Talk:Israel–Hamas war

RfC on sexual violence in lead section

Should the lead section contain a few sentences concerning the sexual violence during the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023? ' If so, should the Hamas denial be included? Option A would be to include a few sentences with no denial. Option B include with a denial. Option C do not include. Coretheapple (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give example sources for "the Hamas denial"? I saw one interview, but I am not sure if what I saw is what you have in mind. Irtapil (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree including it as it has been a contentious topic that has received notability. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Warning for the closer re: canvassing: ArbCom has been presented with evidence that this RfC has been canvassed by those asking for proxy edits to promote a pro-Israel point of view. While I am not personally aware of the nature or extent of the evidence, or the scale of canvassing, the closer should apply WP:NOTAVOTE with particular care. WillowCity^(talk) 22:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey 2

• Option A, Failing to include the sexual violence in the lead would violate WP:LEADl and WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOTCENSORED.There are 45 million hits when you google "Hamas" and "rape" (without quotes), 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: Title: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced"[1] It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by WP:FALSEBALANCE While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Note that the denial is in the body of the article, in the relevant subsection.'

One point re the denial that needs to be stressed. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, is not followed by a response or denial from Israel, even though Israel has indeed responded to or denied every single element of the lead. Putting in the perfunctory Hamas response to the rapes, and only that response out of everything else in the lead, would be unbalanced and not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) second paragraph added. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you list a couple of these 'everything' please. NadVolum (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There are 540,000,000 results for "flat earth" with no quotes. The claims are more credible than that, I'm just saying I don't think those figures prove much by themselves. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A, will accept B. I do not think the denial is helpful, per WP:MANDY, but if it will help this pass I will accept that compromise. Andre🚐 04:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C would accept B as well, but A is a non-starter to me. The 45 million general google hits are completely irrelevant, as we arent going to start counting random blogs and twitter accounts as reliable sources all of a sudden. The USA Today article is relevant in that it reports The Israeli military official said that, just as authorities know that many women were sexually assaulted during the Supernova music festival and at their homes on Oct. 7, "we know they were raped in Hamas captivity.", somehow presented as though the USA Today is undersigning that claim from an Israeli military official in the opening comment here, but it does not. The USA Today article also includes Despite this evidence, Hamas has consistently denied accusations it used sexual violence on Oct. 7. It has claimed the allegations are part of an attempt by Israel to distract from its mass killings of civilians in Gaza. International human rights groups waited two months before finally condemning the sexual violence. Nearly all the sources that include any accusation of rape includes the denial by Hamas as well, if it is to be included it has to include the denial per NPOV. But why should it not be included? Because the rape charges are almost entirely focused on the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and the sourcing here in relation to the overall war does not show that it is a prominent controversy for this subject and not the child article on the attack. There are 16,400 news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", 14,800 for "rape" "hamas" (many overlapping), nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes (114k news results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023"). Or to "starvation" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" with 78,400 news results. "genocide" "gaza" "israel" "2023" gets 25,900 news results. For the overall topic, this just does not have the weight in coverage to merit inclusion in the lead. For the 7 October attacks? Yes, of course it does. But for the war that is entering its 11th week and not limited to one day in October, this is not a prominent controversy to be included in the lead. nableezy - 05:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C. The initial reports, endlessly recycled since, were extremely confused, internally contradictory, and endlessly touted despite numerous corrections, or dropping off the radar of serious reportage, over time. We still don't appear to know if the rape incidents reported reflect a Hamas strategy, are attributable to other militant groups, or the general flux of indiscriminate groups ranging over the landscape and wreaking violence. A large number of similar, specific reports about burning, decapitating, ovening babies etc., are now viewed sceptically, and until we have specific forensic evidence of the scale or scope of these reported crimes, any statement formulated to assert, as was done from the outset in Israeli news reports, that this was a systematic aspect of the 4 hour Hamas onslaught on the border communities, will reflect a partisan claim, not an ascertained fact. Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This dismissive rejection of overwhelming evidence and testimony comes disappointingly close to the kind of sexual violence denialism that has been deprecated and rejected worldwide over the past few decades. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This skepticism is warranted. Israelis have already been caught lying about the details of October 7th. The most notable example is the 40 beheaded babies story. JDiala (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C: this war inside Gaza has been going on for 2 and a half months, the 7/10 attack last several hours. Iennes (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC

  The duration of these events is irrelevant to our content policy. It's also false that the sexual violence occurred only on the first day.

  The nature of the initial attack and the ongoing treatment of the hostages has received ongoing coverage in RS, and the coverage is increasing as new investigations reveal the extent of the conduct. It also has been cited as enabling Netanyahu's refusal to moderate the intensity of Israel's counterattack.

  Pearl Harbor/WW2, Archduke assassinationi/WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Boston Tea Party, etc. were all discrete events the significance of which is not diminished by their brevity. We are continuing to see daily coverage, testimony and forensic evidence, and no credible information to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  You dont need to badger people and make this an unreadable mess; if you want to discuss somebody's vote do it in the discussion section where they may ignore you at their leisure. nableezy - 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Pearl Harbour and Archduke were precipitators of a large conflict; the sparks which ignited a fire. They are not really comparable to a handful of alleged excesses that occurred in a military invasion, but which otherwise had no further reaching consequences. JDiala (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. This is a WP:BALASP issue and a matter of WP:DUE. Option A (including "a few sentences") is, in addition to violating NPOV and failing to follow reliable sources (by omitting the denial), totally excessive. The Israeli captives have been a larger story in relation to the war as a whole, and they have a single sentence, which is appropriate; an (as yet unconfirmed and strenuously denied) allegation of something that happened on a single day in the course of an eleven-week war should not be given more prominence. As well, as a matter of BALASP, highlighting these allegations skews the POV of the lead. I don’t want to speculate about anyone’s intent, but I get the feeling that highlighting the events of October 7 is a way to undercut the more prominent aspects of the war as a whole, namely, Israeli atrocities and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In effect, “well, Hamas also did bad things”. But we have a litany of articles about that: War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war; Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel; 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel; articles on individual October 7 attacks. This article is about the entire war. It is not just about October 7. The bottom line is that when news stories about the October 7 attack refer to sexual violence, they include attribution of the claims, and they include Hamas denials. Overwhelmingly, if not exclusively. We can’t independently weigh the evidence, determine it’s credible, and then depart from RS by failing to include attributions and denials. WillowCity^(talk) 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A The nature and ferocity of the 10/7 attack was the predicate for the Netanyahu government's unprecedented response. The rapes and sexual mutilations have received broad ongoing coverage and increasing investigations and condemnation. No RS treats any denials as serious or credible, so MANDY applies. If mention is to be made of denials, as in option B, we would also need to convey that those denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned. But that would be excessive detail for the lead. Note that WP is not a newspaper and the fact that the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials does not tell us what we must convey as an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  For Israeli atrocities, we generally mention Israeli denials even when they are not credible, eg lead of Shireen Abu Akleh.VR _talk 00:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  It is factually incorrect that the press currently less frequently mentions Hamas' denials. The recent NYT investigation regarding this explicitly noted Hamas' denials in the article. Furthermore, it is not unusual to include denials of crimes in the lead even when those crimes are generally accepted to be true, especially when said crimes are done by state or quasi-state actors like Hamas. The Armenian Genocide is an example of this. We explicitly discuss Turkish denial in the lead. JDiala (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. Lacking weight for the topic of this article.Crampcomes (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. This is important to understanding how Hamas precipitated the war. Denials are not credible and not worth including. Far more important than the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which was Hamas's desired outcome resulting from the atrocities committed to provoke the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C. but B would be acceptable. The allegations are absolutely a huge flashpoint in coverage of the war, but every RS article I read includes the denials alongside the accusations. A just doesn't make sense from a WP:DUE standpoint. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. I don't think the denials should be mentioned, considering that they are given very brief treatment by RS. However I don't see much harm in mentioning them briefly (Option B). Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• C It can be treated a major part of the 7 October attack but it is a very minor part of the war and that's what this article is about. The lead is already a bit stuffed. NadVolum (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B currently, but am fine changing to Option A if somebody shows that a plurality of reliable sources don't include the denial. It seems like enough do for it to warrant a brief mention. I am opposed to option C; I don't find the arguments in favor of it compelling. We have an article on the topic for a reason; there's an articles worth of sources about it. Enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Polite reminder as well to assume good faith and not to speculate about the intent of editors, don't think that's going to be helpful. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to note that while Hamas denies allegations of sexual assault or mutilation committed by members of its armed wing, it does not deny such acts performed by others who participated in the attack. Therefore, this is not an actual denial of the fact that sexual violence has indeed taken place during the attack. Marokwitz (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A. Including the denial by Hamas would be a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is clear, dated, evidence of the sexual violence so mentioning the denials would create a false sense of ambiguity. If people do indeed think that there's enough uncertainty to include the denials then I would be in favor of Option C as that means that it's a he-says she-says situation that takes away from the main point of the conflict. Ergzay (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A per Hawkeye7. The war began with Hamas atrocities that shocked the world and traumatized Israel, and the Hamas denials lack credibility and inclusion would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't include Israeli denials in the lead as also observed above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. This has clearly received significant coverage in Western media. Recent articles in American, British and Australian reliable news outlets, for example. Sources tend to mention the Hamas denial briefly and only after the allegations have been made in full over several paragraphs, so I think we should keep the denial out of the lead. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C. The October 7 attack and kidnapping are the events that triggered the current invasion in Gaza. However, the rape accusations have no bearing on Israel's decision for this specific military operation. Including them is more likely to serve Israel's propaganda purposes (false consciousness) than an encyclopedic one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  (Supplementary comment after someone cited the New York Times article "Screams Without Words" in this discussion.) The NYT paywalled "Screams Without Words" article fails to provide justification for including the rape allegations in the article's lead. Typically, such details belong in an article about the terror attack article itself, not in the article covering the military retaliation that follows. Even for proven (not alleged) systemic sexual misconduct during war, these instances are rarely highlighted in the lead, at least I can't find any instance besides this article. Moreover, the October 7 rape allegations, which happened only in 1 day instead of during this war, only surfaced in November 2023, after northern Gaza had already been heavily bombarded by the IDF. Hence, it's unlikely that the rape allegation influenced Netanyahu's decision to attack Gaza, or "completely eradicate Hamas". While I hesitate to delve into the details of the NYT's "Screams Without Words" article, a brief review indicates a lack of concrete evidence. The article lacks testimonies from the allegedly sexually assaulted survivors, and all Israelis killed in the October 7 attack were hastily buried without autopsy. The allegations heavily rely on witnesses (e.g. "Sapir") testimonies and videos which don't show the actual process of sexual assault, but its "aftermath". All in all, supporters are trying to make a precedent over something lacking hard evidence but being politicized and weaponized. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Sameboat: Why would you separate the first attacks? Or do you just mean that's where the detail belongs instead of the mean page? Irtapil (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Irtapil: I believe my previous comment is quite clear: The rape allegations were not the basis for Israel initiating this full-scale invasion of Gaza; rather, it was the killing and kidnapping incidents. As far as I can see, no reliable sources directly connect the rape allegations to Israel's military retaliation, not even NYT's Screams Without Words.^[2] Instead, these sources primarily focus on the October 7 attack, including Hamas' denial and claim that the allegations serve as a distraction from Israel's war crimes,^Guardian and that wouldn't justify option A which rejects Hamas' denial in the lead. If the rape allegations were to be proven true, that would be very disturbing. However, even if one could demonstrate systemic sexual misconduct during Israel's invasion, it would still be extraordinary to include such details in the lead of a war article, regardless of the side implicated in the alleged crime. The exclusion of sexual misconduct (e.g. comfort woman in Second Sino-Japanese War) from the lead aligns with Wikipedia's standard format for war articles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Sameboat

