in solidarity with the Palestinians, and 2) Hamas operates a second (third?) front in Lebanon in coordination with Hezbollah. Are you arguing that the fighting on the Israel-Lebanon border is entirely separate from the war in Gaza, despite Hezbollah (the instigator) officially deeming it otherwise? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." [...] "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle." [21] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mikrobølgeovn. Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mikrobølgeovn. Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Like what was said by Mikrobølgeovn, Hezbollah has continued to strike at Israeli targets in coordination with Hamas. Not just that, but Hezbollah is continuing to make statements alluding to fully joining the war and opening up a second front in the North. At the very least, Hezbollah should be considered a Co-Belligerent in the conflict for the time being. It can also be said that Hezbollah has had an effect on Israeli military operations, specifically in the Gaza Strip. There has been debate on what caused the Israeli ground invasion into Gaza to be delayed, and some have the belief that part of the reason it was is due to the risk of having a second front in the North opened by Hezbollah, which possibly forced Israel to have to deploy more troops in the North as a precaution. ConspiracyFlyer (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been debate on what caused the Israeli ground invasion into Gaza to be delayed, and some have the belief that part of the reason it was is due to the risk of having a second front in the North opened by Hezbollah, which possibly forced Israel to have to deploy more troops in the North as a precaution. I would be surprised if Israel were not concerned about possible 2nd and 3rd fronts - but that only shows the possibility of Hezbollah and others becoming belligerents - which no one would doubt. If they were belligerents, you and we wouldn't be writing about the 'risk' of a second front, you would be recording the murderous events happening there and we would have dozens of sources reporting the escalation explicitly - and presumably Bibi's widening of his original 'war declaration'. Luckily for all, we are still at the stage of ugly threats from all sides.

I removed the trio having first initiated a discussion above, to which no one contributed except to agree that the sources don't support the claim - they do support that there are related border incidents/skirmishes - which no one disputes. A source has to directly support the material you want to include in a Wikipedia article, not editor's own assessment that this or that entity is adopting threatening words and postures and - relatively minor - threatening deeds and counter deeds - which again no one doubts. Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hezbollah is an active belligerent, it has engaged in sustained combat with Israel since nearly the start of the war. There is also fighting ongoing by Hamas and the PIJ on not only the northern border of israel, but also in the West Bank where there are Hamas cells that have been targeted in Israeli raids. The Lebanese border and West Bank fighting is clearly part of the war and references to same in the infobox should be restored.XavierGreen (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

2023

Why is "2023" in the title? There is no other article called Israel–Hamas war to disambiguate from. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Conflicts in the region have been going on since 1948. Although the names of the countries and the political parties that run them can be used to differentiate the various conflicts in some cases, a little redundancy can be helpful for clarity. In this case, I think "2023" helps to distinguish this article from the many others. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The 2014 Gaza War was also between Israel & Hamas. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the history of "requested moves" at the top of this talk page for details why. Specific policies include: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions - Fuzheado | Talk 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SMALLDETAILS. None of those articles are titled "[YEAR] Israel–Hamas war", so 2023 is an unnecessary disambiguation. A hatnote saying This article is about the 2023 conflict. For other uses, see ... would suffice. The only reason I am holding back from starting an RM is because we've already had three in the past month. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

People looking for info on this war, or on the one that happened in 2014, or any of the other ones... they don't remember whether it's "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza War" or "Israel-Hamas War," plus it's called different things by different people. What they do remember is the year. Especially in this conflict, the years are the really memorable parts: it's '48, '56, '67, '73, etc. etc. So it's helpful to keep the year in the title. Otherwise, people will confuse "Israel-Hamas War" for all the other Israel/Gaza/Hamas wars. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I would recommend the other articles be renamed for consistency. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders flags in infobox

I think it's fair and logical to add palestinian (and lebanese) flags to commanders and leaders in infobox like those of israeli commanders and leaders. No ? Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s fine IMO Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Faycal.09: This reminds me of how some editors insist on adding the Argentinian flag for Che Guevara. While he was Argentinian, he did not "represent" Argentina - and if you're arguing that Hamas "represents" the "State of Palestine", then (don't take me too seriously) the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas might want to have a word with you. :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Che Guevarra does not represent Argentina to you but he is Argentinian, that is a reason to put up the flag to mention his nationality and his origin, not for his political orientation.