  I wrote this earlier but it didn't send.

  I think the rape narrative is central to this war because of the way it is being used to justify a genocide.

  As far a I know there is stronger evidence of more widespread rapes in Ukraine? But they are less relevant to that conflict, because it hasn't become the "We must destroy them because!"

  Arguably, we shouldn't amplify the Israeli propaganda narrative, but I don't think not mentioning it helps? We definitely shouldn't call the initial attacks article "Hamas Rape spree in Israel" or such, but it is a prominent issue.

  Though I have possibly just talked myself into "not in the lead" of the main article maybe.

  Irtapil (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Irtapil: I think the rape narrative is central to this war because of the way it is being used to justify a genocide. I would like you to cite at least one reliable source which directly use the rape narrative to justify anything related to Gaza's humanitarian crisis. If your goal is to ridicule Israel's petty excuses to collectively punish and expel Gazan Palestinians, mentioning the rape allegations in the lead doesn't help at all, but ruins the balance of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option C as information that is currently both poorly verified and largely tangential to the narrative of the war as a whole, which is the topic. These claims are merely one subset of atrocity claim under investigation and do not require detailing in the lead. Much emphasis was placed by Israel on this material after the renewal of violence in Gaza, but this POV emphasis does not make it of overall due weight emphasis as lead detail: on the contrary, it might violate NPOV to do so. Option B would likewise be preferable to Option A in asserting a modicum of balance, but both are less preferable overall as undue in terms of overall weight considerations. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. Those people are Islamists and in favor of forcing women to wear hijabs, because they believe that men cannot be held responsible for their behaviour when they see unveiled women. It would be very inconsistent of them to abduct unveiled women and not rape them, so the accusations are obviously true. Given the coverage, it also belongs in the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fortunately, your personal analysis is entirely irrelevant here. Zero^talk 07:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A. Exceedingly well covered topic. And including Hamas's denial would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. As per Marokwitz below, we should try to use language similar to that of the Guardian. Dovidroth (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. Widely covered by WP:RS, Major controversies must be prominently featured in the lead section as per Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:LEDE). I oppose option B for the following reason: The denial of sexual violence in this context has become a fringe view, especially in light of substantial and reliable accounts that have surfaced. For example, according to The Guardian:

  Several incidents of sexual assault and rape from 7 October have been documented by Hamas body camera footage, CCTV, material uploaded to social media, and photographs and videos taken by civilians and first responders, according to several people involved in analysing the footage. Survivor and witness testimonies, many from the Supernova rave, describe seeing women being raped before they were shot.

The language used in the lead could be similar to the one used by the Guardian, that is, attributing the evidence to survivors, witness testimonies and forensic staff.

This evidence has resulted in UN Women's explicit condemnation of the sexual violence that occurred. Hamas may deny that its fighters carried out sexual violence, but it is a fact that not only Hamas fighters participated in the attack, therefore this denial is meaningless and misleading.

Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that denying or downplaying these heinous acts is not only factually incorrect but also morally reprehensible. Such denial would be a profound insult to the female victims, akin to silencing their voices and negating their traumatic experiences. Applying a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the victims and perpetrators in this context not only undermines the veracity of the reported events but also perpetuates a harmful narrative that could further victimize the victims. Marokwitz (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C - Per Nableezy and Willowcity. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C Without commenting on the sourcing: we have a separate article for the October 7th attacks. Details about the October 7th attacks go in the lead of that article, not this one. Loki (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C as these are WP:UNDUE for the lead of this article, but option B for 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as they are WP:DUE there. Many Israeli actions have received more RS coverage, as nableezy points out, but can't be given the space they deserve because of concerns surrounding length. For example, I find that gaza starvation has 95,000 results, or 8x more than hamas rape which is 12,000 results for me. Will we give 8x more sentences to the starvation of Gazans in the lead as we give to the sexual assault claims? Various other topics not mentioned in the lead all get more news hits than the rape allegations: shifa = 17,000, "indonesian hospital" gaza = 16,000, cancer gaza = 119,000 (the plight of cancer patients amidst the war) etc.VR _talk 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've got only 13,000 results for Gaza starvation, which would be about the same. Not sure why the discrepancy. If you switch over to plain google results, hamas rape has about 10m more results than Gaza starvation. [00:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)] I also have different results for your other links. Same number for Shifa, but for Indonesian hospital Gaza, only 6800. For cancer Gaza I have the same high number, but I suspect that not all of those results are about this. Andre🚐 00:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A sexual violence by Hamas has been condemned by dozens of leaders, senators, figures etc. A bunch of international media outlets have reported on it, and gotten testimonies. Prosecution already has collected a substantial amount of evidence over the past several months. There is footage, some of it spread by Hamas itself of women bloodied in between their legs and other things. It would be a complete wp:falsebalance to give equal weight to Hamas denial of the actions.
  I do think the body should include a denial. However the lead should be option A. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. Mentioning the topic is especially important because the very extreme violence (not just sexual) of October 7 is what later on shaped the goals, length and the extent of the campaign in Gaza. It is also important in order to understand why the 2023 Gaza War was so different than the ones in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021. Option B might have sufficed but due to the sheer amount of WP:RS, I think this is just WP:FALSEBALANCE. FoodforLLMs (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  In other words, "mentioning the topic is especially important because we need the atrocity propaganda to justify an ongoing genocide." Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not the propaganda arm of the Israeli government. JDiala (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:AGF please argue policy rather than making personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please tone down your sarcasm and accusations, I think it's highly uncalled for. To address the substance, We are supposed to present the facts to the reader and let them formulate a narrative. For example, just as you need to see the Palestinian casualty figure to understand condemnations of Israeli actions, you need to see details of the Oct 7 attack to understand support for Israeli actions. And I think our job is to show these facts. --FoodforLLMs (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A absolutely. It would be such a gross violation of WP:NPOV to not include it in the lead. EytanMelech (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C as UNDUE and unreliably sourced. I would accept Option B. The Zionist entity has engaged in a huge information war, despite that many of their wild claims have been found to be fabrications. All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF. It would be a violation of all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to include this likely false claim in wikivoice in the lead of this article, let alone without the denial from Palestinians. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  “All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF.”