It's the same thing for the personalities here (commanders and leaders) who are mentioned in the Infobox, it is about their citizenship and not their political orientation. Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship is rather trivial for an infobox, wouldn't you agree? The flags are there so readers can easily pinpoint allegiances. It's a navigational tool. If this was a war between two ordinary states, there wouldn't have been a need for any flags beyond those in the "belligerents" row. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As you say, the infobox is there so that readers can also identify the citizenship of the actors in the article. the infobox must be simplified and not enter into allegiances, especially since these allegiances and political orientations are already detailed in the article. Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You must have misread what I wrote. Citizenship is literally unimportant here. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your meaning and I think it's you who don't understand what I wrote or what I mean. That's your opinion. In all infobox only citizen are represented. Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would think a military commander's citizenship is more informative than their military allegiance (ie who they are commanding). It simply isn't true that only citizenship is always recorded in infoboxes. In the case of former Yugoslavia, everyone was technically Yugoslav, though allied to proto-states that had little or no recognition and members of paramilitary units. The line of thinking would lead to the absurd possibility that someone with only Israeli citizenhip who was a leader in a Hamas supporting paramilitary unit would have an Israeli flag next to their name. Are we even certain that all of these leaders are Palestine citizens. Pincrete (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"Summarize and split"

@Infinity Knight: Care to explain how you "summarized and split" this section? [22] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

See here Infinity Knight (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: I don't see how it was summarized or split, all I can see is that it was removed and not moved anywhere else. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any recommendations? Infinity Knight (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, removed to hyperspace? Do we do that? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualties removed

Why have the casualties in surrounding areas, West Bank, Lebanon, etc been removed? 75.118.14.101 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Are people in the West Bank just not considered people anymore? Hello? 75.118.14.101 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remain civil. The casualties appear to have been removed from the infobox, but not from the article itself. The discussion around that is on this very talk page, right here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the west bank in scope for this article, in light of the name being the 2023 israel hamas war? Cyclone of Corrections (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel is literally claiming to be fighting Hamas in the West Bank. West Bank and Gaza are the same country. This seems like some weird, obvious casualty reduction. Unless the war title is to be called "Gaza Israel conflict" as opposed to "Hamas Israel war.".

The strikes that Israel has made in other countries have also all been considered part of this war. This seems like some very odd semantics being put in play. 75.118.14.101 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

USA as a belligerent

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

---

We should consider adding the USA as a belligerent on the side of Israel since it sent two aircraft carriers with its accompanying ships to the region. 31.141.33.96 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ongoing RfC — Please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding the United States in the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The US appears to have become an active participant, putting boots on the ground beyond merely the marshalling of troops in the region, and in addition to its other forms of material and operational support. There are reports of US special forces in Gaza,[23][24] and Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction. (Biden's administration even moronically posted about it, directly breaching its military's operational secrecy.[25][26][27]) While it was already wavering before, the country appears to have crossed the lined into active participation and could now be reasonably construed as a belligerent. Even if it only has delta teams operationally supporting and on standby, that is an extraordinary degree of support. This is in addition to the earlier story of a US naval destroyed shooting down cruise missiles inbound for Israel. That makes it multi-faceted support. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference, I know you commented in the RfC, but this discussion should have been closed, given it basically is a duplicate question/request to the RfC. Info about adding the US to the infobox should be in the RfC, not here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The RFC frankly has a ridiculous scope. It was always daft to try to crystallize the information in such a fast evolving current event via RFC, when there were no outstanding issues to resolve anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, the RfC scope is as simple as "Who do we add in infobox as belligerents". If that is ridiculous, then the scope of this discussion, which is also a "Do we add the US in the infobox as a belligerent" is also, as you would call it, ridiculous. :( The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The scope being discussing every country at once when it's a fast-paced news event and the information is changing from one day to the next. Also, the community was having no problem policing this without an RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting, I just withdrew the RfC. This discussion does have a ridiculous scope and should be closed. Cheers y'all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Small map edit