  What does attributing it to Zionist mean? Are you referring to Israeli first responders? Could you rephrase?

  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181

  ”The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks.”

  https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20231213-evidence-mounts-of-sexual-crimes-perpetrated-by-hamas-during-oct-7-attack-in-israel

  “Two months after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day. Prosecutors have little doubt that women were raped, tortured and some of their dead bodies mutilated. Israeli police, who opened a probe in mid-November, say they have gathered more than 1,500 testimonies from witnesses and first responders.” Drsmoo (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC is at this stage the government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power running reconnaissance missions over Gaza from Cyprus. As in all cases, we should be seeking reliable, secondary sources that are as independent as possible. As for the France 24 piece, that says "prosecutors" (presumably Israeli prosecutors) are confident of X - now prosecutors are specifically in the business of making a strong case rather than neutrally and impartially reflecting the facts. Their counterpart would be the defense, which isn't reflected here (if this is in reference to the ICC filing, then we may be waiting some while). In the same breath, the same source notes that the UN investigation is evidently ongoing - so we are still awaiting impartial voices on proceedings. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Those are both reliable secondary independent sources, that’s why we use them. Please don’t misrepresent sources, France24 wrote “evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day”. Along with the myriad of others that also report Hamas’ murderous rape spree.

  The argument by some editors that we should ignore reliable sources is ridiculous. The argument that we should ignore Israeli civilians and human rights organizations because they are Israeli is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, the way a reliable source like the BBC turns into a government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power because it does not toe a pro-Hamas party line is clearly motivated reasoning. No difference to Trump calling those outlets that contradict him "fake news". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  They’re not misrepresenting anything. BBC (British state media) is saying it’s “seen evidence” which is not the same as saying that something occurred. If a source said they’d “seen evidence” that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians, would you want it included in the lead that Israel is targeting civilians? And would you agree that the statement of every Palestinian civilian or human rights organization is lead-worthy?

  I don’t think people are suggesting they be ignored outright, they belong in the body with appropriate attribution and context. But these accounts are generally filtered through Israeli government sources (prosecutors, police, the military) who have a vested interest in spin-doctoring evidence to fit the narrative of a belligerent to the conflict (one who famously lacks credibility). For example, who knows what kind of editing the video shown to BBC was subject to? How reliable was the witnesses’ perception, how much do they even remember, are they sincere? These are not issues the BBC opines on. The question is not “are Israeli civilians telling the truth”, the question is “are the reports sufficiently notable, credible and unequivocal to justify including in the lead?” The even more important question is, “do these allegations tell readers anything about the ongoing 12-week war, or would focusing extensively on a single day skew the narrative towards one POV?”

  (also, can we all try to keep the discussion to the discussion section) WillowCity^(talk) 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Using pejorative slurs like Zionist entity isn't an argument and railing against Zionist control of the sources (assuming they're saying all Western sources presented here are Zionist) in this discussion isn't one either. The closer should ignore this !vote since they were asked to elaborate on what a "Zionist source" is and didn't. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  The repeated assertion by some that Israeli witnesses, first responders, and human rights organizations are not trustworthy due to their nationality is unacceptable.

Currently on the home page of The NY Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A Times investigation uncovered new details showing a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel” “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7”Drsmoo (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A, per SPECIFICO, Hawkeye7 and Marokwitz. The cruelty of the 7.10 attack, including the sexual violence, resulted the wide support in Israel to a harsh response. The credibility (or more accurately, the lack of credibility) of the denial should also be considered, as we describe the reality. The denial is indeed a fringe view. I think that option B, if it includes a clarification that the denials are not taken seriously and widely condemned, can also be good, and even give a better perspective, but it will be too long for the lead, so it's better not to write about the denials in the lead at all. פעמי-עליון (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and we should include this information (the weight in the media does give it proper DUE weight) and leave out the denial as I do also believe it is "fringe". MaximusEditor (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're making a strawman argument, as no one has argued for censoring this, and in fact, many of the Option C !votes specifically point to other places more suitable to mention this. VR _talk 04:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A as per Hawkeye7 and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A per Andre. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 02:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option C Such details and denials about what happened on the first day of the attack belong to the lede of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C I've been convinced by the argument brought up below by User:WillowCity and User:Sameboat would make Option B give undue weight to sexual violence in contrast to other conflicts. Option A is for me a nonstarter. To include it we would have to adjudicate that Israel's claims are valid, that any rebuttal is invalid, AND that including it is so factual and important that it doesn't even warrant including usual context. I think it would be a flagrant violation of NPOV. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  After reading a few rather convincing arguments above from User:Marokwitz, the denial from Hamas referring only to their members, any form of option B would have to be very carefully worded. I'm not sure that option B would make much sense in that light. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A' or Option B per Associated Press. “Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants who killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took more than 240 hostages that day.” Drsmoo (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit: From The NY Times today: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.

Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.” Drsmoo (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C It should absolutely not be discussed in the lead. The Zionist state has demonstrably produced false atrocity propaganda regarding the October 7th resistance operation, like the 40 beheaded babies lie, which incidentally the uncritical Western media has parroted. We thus have reasonable suspicion that these sexual assault allegations are likewise fabricated. The lack of forensic evidence (e.g., semen) or pregnant Israeli women is also eyebrow-raising. I understand that Wikipedia does regard Western media as WP:RS, which I accept and do not contest, so it is reasonable to include the sexual violence claims somewhere in the article. However, I think it is fair for us to exclude it from the lead, given the very real reservations regarding this. JDiala (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could you articulate a policy-based reason why we should ignore widespread attestation in the most reliable sources, and why we should ignore eyewitness testimony from Israelis. Your allegation that the evidence of sexual assault is fabricated because it comes from Israelis is not acceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) and 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I never stated we should "ignore" it. I simply asserted it shouldn't be in the lead. Something being reported by a widespread number of sources is a necessary but insufficient reason to be included in a lead. It is also important to note that this legalistic focus on "policies" is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia see e.g., WP:5P5. It is completely sensible for us, as an encyclopedia, to have a greater degree of scrutiny for an entity known for regularly producing bald-faced lies regarding the events of this war. This doesn't mean eschewing such claims altogether, but merely relegating them to the body of the article rather than the lead. JDiala (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-08/ty-article/israeli-police-collect-eyewitness-testimony-of-gang-rape-during-hamas-attack/0000018b-b025-d3c1-a39b-bee5ef400000 Which entity are you referring to, the testimony of eyewitnesses? I don't like putting words into peoples mouths, but your argument seems to be that not only should we ignore the wide array of highly reliable sources, but we should also ignore all Israeli eyewitness accounts, and first-responder accounts, because you think they're untrustworthy. That position would not be valid. Drsmoo (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit 17 May 2024

• Option C. Came to that decision having read the arguments of those who have already answered. A is out of the question as it's a breach of NPOV in showing bias towards one side when neither side has any credibility as regards truth. B is a "he said she said" option, which in an article based on a broader issue (where a multitude of more widely covered events that have transpired throughout the war do not make the lede) seems excessive/undue to mention. Therefore C seems the most appropriate option as it keeps to substantiated facts without giving undue weight/balance. It's the most dispassionate option. As a side issue (given it has been used as an argument), media outlets (otherwise reputable on other issues) without verified, independent information can't be used to validate claims either, as western ones have historically had a bias one way, while middle eastern ones have had an opposing slant; what's been new about this current episode of the conflict is more of the masses are not being taken in either way, thus have a more independent/unhindered view of what is happening. Messi R9 R10 CR7 Thiago LFC (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B I think it is pretty clear that sexual assault and rape occurred during the initial attack, which is unsurprising since that's how most wars seem to go. What is unclear is the extent of the assaults, which is why most RS still include the Hamas denial; until this is clearer, the Hamas denial of its armed forces not being responsible should also be mentioned.
• Option A. A denial is undue weight for the lede; reliable sources, such as thus extensive NYT report only mention the denials in passing and afford no credulity to them or detailed coverage. Similarly, it would be undue to exclude the tapes from the lede; they are very widely covered and the extent of said coverage is only increasing. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Option A Yes as the October 7 attack was the core event starting the war, and the brutality of it has been very widely reported so we should report what reliable sources state. The Hamas denial isn't relevant per the aforementioned WP:MANDY. It's also very important to state the course of events as a fact in wiki-voice- often in these articles editors have been adding wording such as "Israel reports that Hamas carried out sexual assaults occurred on October 7" rather than the direct factual wording of "Hamas carried out sexual assaults on October 7". Reliable sources are very clear that the mass sexual assaults did unfortunately happen and the wording needs to reflect this. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. The lead is overdetailed in many places. The article does not explain whether or how the scale of the sexual violence during the October 7 attack factors into Israel's decision-making. Senorangel (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option C or B, I wholly endorse arguments of Messi R9 R10 CR7 Thiago LFC and WillowCity. Sexual violence - and specifically organised, weaponised, sexual violence - was a notable feature of the Bosnian war, particularly against Bosniak women, but it isn't mentioned in the lead, nor was the scale of its occurence reliably established at the time. At the present moment, the scale and extent of sexual violence on October 7th is unknown - and largely unknowable - and information about it has been highly weaponised, despite little coming from competent forensic authorities. Editors here are tending to argue that because some 'horror stories' are probably true, then all must be true. Two sad facts are that sexual violence is a normal feature of most wars and that weaponising of atrocity stories is nearly as common. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Option A So many words here for the obvious thing: the evidence is very precise. Legitimizing the denial of the claims of sexual violence of women in this context is against any liberal and feminist thought. The only way to include claims of denial can be in the context of bashing those who deny - similar to mentioning Holocaust denial. Agmonsnir (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

See, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia is not here to uphold liberal and feminist thought. (For the record, I hold both liberalism and feminism as noble causes). VR _talk 04:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A this best represents the current reliable sources about the brutal attacks. Nemov (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option A per Marokwitz. The topic is widely covered by mainstream media, including the thorough examination of The New York Times published lately. It is one of the major controversies related to the attack, and as such it should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEDE. Hamas denial, as suggested in Option B, is not helpful here, and may be considered fringe view regarding the vast coverage of the sexual violence by so many reliable sources. Noon (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option A. It would be a gross failure of WP:NPOV not to include the sexual violence in. Based on the WP:RS it is very clear that the sexual violence isn't some isolated actions but it's clear that it's very related to the conflict at hand. If the RFC is made in October, there are no clear references about rapes, but at this moment we have seen multiple references about the sexual violence - and we can't ignore it. The fact that Hamas saying that "it didn't happen" shouldn't stop us from taking the information from the reliable sources - where all sources agree that it happened. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A Drsruli (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A with great obviousness. We do not need the plaintive, WP:MANDYish denials of Hamas, a terrorist organization, over what they did or did not do. A terrorist organization is not a reliable source even for itself. We go by what actual sources say about them. Zaathras (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Zaathras very good point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning option C, oppose option B: This article is about the whole war, and there is a different article for the events of 7 October. It is proper that the lead of the latter should include sexual violence (it does currently). It is also proper that the section of this article on 7 October includes it (it does currently). But I don't think it needs to be in the lead. If it is in the lead, however, there's no reason to create false balance by including a denial by the perpetrators (per WP:MANDY). Although I don't think it should go in the lead, many of the option C arguments above proceed from the conviction that sexual violence didn't happen, which is a deeply problematic assumption given the clear weight of evidence, and I would hope that arguments for C based on that logic be discounted by any closer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A with a caveat. The lead has a serious problem: it omits even mentioning the atrocities by Hamas in Israel, which were the reason and the casus belli for the war. It was not merely a "surprise attack" as framed in the lead. That should be mentioned in one-two phrases, which would also include the mentioning of sexual crimes by Hamas as the key element of the atrocities. Option "B" is not viable because the denial by Hamas belongs to WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. This is the reason the war started. Calling it a "surprise attack" is whitewashing. It was one event but without it, the war wouldn't have happened. More specifically, most news articles cover the violent rapes as one of the causative factors. The reliable sources presented here overwhelmingly consider the rapes to a) be important and b) have happened. Denying this would be like including Holocaust denial in the lede to the article on World War 2, like "millions allegedly died in genocides". Comments like Nishidani's boil down to "well reliable sources say that there were mass rapes but I don't think their standard of evidence was high enough". That's not how Wikipedia operates, we are supposed to summarize the consensus of reliable sources and not inject our own burdens of evidence to say the New York Times/BBC/The Guardian didn't do a good enough job. This argument that there's not enough evidence to make these claims would only hold if reliable sources agree that there is not enough evidence. Nableezy touches upon this by citing a single USA Today article that doesn't endorse the Israeli claims (but doesn't deny them either), but Drsmoo, Marokwitz, and Ficaia provide several other sources that do agree that Israelis were raped by Palestinians/Hamas. Nableezy also brings up various counts of news articles to try to rank the importance of various issues. This is the Wikipedia:Search engine test. We don't know how many of those news sources are reliable, the engine miscounts a lot, etc etc. It's not as useful evidence as searching reliable sources such as the NY Times or the BBC which heavily cover the rapes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C: This is primarily an Israel claim with no evidence (admitted by Israeli press) like many other extraordinary claims they routinely make. It is due in the article, but it is hardly a notable enough aspect of the conflict to be included in the lede. MarioGom (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, no. [3] [4] Marokwitz (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have a view on the best option, partly because the lead will hopefully evolve organically overtime per MOS:LEAD, so I'm not sure an RfC matters much in practice at this stage. But I wanted to say something about the various arguments being used to exclude a Hamas denial. I don't find them very compelling. Setting aside the obligation to follow RS and the fact that many include the denial, because that is what RS do, I wonder whether the MANDY, FALSEBALANCE, UNDUE, NPOV etc arguments might be missing the point a bit. This is just an encyclopedia after all and the lead is meant to summarize and inform. If there is reporting by RS that X's actions likely included instances of Y, and we say that, the fact that X denies it rather than says nothing is in itself informative. Including it tells the reader something about X. Is this case substantially different from something like the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal lead? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A per above, particularly the first reply. JM (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C As pointed out by other edtiors, it was much smaller than the other atrocities and grievances. It was not fully discovered until Israeli retaliation had already started, so it cannot be a reason for the retaliation. A few sentences would be completely UNDUE for the lead. If we must mention it, at most only add the words "sexual violence" to an existing sentence. CurryCity (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. Two wrongs don't make a right. There's no amount of wrongs that can make a right. Israel's bombing of al-Aqsa was not OK nor was the post Oct 7 retaliation and killing so many soldiers, civiliand, and kids. But that doesn't make what the Oct 7 attackers did right either. Jikybebna (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Regarding the completely made up claim that the denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned and the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials, sources to this day include that Hamas denies the accusations of rape, the overwhelming majority of sources that refer to any claims of rape or sexual assault include the denial. The most recent one I am aware of is USA Today writing about the Israeli military saying they know hostages were raped includes the denial. Such a series of unsubstantiated assertions as made in that comment should have evidence provided for it or it should not be taken seriously at all. nableezy - 16:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and the denial is in the body of the article. No one is arguing that the denial should not be in the body of the article, only not in the lead. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, has drawn a response from Israel or a denial. But such denials are not mentioned. Putting in the Hamas denial, and only the Hamas denial, would be unbalanced and not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

What accusation by Hamas against Israel is included without a response? nableezy - 17:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, you keep acting like Hamas and Israel deserve to be treated as 50 50 equal players on every question, and what we do for one hand we must do equally for others. It's not a good model for NPOV or life or justice. Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. Hamas is a small group with a small quasi-territory that launched an attack against significant odds, alone, with no support, and is basically an international pariah due to the atrocities during that attack, and we don't need to act like it's possible that they didn't happen or that they weren't terrible, or that whatever denials issued by Hamas are credible, unless some credible academic or journalistic source does so. We also shouldn't act like those events didn't precipitate this entire war.