According to the Critical Threats Project, there is an incursion in the northwest corner of the Gaza Strip: https://www.criticalthreats.org/wp-content/uploads/Gaza-Clearing-Map-October-282023.png Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

​I would have done this myself, but the galaxy brains at Commons have decided to implement overwrite restrictions for all non-autopatrolled users starting now. Ecrusized, could you handle this one for us? It looks like the IDF has made an incursion down the Gaza beach and raised the Israeli flag somewhere in northern Gaza [28]. -- Veggies (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, right after I left this comment, I was granted my auto-patrol rights, so I did it myself. @Some Hecking Nerd: It should appear on the map, though you may need to clear your cache. -- Veggies (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies Here's the link to the ISW's map for future edits: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2e746151991643e39e64780f0674f7dd Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: The edit appears to be done. I have also seen reports on Twitter of an Israeli incursion in Rafah, near the area of the Yasser Arafat Airport, but not on reliable sources, so I haven’t added it. Ecrusized (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Summarizing table

The month of war is approaching. Please add to the article a summarizing table (at least for the results of the month), as it was done in previous wars.

2023 Gaza War

	Gaza	Israel	Ratio
Civilians killed
Children killed
Homes severely damaged or destroyed
Houses of worship damaged or destroyed
Kindergartens damaged or destroyed
Medical facilities damaged or destroyed

Ucraniano2 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose to such tables in general:

1. It assumes equally reliable information on both sides. However, Hammas tends to manipulate the information on their side.
2. It assumes that the damage on each side is the fault of the other. However, Hammas intentionally hides behind civilians in order that Israel will have no ability to protect itself without killing them, as well as killing innocent civilians themselves and blaming Israel, and causing infrastructure damage by failed missile launches.
3. Any attempt to get the number of civilians killed on the Gaza side requires either believing highly-POV propoganda or significant amount of investigation. And not all children killed on their side are civilians.

Additionally, the actual number of civilians killed on the Israeli side depends on the fate of 230 captured individuals whose fate is unknown. Animal lover |666| 09:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe specifics such as these could wait for a bit, since the numbers are changing everyday. Also, as for the comment below, Hamas is as much of a reliable source as Israel is, a country with quite the record of manipulating/fabricating evidence, denying facts proven by independent parties or simply witholding information in general. I believe that the current way things are presented (saying that the statistics are claimed by the respective party) is good enough. 2804:28D0:29A:4B00:C86D:8A6F:917E:FCD2 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Animal lover |666| especially on point 2 and including the eventual fate of the captured persons. BogLogs (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Deif connection to Jaffa Road bus bombings

Should the information from the Financial Times (FT) be integrated into the Background section when introducing a figure like Deif?

Hamas conducted suicide bombings with the aim of undermining the Oslo Accords. Israel attributes the responsibility for these bombings, including terrorist attacks in 1996 that resulted in the deaths of over 50 civilians, to Deif.

Infinity Knight (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of Deif connection to Jaffa Road bus bombings Survey

• Support The 1996 bombing campaign was a big deal in terms of Israel-Palestine history, according to the source. And, you know, this suicide bombing is one of those rare cases where everyone on Wikipedia agrees it was a terrorist attack. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. JM2023 (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Would you include the 2012 Burgas bus bombing because it was connected to Hezbollah? Maybe go through the List of bus attacks to see who each one is related to and see whether they should be included as well? Seems tangential here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  We're talking about this connection because FT felt it was on point Infinity Knight (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  One can see from the headline that the article is about Deif so it would indeed be on point in such a discussion and in the WP article about him. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  FT talks about this war. If you're against the addition, please register your vote. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a previous discussion/RFCbefore about this? Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  See here Infinity Knight (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was not much of a discussion, just yourself saying that you thought it should go in, no-one agreeing or disagreeing. It followed the removal here. Seems like overkill to begin an RFC based on that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:OR and WP:V Parham wiki (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Parham wiki (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I fail to see the impetus for considering this critical background information. Biographical information about Deif? Sure; a key detail here? I can't see why. This seems to be spun purely out of the FT piece of Deif. If there are not multiple WP:RS mentioning this as key background information for this conflict, I see no particular reason for its inclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Infinity Knight. W9793 (talk)

Split

I want to write a new essay about the background of the war (war in Afghanistan (2001–2021), World War I, World War II, Russo-Georgian War, Greek War of Independence and many other wars have an essay on the cause of the war) But I don't know what to write its name. Origins of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Origins of the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, Background and causes of the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, Background and causes of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war or etc? Parham wiki (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is difficult to write such when it is ongoing. Usually they are written after the event with the benefit of scholarly hindsight whereas all one would likely have now is unfiltered analysis/background material written by newsorgs and the like. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything to be done beyond what is found at Gaza–Israel conflict? Oftentimes, "essays" as articles are problematic in being WP:NPOV or WP:V, so please consider carefully before starting such a thing. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Parham wiki (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli casualty figures update

Today's news is that at least 331 Israeli soldiers have been killed since Oct 7. Currently it stands at 311 in the infobox. The total number of Israeli casualties has to be updated as well. Also, 50 of the hostages have been killed so far. This needs to be added to the Israeli infobox. 188.70.39.253 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

At least let unregistered users edit the article if you guys are too lazy to do the editing. 188.70.39.253 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Source please. nableezy - 15:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12684991/Gazans-told-south-Israeli-airplanes-pounded-450-Hamas-sites-blitz-ahead-ground-invasion-IDF-prepares-brutal-guerilla-fighting-terrorists-inside-civilian-areas-start-long-war.html 188.70.39.253 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Another source: https://news.am/eng/news/789574.html 188.70.39.253 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden unfrezed 6 billion dollars assets to Iran

Former US president Donald Trump and other Republican contenders have accused President Joe Biden of fueling the conflict between Israel and Hamas by unfreezing Iranian assets worth over $6 billion. Trump claimed that American taxpayer dollars helped fund the attacks and accused Biden of being weak on the global stage. Republican politicians have criticized the release of funds to Iran, arguing that it has contributed to the current escalation between Israel and Hamas.

— source

It seems to be appropriate for the WP article, section titled "Background". 176.200.72.198 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I would add it to the Reactions section. I don't think that the Iranian connection is proven, let alone that this money has enabled the attack. Alaexis_¿question? 13:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a wild, political accusation with no basis. And how is Iranian money held in S. Korea American taxpayer dollars? The article is messy enough without adding nonsense from political contenders. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is/was sitting in Qatar Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above commenters that it should not be included here. It is already included in International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Political figures. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

New articles

We have Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and 2023 Israeli ground operations in the Gaza Strip, any thoughts on how the war ought to be divided up? Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Here Parham wiki (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Saw that, not what I was getting at, exactly. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There's also the draft article:

Draft:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Add the death toll of Hostages that were taken from Israel during Israel's airstrikes in Gaza.

Hamas says around 50 hostages died in the Gaza strip due to Israeli airstikes. I suggest it should be added on the Gaza strip casualties as seperate from Gazan residents. And preferably according to nationality once we have more information and confirmation by indepedent sources.

-source PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say no - as a probable misinformation. Even if the hostages were killed (who knows?), this is possibly Hamas who killed them, just as they did during their recent "operation". There is a related discussion at Noticeboard#Are_Hamas_and_Gaza_ministry_numbers_reliable?. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That isnt a reason. nableezy - 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas has no problem claiming civilian deaths as executions or rightful resistance. But this is exactly why I caveated it with adding a disclaimer that it is according to Hamas, until we get better sources and/or confirmation from indepedents. Regardless whether they were killed by Israeli airstikes or Hamas, they have died in the Gaza strip. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Widely reported, will include as Hamas information, similar to how Israel reporting Palestinian deaths in Israel. nableezy - 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

1590 palestinians abducted by the settlers since oct 7

please mention this in the infobox. source: https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/138766 Another source: https://www.aa.com.tr/ar/%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B6%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%84-35-%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-1590/3036652