Israel is a large, well-armed, wealthy and powerful state backed by the US, UK, France, Australia, and basically every Western and English speaking powerful country, under quite a bit of scrutiny and being accused of all manner of things from apartheid to genocide, and we should absolutely treat those as complex both-sides type issues inasmuch as there are people debating them who are reliable (though, in my view, the genocide allegation goes too far and is inaccurate). On some issues yes, there's a complex narrative and we must balance the views of Palestinians versus Israelis, each group has separate factions, such as Fatah, or the different Israeli groups that range from Meretz and Labour to Likud to Blue&White to Shas and Yisrael Beteinu. And no, there are not credible allegations that Israelis are raping Palestinians, not like there are of Hamas. So we don't need to act like these things are the same. The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists. So not every atrocity needs a response. We should simply cover them as the majority of sources do, and not try to both-sides every issue.

The point is to describe in the lead what the majority of yes, Western, yes, English-speaking, sources think are the most pertinent issues. Yes, there have been widespread calls for a ceasefire and widespread reports of indiscriminate civilian deaths in Gaza. We do not try to include Israeli denials of that or whatever weak PR Israeli spokespeople put out about it trying to spin or downplay those massive civilian deaths. Because that wouldn't be credible, and it's not edifying. Andre🚐 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As much Hamas is a small group with limited international support, Israel is also a small country with international pariah status by some metrics. What else would one call UN general assembly votes where all but three other countries agree with their position? Both entities have credibility that is in the dirt on the global stage due to the unacceptable aspects of their conduct, and the relative weight and/or credibility of either in any conflict scenario is of equally little weight relative to impartial and independent secondary, reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You're mostly right except for matters of perspective and a few important aspects that are distorting. Israel is a small country geographically, worldwide. But relative to Gaza, it's quite large. About 60 times as large by land area, a little under 5x as large by population. More importantly, their relative power dynamics. And the 3 other countries are pretty large in terms of that. As far as the UN votes, you're right. Most vote for a ceasefire or to condemn Israeli settlements. My point was about the relative power dynamics at play. Israel is a state and it has to abide by things that states have. Hamas, not so much. Andre🚐 02:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we feature all significant views; scaling said significance is a trickier matter. My point was that within the context of their globally parochial conflict, the relative weight of Israel/Hamas pales alongside their equal partiality as combatants, and the primary views of either are little more than POV commentary short of validation by independent, secondary analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

'The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists.' Sure, so Hamas went and raped peace activists all along the border.

To repeat, we are caught up in the furor of reports from 7-8 Oct of rape, mutilation, beheadings, burning babies. rare later reports tell us forensic doctors and police are sifting through these reports meticulously and exhaustively, but that so far we have no statistical evidence other than an indication from interviews with hostages who have been returned that slightly under 10% reported experiencing some form of sexual molestation.

This is what Hadas Ziv, policy and ethics director for Physicians for Human Rights–Israel stated 10 days ago, guardedly>-

“What we know for sure is that it was more than just one case and it was widespread, in that this happened in more than one location and more than a handful of times. . .What we don’t know and what the police are investigating is whether it was ordered to be done and whether it was systematic.” Sam Mednick New signs emerge of ‘widespread’ sexual crimes by Hamas, as Netanyahu alleges global indifference Associated Press 15 December 2023

That means that we have some sparse facts of sexual violence befalling a number of the several hundred civilians, and extensive allegations that this was systematic and specific to Hamas policy. Not enough for the lead, as yet.Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. you mean like displace 2 million people, kill 20,000 in 10 weeks, starve a civilian population? And when you think something goes to far and is innaccurate that means we shouldn’t include it? Genocide accusations have a ton more coverage than rape accusations, but you think one of those should be included unanswered and the other just brushed aside? Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then. nableezy - 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. That's happened before, and worse things have happened before. In fact actual genocide has happened before, with 6 million Jews exterminated by Nazis, many LGBT and Romani, etc., or other documented genocides such as the Armenians. As far as the genocide accusations they certainly don't have more coverage or at least not by much, and I haven't seen that source survey. There's also a legal definition of genocide not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people. So, no, it's not the same, it's a false equivalency. The rapes have documentary and photographic evidence. Andre🚐 18:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

That happened in Gaza? Was it Hamas? As far as source survey: 25k results for "genocide" "gaza" "israel" "2023" vs 14,800 for "rape" "hamas". Do you hear yourself on not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people. You are saying we cannot accuse Israel of a crime (genocide) because of living people and special rules, but we can accuse Hamas of a crime (rape) because reasons? nableezy - 19:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Because that event has been proven shown more likely true than not"[added as "proven" was inexact/incorrect legallyAndre🚐] by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. So to act like it's still in doubt or deny it happened or downplay it is problematic. Whereas genocide has a number of legal elements that haven't been shown. Apartheid, as I said, is defensible, and arguable, and I might agree that it exists in Israel. The West Bank settlers are also violating international law and have been guilty of several illegal and atrocious things. We don't need to dance around them. If there's clear evidence and nobody can really dispute it except for a basic denial, it should be treated as more likely than not if that's what the sources support. Of course, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV demand balance, but balance isn't, "include the denial of everything that someone/group is accused of." Balance means reading all the sources, balance them out, and distill the mainstream positions in a proportionately accurate way. If 75% or 95% of sources agree and you discount the remaining 5 or 25% for some reason (such as WP:MANDY or a contradiction or the fact that the claimant is a terrorist group with poor credibility on that particular point), that's how I balance it out. WP:FRINGE and WP:BALASP exist to avoid giving too much platforming to ideas that are not mainstream. The idea that the rapes didn't occur is exactly that kind of flat-eartherism in my view. Whether genocide is occurring is debatable at best, but I'd say that the elements aren't there. We don't need to debate that though, because it's a larger topic and doesn't belong on this page. Andre🚐 20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, but youre just making things upexaggerating the evidence and the certainty of the sources. There is no video footage or photographs or documentary evidence, there are eyewitness accounts and there are denials. You can believe the same organizations that made up a baby in the oven or 40 beheaded babies if you want, but please dont misrepresent what the evidence is here. There are no videos, that is not true. And 75-95% of sources do not agree that this happened. Because they dont say it in their own words that it happened, they say who has said it happened and what evidence they have presented for it. They also say who has said it did not happen. You can and others can misrepresent what the sources actually say, but Ive read them and I dont need to just pretend that this misrepresentation is accurate at all. You can say Hamas is a terrorist group with poor credibility, and my response is Israel as a state is an established liar, over decades and in this conflict, and if you want to believe everything they say you can do that, but I dont think that is appropriate for a serious source to accept as fact the claims of a party engaged in active armed conflict and who has provably lied over and over again. And neither do the sources who relay Israeli accusations as Israeli accusations. nableezy - 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've not misrepresented sources. In one photo, a burned body appears to project anguish. In another, a woman lies naked from the waist down, her underwear hanging from her leg. In interviews, first responders haltingly describe finding naked female corpses tied to beds and survivors recount witnessing a gang rape at the music festival...Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre.[5] Andre🚐 23:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, ZAKA, an organization that has been repeatedly found to have manufactured acts of barbarism like burning a baby to death in an oven, has made these reports. Yes, there are eyewitnesses saying they saw rapes. There are no videos of sexual assault or rape, and no photographs of sexual assault or rape. Your own source repeatedly attributes the accusations to Israeli military and government sources. nableezy - 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

They're photos which are evidence of rape. They're videos of young women being kidnapped, and videos showing the aftermath of rape. Arabic documents telling Hamas how to say "take off my pants." You can argue whether this evidence was "made up" or "manufactured" but the fact remains that you claimed the evidence didn't exist, and that I made it up, which is incivil. No, I read it in NBC News, an apparently reliable source that is not reliable enough for you. Andre🚐 23:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Im going to believe the military that presented a calendar as a terrorist schedule on what they found. Yes you absolutely made up that there has been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. and despite your asking an admin to chastise me for it I have no problem repeating that. There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim. They have said that there is a body of evidence that increasingly suggests that it did happen. You are the one claiming that this has been proven by video, and that is false. nableezy - 23:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine, substitute the word proven with "substantiated to show it is more likely than not," it's still incivil to say I made it up. You can quibble on the semantics but that's not going to take away the civility violation. You can believe it was all made up. That's your prerogative. But you can't tell me that I am making it up. Andre🚐 23:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have to substitute something that completely transforms your statement to resemble the truth then your original statement was not true. If you feel I’ve been uncivil you can discuss that on my talk page or report it. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the article so why don’t we focus on the article here? nableezy - 23:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim" - Nableezy

Andre provided you a reliable source saying that they directly saw and reviewed photographic evidence that rape occurred. NBC News is on the reliable source list, so it's a reliable source. They said they saw photographs of naked bodies strongly implying sexual violence happened. They did in fact make such a claim. Unless you're going to try to say that NBC is not a reliable source then what you've said here is obviously false.

"Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre." - NBC news.

I'd just like to hear some type of policy based justification as to why we should ignore this. Do you have an argument from WP:RS or WP:NPOV? If you're going to say that 75-90% of sources conclude that rape did not occur (or more weakly, that they don't conclude that it did occur), then where is your list of sources that you looked at to come to that conclusion? I'm just kind of hesitant to take that at face value given the quote I started this post with. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What they say is that this suggests rapes occured, not that it proved it. And there is no video. And no, I have not said sources conclude rapes did not occur, I say they have not yet concluded rapes did occur. And the sources are those like NBC who are still reporting it as an accusation, not a proven fact. nableezy - 23:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is video evidence; to be clear there is not video evidence of an in-action rape. There is video of young women being kidnapped, such as kidnapping of Noa Argamani. There is video of the interviews as well. See the BBC[6] Video testimony of an eyewitness at the Nova music festival, shown to journalists by Israeli police, detailed the gang rape, mutilation and execution of one victim. Videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack, and photographs of bodies taken at the sites afterwards, suggest that women were sexually targeted by their attackers. Videos filmed by Hamas include footage of one woman, handcuffed and taken hostage with cuts to her arms and a large patch of blood staining the seat of her trousers. In others, women carried away by the fighters appear to be naked or semi-clothed. Multiple photographs from the sites after the attack show the bodies of women naked from the waist down, or with their underwear ripped to one side, legs splayed, with signs of trauma to their genitals and legs. Andre🚐 00:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there are videos of violence against women, and there are videos of testimonies. That is not video proving rape. This is getting in to the weeds a bit, suffice it to say I do not think there is no evidence, I objected to the claim that the sources say the evidence proves anything, or that there are videos proving it. As far as the interrogations, what NBC says is NBC News could not independently verify the authenticity of the interrogation videos released by Israeli officials. Officials declined to provide unedited versions of the interrogations. nableezy - 00:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured" is what you said, not "There is no video evidence that has proven rape occured". Do you consider photos of naked bodies of Israeli's killed by Hamas militants proof that they were raped? I'm not sure why Hamas would be undressing women them after killing them without sexually assaulting them, but if you have some theory on that I'd be happy to hear it.

If you could, just let me know what your standard of proof for inclusion here would be. What exactly would you need to see, specifically, from a reliable source before you'd be fine including a brief mention in the lede of what seems to be a prominent topic in the reliable sources about this war? Chuckstablers (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Wikipedia. nableezy - 01:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries, we can mention it in the lead. Of course Hamas's denial should be mentioned in the body of the article, but it is undue in the lead. Dovidroth (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources concluding something occurred is the bare minimum requirement for saying something occurred. If you think that it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries removes that requirement then you should re-read WP:V. nableezy - 14:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports of videos existing. The one report that I personally somewhat trust (wouldn't count for wiki, just someone who claims they saw the early videos) describes "a German woman" at the music event. It described something disrespectful, but not a rape. A lot of videos have been described but never surfaced, and the stories have been distorted in repeated retellings, because most people do not want to watch that stuff. If Israel know of any video evidence they need to give it to an expert third party who investigates war crimes, not just describe it in the media. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, there are reliable sources stating that these rapes occurred. 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give them as specific citations please, ping me? Like is being being said below I've mostly heard it as "Israel says". The day became a violent mess, so all types of violence seem possible, but all the specific evidence I've seen is weak or biased. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they report that Israel has said this and that eyewitness accounts have said this. They have not concluded that they have occurred. Attributing accusations and denials is not concluding the veracity of either. nableezy - 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

And to add to the above, weighing the evidence for yourself and then engaging in independent fact-finding is WP:SYNTH. WillowCity^(talk) 15:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@WillowCity: That is not what is meant by WP:SYNTH. Please review the policy detail at that link. Also, as stated on WP:TPG, There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation P.S. I love your user name. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed the policy on several occasions, and I would refer to the second sentence: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. In this case, combining summaries of Israel's evidence from The Guardian (and/or other sources) to reach the definitive conclusion, and state in wikivoice, that sexual violence occurred. According to Dovidroth, RS are stating that these rapes occurred; but the sources, to my knowledge, have not said so definitively; they attribute the evidence to sources within Israel and note that the claim is denied by Hamas.

As well, I certainly do not dispute that users are allowed to state their belief regarding what occurred, but our individual beliefs (as legitimately expressed on a talk page) do not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS such that they should be included in a given article. (Also: thank you for the compliment!!) WillowCity^(talk) 16:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what SYNTH is. First of all, it doesn't apply to talk page arguments. Secondly, see WP:SYNTHNOT. Synth is not any synthesis, it's only an original novel synthesis that doesn't appear explicitly. Andre🚐 22:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

(1) SYNTHNOT is an essay, not a core policy; (2) I’m saying that it would be SYNTH if it appeared in the article, which is the issue here and why it’s being discussed on a talk page at all; (3) see above, using an article’s discussion of the evidence to state, in wikivoice, that sexual assault did occur is absolutely synth, because it’s an original novel synthesis that doesn’t appear explicitly. It would be like if I cited a source that said “experts allege that Israel’s prosecution of the war satisfies the legal definition of genocide” based on XYZ evidence, to state, in wikivoice, that Israel is committing genocide. That would be taking the source’s content a step further than the source itself is willing to go, i.e., original research/synthesis. WillowCity^(talk) 23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not the topic of the RFC. The RFC is should there be a few sentences, with or without denial, explaining the sexual violence. The exact language should hew closely to the sources, not synthetically, but exactly as framed in the reliable sources, with attribution as attribute. Andre🚐 23:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If we're hewing closely to RS, and discussing the issue exactly as framed by them, then Option A should be written off, because RS overwhelmingly if not exclusively refer to the denial. It is also unclear from the wording of the RfC whether Option A would mean stating the allegations as fact; some !voters seem to be suggesting we should, and I am explaining why that would be synthesis. WillowCity^(talk) 23:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The RFC doesn't prescribe a specific wording. No RFC can obviate the need to abide by V, RS, SYNTH, etc., so regardless of what comes out, we'll need to make sure that the wording in the article is properly couched and qualified to be accurate to the sources - the RFC doesn't touch on that. If Option A succeeds, the statements will be included without denials, but they will still need to hew closely to the original source. Option B will include the denial, Option C will exclude altogether. Sounds like you might be leaning Option B, which to me isn't a bad outcome, but I can't make your !votes for you. Andre🚐 23:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Just for the avoidance of any doubt, my !vote remains Option C, as a matter of WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. WillowCity^(talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Wikipedia" - @Nableezy

I get where you're coming from, and I can understand where some your frustration here after fully reading a lot of the talk page.

I might be misreading the room here (chime in if you think I am), but I don't think anybody is arguing for including a "statement of fact"? I'm reading the options as adding something the allegations of rape by Hamas militants, as it is a prominently discussed topic in the sources currently. If we're going to make a statement of fact that "sexual violence was committed by members of Hamas", then we'd need reliable sources saying definitively that sexual violence was committed, on that I 100% agree with you.

If you'd argue that we need sources definitively saying that rape occurred to include something like "evidence/allegations of sexual violence by hamas militants, which hamas denies" (except not so poorly worded), then you'd also have to argue that we need RS's definitively saying that "Israel committed X war crime" everytime we say "Israel has been accused of *INSERT WAR CRIME HERE*". I don't think you'd argue for that right?