In addition, more than 4900 palestinians were abducted by the settlers before Oct 7 (more than 31 women, more than 160 children, more than 700 people with chronic medical conditions). source: https://www.aljazeera.net/news/humanrights/2023/4/16/%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%87%D9%85-700-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B6-%D9%88200-%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A3%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%81%D9%84-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1 Just a human being 20 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not even worth dicussion with those sources. One is hosted on Cloudfare and I've never heard of it, the other two are in Arabic so can't be read. They cannot be verified. Two, it's an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence, not Arabic news articles from unknown sources and Arabic Al-Jazeera. Additionally, the controversial term "abduction" and the lack of mention as to whether these hypothetical detained people are crminals, terrorists, fighters, rioters, etc. Also, the use of the term "settler" which is increasingly used as a demonizing and delegitimizing term against Jews in Israel. JM2023 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Why the double standard and bias against sources from Arabic sites? Wikipedia uses many sources in different languages and regardless the only source that matters there is Al-Jazeera since it is the only reliable one. But the problem is these are not the amount of abductions since 7th of october. Yes, abductions, because they are done in the west bank and not in Israeli territory, and on Non-Israeli citizens nonetheless. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, Israel is the occupying power of the West Bank due to the Arab-Israeli Wars and therefore it can de facto enforce laws there; additionally, countries can and do enforce their laws against non-citizens in territory they control. Regardless, if we can't read Arabic Al Jazeera we cannot verify it; and as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, one article we cannot read does not meet the standard of extraordinary evidence. Thirdly, there is no way Al Jazeera should be considered a reliable source when it is literally owned by the Qatari government while Qatar is a primary Hamas ally and financier: Qatari support for Hamas. For additional information: Al Jazeera has been accused of pushing "Qatari propaganda" by many countries and organizations, including those in the Arab world, with the BBC describing its Arabic-language coverage as more biased than that of Al Jazeera English and supporting Qatari stances on regional issues, as well as giving favourable coverage of Muslim Brotherhood aligned Islamist groups. - from the Al Jazeera article. Considering Al Jazeera to be a reliable source on Palestine in light of all this is illogical. JM2023 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hunting for Jews in Russia

Russia is evacuating people from Israel to Russia through its Muslim republics, which has caused mass unrest https://www.mako.co.il/travel-news/international/Article-4e95a360e5c7b81026.htm Ucraniano2 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Infobox map of the war (Keep or Remove)

The Map showcasing Israeli “control” of the Gaza Strip is borderline hilarious. We have no evidence that they have established a foothold, on the contrary, Al Qassam Brigades spokespersons and Israeli Media have both claimed that armed clashes are still taking place and Israeli forces were pushed back from yesterday. 93.112.196.152 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you should look at List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. In fact, Israeli forces have captured part of the Gaza Strip and have raised the Israel flag (The Jerusalem Post) over a town in the Gaza Strip. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Objecting to yourthe (edited) continued use of OR in encyclopedia articles is not a FORUM violation. I agree wholeheartedly with the IP that there have been a series of OR violating images and claims made across a range of articles. nableezy - 20:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Please do not accuse me of violating WP:OR. If you actually bothered to check prior to your accusation, you would have noticed that I, in fact, did NOT update the map. That was done by Veggies, using the TJP article above, as can be seen in this edit. Please research your accusations prior to saying them... The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You have repeatedly violated OR, from your attempt to claim Hamas occupied territory, to your attempt to add the US to the belligerent list, to any number of other discussions. Maybe dont violate OR so much? Just a thought. nableezy - 20:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Focus on content not contributor and drop the forum talk. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM before you use that word again. I am not discussing the real world issues, I am discussing the ongoing misuse of sources to make original points they have not made. nableezy - 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

But I modified my original comment to indicate this is not your OR. Happy? nableezy - 20:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Source needed - Since we are going on whether or not Veggies edit is WP:OR and this isn't a forum discussion, can some provide a source indicating Israel has not raised a flag in the Gaza Strip? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the source that is needed is saying Israel is controlling that territory, which is moot anyway as Israel is considered to be in effective military control of the entire Gaza Strip anyway. nableezy - 21:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So, why are we discussing this here and not the map talk page? I ask myself that question since you do not want to close this discussion and wish to keep it open. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My issue is the usage of the map on this article. I dgaf what happens on commons. nableezy - 21:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you are concerned about OR being used on the map, so you want to discuss the OR issue here, rather than discuss how to fix it, which would be on the map talk page? Insert pure confusion look The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Knock off the snark. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussing the usage of an image, and objections to that image is certainly within scope of an article talk page. It makes more sense to discuss its use on an article on the English Wikipedia on the article talk page with 500 watchers, rather than the talk page on a different project with fewer than 30 watchers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. But the removal of an image should have more backing rather than the basic This is WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments? So far, that is all I am seeing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have zero control over what people do with an image on commons. And WP:OR has no force on commons, what somebody uploads there has nothing to do with us. The issue I have here is using an image from commons that fails WP:OR, and this one does quite badly. Beyond that, the idea that we should be trying to breathlessly keep up with troop movements, that may or may not be true, that may or may not last more than a day, day to day is silly. I think we should have a map of the Gaza Strip and southern Israel as the infobox image. Not something that is being updated based on whatever news source somebody finds that says a flag was raised somewhere. Is that flag still there? Does anybody have any clue? Do we have any verification it happened? The source you offered makes this an IDF claim. And we are saying it is fact in the map. nableezy - 21:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this. Pretty much every war/conflict, some editors want to do a live play-by-play map. It's almost always OR, almost always a bad idea, when it's for a current event. Just a map of the area is fine. We don't need a map showing territory changes or troop movements for now. Later, if this ends up settling like Ukraine has, then there might be the ability to create a non-OR map showing troop movements or territory changes. But for now, it's OR because the sources cited at Commons don't support that map. Or I guess another way of putting it is that the map fails V. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR is a perfectly acceptable content-based reason to object to the usage of an image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Then my reasoning for this image to stay is This is not WP:OR. My reasoning is that no evidence has been presented to say it is OR, so until evidence is presented, that is my !vote reasoning. Cheers. Going to WP:COAL out since I made my reasoning clear. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Noting the discussion name was changed since the real topic of the discussion has become apparent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Uploader comment - Commenting here, since I uploaded a version of the map. User:Ecrusized should also be included here as we've worked on the map together. I don't think any reliable source would disagree that Israeli ground forces are not within the borders of the Gaza Strip. So, the question remains as to where. Ecrusized and I have read (and cited) accounts of IDF forces east of Bureij, near Beit Hanoun, and along the beach in the northern Gaza. That's why we marked those corresponding sectors. We're not claiming that any city, camp, or town has fallen, but that the IDF has begun the offensive and crossed the Gaza border and where. -- Veggies (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if this were true, why would it be in the infobox map? How is this going to be updated? But what it says is Gaza Strip under Israeli control. Now, just for a minute, lets forget that the UN and several international consider all of Gaza to be under Israel's control, what source says Israel controls these areas? nableezy - 22:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it’s better for the map legend to say under “Israeli military control” or “presence”? Especially since Gaza is considered already controlled by Israel indirectly The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Users need to voice their concerns regarding the map more clearly, as @Veggies: has stated, there is no WP:OR dispute, as the map cites reliable sources as to where the IDF has been involved in clashes inside Gaza Strip. If the concerns are regarding the naming "Gaza strip under Israeli control", then the users need to clearly suggest a renaming, instead of berating about removing the map. Ecrusized (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You can specify military control on the key, other than that the map is fine now The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of smaller armed groups

There many more Palestinian armed groups which have confirmed their participation in the war, including for now the Popular Resistance Committees (Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades), and the Palestinian Mujahideen movement.[29][30] There is also the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' brigades which i don't know why, but it was removed. It also appears that PFLP-GC is participating with whatever assets they have outside Syria, and so is As-Sa'iqa, with both participating in a meeting with other factions in Beirut, and declaring general mobilization.[31] And finally, on a side note, PFLP, DFLP, and maybe PIJ should be abbreviated, no idea why they are fully written out with an abbreviation at the end, wikipedia generally abbreviates long names of organizations like these, especially when, like in the cases of PFLP and DFLP, the abbrevation is used more than the full name. Whatever748 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the smaller Palestinian groups (PFLP & DFLP) should be removed from the infobox the proper policy of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I'm not sure if these groups are relevant enough to be included to the infobox. محرر البوق (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