Just one final thing; I also don't think that to make a statement of fact we would require video evidence, or any evidence in particular from the sources. If a plurality of major reliable sources say that rape occurred definitively, then we could say that as a statement of fact. That seems to be the position clearly endorsed by WP:NPOV; we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". If an overwhelming majority of sources said that rape occurred, then it'd be fine per NPOV to just say that rape occurred as a factual statement. We wouldn't start analyzing the validity of their conclusions; given how divided editors are here on their views doing that would kind of just invite us to throw out each other's sources everytime and just start nitpicking them. Those are basically my thoughts here; I think I've said all that I really have to say and am going to step back from this conversation. It's getting unreadable as is. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests. And yes, the same is true for war crimes. I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either. nableezy - 21:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either."

I think you missed my point there. I'm referring to this in the lede: "leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water." We don't require the majority of sources saying that "We've proved that Israel used starvation as a weapon" to include that. We just need sources discussing the accusations. Similarily, we wouldn't need a source saying "We've proved that Hamas militants raped Israeli women during the attack" to say "There have been accusations of rape by Israel, denied by Hamas" or something to that effect.

"Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests."

My final paragraph was more just trying to make my position clear that we wouldn't need the sources to provide or discuss any evidence in particular, as long as they say it occurred we can say it occurred. If an RS said it occurred solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony that they reviewed, then we could say it occurred. I took issue with your statement that you'd need a source saying there was video that proved it, as that isn't really needed per NPOV. Just explaining what my last paragraph was actually a response to. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with most of that, the issues I have here are twofold. A, I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article. But here, I dont think it has the weight. Second, I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. Your beef with my comment was about my responding to a claim that video has proven rapes occurred. I was challenging that here, because that is not true. I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it. Because that is what was being offered as justification for including it without a denial. And that remains untrue. nableezy - 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article."

I get where you're coming from there Nableezy, I'm kind of leaning towards the side of it being a prominent enough controversy in the war in general for it to merit a very brief inclusion (with the denial) not exceeding a sentence in the second paragraph? The one that starts with "The war began"? I certainly don't think it deserves several sentences on it, that would be undue.

The main reason that I currently think it deserves a sentence is that we mention the water topic in the third paragraph ("leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water."), and that controversy has been discussed less in the RS's than the rape allegations (just doing a google search I see far less RS's discussing it than I do the rape allegations).

So if the articles "prominence of a controversy" threshold allows that controversy (about accusations of Israel using hunger/water as a weapon) in the lede (per the MOS, lede should summarize prominent controversies), then shouldn't it also allow a more prominent (in terms of how often it comes up in the RS's) controversy in the lede?

That's kinda where my heads at right now.

"I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. "

Strongly agree.

"I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it."

Thanks for the clarification, glad we can agree on that. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, someone has tried to insert those statements about the summary executions into the article several times. Andre🚐 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they inserted that Israel was said to have done such things and eyewitness accounts said such things, and even that was removed despite the OHCHR also documenting the killings. They did not include that it happened as a fact in our narrative voice. nableezy - 23:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, you are correct, and my prior message should have explained it uses the word "allegedly," (MOS:ALLEGED), and "reportedly," and ascribes it to both a confirmation on an official Twitter account, and to witness accounts circulated by media. It was removed with a rationale stated of NOTNEWS, as it's quite thinly sourced to a recent AJ piece and a Democracy Now piece, aside from the SELFPUB/PRIMARY tweet. So, I personally agree with the removal, and you are correct it was not as a fact in wikivoice, and I wasn't trying to lazily imply that it was. But does it have WEIGHT - I say no. Andre🚐 23:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, since we’re not a court of law, we don’t have to weigh circumstantial evidence and determine whether it definitively supports the inference Israel wants us to draw. I’ve said above, the opinions of individual editors do not matter, it matters what sources are reporting, which is that (1) Israel and Israeli sources have made allegations (2) Hamas denies the allegations and (3) Israel has produced evidence that they view as supportive of their position. I’m not aware of any independent, external investigation confirming Israel’s view of events as fact. More importantly, I'm not aware of a preponderance of independent RS treating them as fact or omitting the denials. And whether or not it happened (which is not the subject of this RfC) none of this addresses what is really the core question: whether the sexual violence claims are necessary to understand (and specifically, to summarize) the entire war. This issue didn’t come to international attention until earlier this month, and RS prevailingly discuss it in relation to the October 7 attacks, not in relation to the war as a whole. WillowCity^(talk) 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• To address the argument that we should include these claims because the October 7 invasion was “ferocious” or “shocking” or “traumatic”: our purpose here is not to validate trauma. We’re here to discuss a war. The argument that sexual violence is necessary to understand Israel’s response is, frankly, bizarre, because (1) Israel was absolutely pummeling Gaza weeks before they investigated these allegations; and (2) sexual violence does not justify unlawful collective punishment. This story is not necessary to understand the war as a whole, it may be necessary to understand October 7 and the ex post facto justifications of Israeli atrocities, but this article is about neither of those things. If we devote a few sentences of the lead to events that have not yet been verified by independent, external sources, we are effectively saying that Israeli allegations are as or more important than the deaths of 8,000 Palestinian children. Child mortality has received vastly more coverage (i.e., 180,000 search results on Google News, if that's a worthwhile metric, compared to the numbers identified by nableezy above for sexual violence), but it receives only a single clause in a single sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead. This is the very definition of a BALASP issue and the reason BALASP is part of the NPOV policy. WillowCity^(talk) 17:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• "B or C (but)" - If included in the lead (undecided on that) we should probably include the denial, it is a "they said", not a fact, but that's sufficiently communicated by describing it as a "denial". (Out of interest, but I doubt are sources? 3 other groups also claimed the attacks as a whole, did they deny the sexual violence? Were they asked?) The overall level of evidence should also be discussed - I have avoided reading too much graphic detail, but there does seem to be debate - but that belongs in the body. Alternatively, instead of the denial, we could put a general these claims were disputed in the lead with refs citing Hamas and any notable third parties. The body should also contain a fairly strong statement about how (depressingly) this is ubiquitous in war because that points to the plausibility of the claims (verges on synth, but very important context for someone who might be unfamiliar with how horrible war is). Irtapil (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) edited Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  If anything, the tragic ubiquity of wartime sexual violence weighs against inclusion in the lead of this article. I would note, to the extent this matters, that including sexual violence so prominently in the lead would depart markedly from most other wiki articles on wars. Sexual violence is not mentioned in the leads of the articles on World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Soviet–Afghan War, the Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the First and Second Chechen Wars, the Iraq War, the Libyan civil war (2011), the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the Myanmar civil war (2021–present). Wartime sexual violence is either notably alleged or extensively documented in all of these conflicts. It is tragic in every case, not just when the victims are Israeli or the alleged perpetrators are Palestinian. WillowCity^(talk) 16:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  To reinforce your argument, Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) doesn't mention comfort woman (aka "forced female sex slaves for foreign army", a hotly discussed topic in China and Korea even in 2023) in the lede either. Searching its talk page and archives, no one debated over its inclusion in the lede at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Bombing and shooting are ubiquitous, we don't leave those out of the lead? And the comment about ubiquitous hours in the body. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Because bombing and shooting are fundamental aspects of any military operation. Rape is not. Excesses unfortunately occur in wartime, and rape is one such excess. This does not mean it's significant enough to include in the lead. I also feel that the highly charged, emotive nature of a rape allegation in the lead will undermine WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• B but specify who denied it - Reflecting on my previous answer. Specify which individual(s) denied it, not just "Hamas". The guy who denied it (if we are thinking of the same denial?) was in Qatar when it happened. We shouldn't be talking about Hamas as if it is a single individual or a hive-mind. If more than one person denied it then specify as succinctly as possible "Hamas leaders" or "spokespersons outside Gaza", etc. The denial is relevant to whether it was part of the plan, but says very little about whether it happened. (For the sake of declaring my bias, my personal opinion is that it was not part of any faction's plan, there's negligible evidence of anything systematic, but they created a chaotic situation where some sexual violence, and other horrible things, were almost inevitable. If there's a last minute open-invite for "let's invade Israel" a city of 2 million will have at least one Ted Bundy / Richard Ramirez / Ivan Milat who will join in.) Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• As I sort of said before, to me there is a lot of ambiguity in WHO did it. There were 4 factions who claimed the attacks, and one of the small secular factions is arguably more violent than Hamas, but no reliable sources say which faction ended up where. There are also controversial reports that some non-militant criminals showed up opportunistically. (Which obscenely are being spun as "it was civilians, so kill all civilians!" would you bomb Milwaukee just because Jeffrey Dahmer was there?) Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