PFLP and DFLP are in no way the "smaller" groups, they are both pretty significant, and have taken up major roles in both the initial operation and later fighting. They both captures everal military checkpoints, and have been confirmed to have engaged with the IDF throughout the southern district. They both have significant capabilities, and their militants probably number in the thousands. The smaller groups i'm talking about are the PRC, Palestinian Mujahideen movement, etc. and once their participation is confirmed, PFLP-GC and As-Sa'iqa. Whatever748 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

It seems to me that various countries are actively providing military assistance and/or support to the State of Israel in the framework of this specific ongoing conflict. Therefore, it seems to me reasonalble to include them as belligerents (or at least as supporting Israel). Countries like Germany (news source: https://apnews.com/article/germany-scholz-israel-aid-hamas-b38a3cf34895fbfc0c966bb27413886f), the United Kingdom (news source: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-sending-navy-ships-and-spy-planes-to-support-israel-and-prevent-further-escalation-12983313), the United States (news source: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-military-navy-carrier-e648c53dc53a46e2e12950784ea5e8d2 / institutional source: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3553040/us-flowing-military-supplies-to-israel-as-country-battles-hamas-terrorists/).

Moreover, it seems to me that Austria and the Czech Republic require monitoring in terms of future military assistance.

Obviously, this matter is debatable, but I urge you to consider it. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@ZeusMinerva25: I assure you this has been debated extensively. It is considered deprecated to add "supported by" in infoboxes. However, a spinoff article like International aid in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war could include both foreign military and humanitarian aid donated to both sides. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Impeding relief aid to Gaza may be a crime under ICC jurisdiction, prosecutor says

CAIRO Oct 29 (Reuters) - Impeding relief supplies to Gaza's population may constitute a crime under the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction, the court's top prosecutor told a news conference in Egypt on Sunday.

Source: Reuters

I think this is worth mentioning in the War Crimes section. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already comparable material in the war crimes section about the Israeli blockade and denial of aid to the Strip. Please consider adding it to the article War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war instead. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be undue to state it in this article, as it is one opinion, and there is not yet news of arms shipping in via these aid deliveries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not if it is the opinion of the prosecutor of the ICC, a globally mandated authority. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Preamble

Please add general information about the victims to the preamble:

The total number of dead on both sides is approaching 11,000 people, injured - up to 27,000 people. The ratio of dead children in Palestine and Israel is 110:1. About 1.5 million people are considered internally displaced persons. ^{[see «Casualties»]}

Ucraniano2 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: emphasize Israeli occupation of Gaza

In the historical context section, please mention the fact that most of the international community and human rights organizations still considered Gaza occupied territory as per international law in light of their blockade. This is mention for instance in the Gaza Strip article or the Israeli-occupied territories article. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:4D32:CD1B:9F06:4B4A (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza borders Egypt. Chupster811 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it was not the case at the start of this war (since about 2005), it would be inappropriate to add, despite opinions of other organisations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza is still considered occupied, or at least controlled by Israel even after the disengagement The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Abbas

Abbas walked back his criticism of Hamas. Specifically, he no longer stands by the statement "Hamas did not represent the Palestinians". Thus, can that bit be removed from this article? Chupster811 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Reuters updated the article we used as a source for our current sentence; I guess we can consider that a "soft"-correct/retraction. It's unclear whether Abbas walked it back, or whether a mistake was made by WAFA in creating that transcript, so I don't think the 'walkback' is worth mentioning. DFlhb (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Update the casualty figures

Seriously when are you dipshits gonna update the casualty figures? You prevent unregistered users from editing the article and, meanwhile, you wank yourselves instead of keeping things up-to-date.

https://news.am/eng/news/789574.html 188.70.39.253 (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)