We get it, you don't agree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It'd be like writing a story about the Iraq and Afghanistan war without mentioning 9/11 or bin Laden. Andre🚐 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) It would be like writing an article about the war in Afghanistan and not including box cutters on one of the planes in the lead of the article on the war. nableezy - 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) That comment, unconstructive for this page, is also deeply offensive to every volunteer editor on this site who cares about gender issues of denial and entitlement. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What is going on above? I used the reply button but my comment has appeared in a boy that is dated for the day before yesterday??? Irtapil (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's an admin's hat for offtopicking comments. I'll move it. Andre🚐 06:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

New investigation and independent confirmation from The NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) Revision as of 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, much of the initial reportage, univeresally circulated for weeks, came from ZAKA. For which see The Short String, ZAKA is not a trustworthy source for allegations of sexual violence on October 7 Mondoweiss 30 December 2023 Nishidani (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s an opinion piece in a source considered at RSP as biased and with no consensus on reliability. Plus, I don’t see the relevance to the article from the NYT? BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is a far-left publication that publishes op-eds saying the attacks were justified. [7] It should not be relied upon for facts. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chess I must say I was surprised to see the NYT prominently feature ZAKA's Yossi Landau in their piece. To my mind he's completely discredited as a reliable source. He is the "ZAKA volunteer" referred to here in Haaretz (he is mentioned by name in one of the embedded videos) who was responsible for numerous lurid, false reports. See also article by France 24 and others. Andreas JN466 10:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on genocide accusation in lead

Should allegations of genocide be mentioned in the lead? There are four options in my mind.

1. Mention that Israel is accused of genocide.
2. Mention that Hamas is accused of genocide.
3. Mention that Israel and Hamas are both accused of genocide.
4. Make no mention of genocide at all.

JDiala (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (genocide accusation in lead)

• Option D - Wiki is supposed to be low key and not a propaganda tool. The claims about genocide are important, but definitely not in the lead of the article. It is about the war, not about political claims. Agmonsnir (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C In the case of Israel, accusations of genocide have been serious enough for south Africa to formally accuse Israel of committing genocide by taking the claim to the International Court of Justice.
  1. https://www.reuters.com/world/south-africa-seeks-international-court-justice-genocide-order-against-israel-2023-12-29/
  2. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-01/ty-article/.premium/state-officials-fear-hauge-could-charge-israel-with-genocide-in-gaza/0000018c-c1a9-d3e0-abac-d9a9acd80000

  At the same time, only talking about Israel could spark talks of neutrality. But since there have been just as many people ready to accuse Hamas of genocide, there are rs that talk about this too. One eample is: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-actions-are-war-crimes-could-constitute-genocide-international-law-experts/ Genabab (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Times of Israel is not a neutral source in this matter (especially that the paper, and its owner, have an overtly right-wing agenda – see the article). — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option C A significant number of legal scholars and professionals have indicated that what is taking place is genocidal in nature (both for Israel and Hamas). Further, there is an ICJ case brought forth by South Africa against Israel. Lastly, as a point of comparison, note that the term "genocide" is used in the lead to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine article as well. The Israel-Hamas war is significantly worse with respect to genocidal rhetoric used by leaders and the magnitude of the civilian suffering. JDiala (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A C: As well as being shown by their actions reliable sources clearly document enough statements of genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government and call it that. Hamas has shown genocidal intent so it can be included as a counter even if there's no way for it to carry any such intention out, certainly not in the current war. The issue has become widespread and important enough for inclusion in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) changed NadVolum (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C per above. Whether or not genocide occurs is a salient feature of war. Parham wiki (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C per above. The most sensible option at this stage. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - As above; this is not the place for it. Drsruli (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D - It's standard for partisans in a totalizing ethnic conflict to hurl the term "genocide" at each other. Doesn't automatically merit inclusion in the lede without e.g. actual criminal prosecutions.

PrimaPrime (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This is incorrect. There is an ongoing case in the ICJ, as the article itself states (in the body). In general, I recommend doing the most basic amount of research on the topic before hurling accusations at others, especially for topics as sensitive as this. JDiala (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option D Far from significant enough at this stage to include these dueling charges in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C people undoubtedly come to Wikipedia looking for clarity/information, and we're well equipped/trusted to provide an accurate summary of the political discussions happening with detailed wikilinks where necessary. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D I don't think the accusations have been sufficiently noteworthy to justify inclusion in the lede. The accusations would need to feature far more prominently in the reliable sources for me to support adding it to the lede. Especially since we're not including things like the accusations of sexual violence by Hamas against Israeli civilians, which has been discussed far more in the reliable sources than these genocide accusations have (my point being that if that doesn't meet the prominence threshold for inclusion in the lede, then the genocide accusations shouldn't if we're applying the same threshold). Chuckstablers (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment This comparison is not quite accurate in my view. The Hamas sexual assault allegation is to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel article what the genocide allegation is to the 2023 Israel-Hamas War article. The sexual assault allegations pertain to only a single day in the conflict (October 7th), and indeed they are mentioned in the lead to the article for that single day in the conflict. The relevance of the sexual assault allegation to the war in general (which has lasted for 3 months now) is less clear. However, the genocide allegation does in fact pertain to the entire war. JDiala (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. Extremely well sourced, including legal positions of South Africa and a number of respected international organisations. On the other hand, genocide accusations against Hamas are not widely circulated outside of Israeli government mouthpieces – unlike with regard to Israeli policies, no expert international sources describe Hamas as carrying out a genocide of Jews. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. Not only is there the recent legal application by South Africa, but so have UN experts, legal experts, Palestinian human rights organizations, prominent Israelis, scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, and genocide scholars, to name a few. I'd say that's enough for inclusion. In fact, some information could be copied over from the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza into this page and placed in the lead. It would be relatively easy to do.Historyday01 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D is my personal preference. There are accusations against both Israel and Hamas [8]. My personal preference is not to mention it in the lede. Hamas might have had a genocidal intent but killing one thousand people out of several million is not a genocide. Likewise, Israel might have considered an ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip, but it doesn't seem to be likely to happen atm and it's not the same as genocide anyway. I suggest waiting at least a few months until we have something more definite. Alaexis_¿question? 14:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option Wikipedia is not a democracy: Lede serves as a summary of the body, including any prominent controversies, per guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. A vote, or survey, or any other phrasing will not get around this guideline; what is mentioned in body must be mentioned in lede. However, the 7 October genocide section suffers from extreme examples of synth and sources closely related to the subject, in which information is combined to make an argument not necessarily related to the war. While the Israeli campaign genocide section is well-sourced and has an ongoing ICJ court case. The latter claim clearly has more merit and it should not be made equivalent with the former one when these sections are summarized in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C or D. A and B are obvious non-starters - read the articles Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. Both articles have good sources, and both accusations need to be treated the same (although Hamas has explicitly announced their intended genocide beforehand many times and Israel has done no such thing). --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Disagree in strongest terms. Israel has been accused of carrying out genocide. Per the linked article, Hamas has been accused of having "genocidal intentions" (John Kirby), "genocidal ideology" (Israeli diplomat), and similar, however no serious source has stated that the 7th October attack was tantamount to genocide. No, the two sides cannot and should not be treated on a par. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reality check: They have not been accused of having "genocidal intentions", they actually said themselves that they have those intentions. You know, like that Hitler guy of whom people said he did not actually intend to do it? Hamas has little attacking power, of course they cannot actually achieve it - at the moment. But there should be a consensus among non-denialists that the intention is there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Read the linked articles first. The survey is about genocide, not about Palestinian politicians chanting "Death to Israel", etc. You'll need extremely strong sourcing to claim that Hamas's policy was to kill every single Israeli. Unlike in case of Israel, which has been accused of indiscriminate killings of Palestinians over years. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  kill every single Israeli - somebody just recommended I suggest you first read the legal definition of genocide. Maybe you should apply definitions consistently to both sides. But actually, you are going on the path to extinction [9] , even with context, is not very different from dann würde das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa. But all this is off-topic. The point is that both genocide accusations are important enough for the lede. So one of them has a bigger megaphone than the other? So what? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't speak German nor do I intend to learn it. However, politicians can say whatever they want (Israeli politicians have also sometimes called for the extermination of Palestinians). What matters is whether policies leading to this have been developed/enacted. We need evidence of intent beyond political speeches. As far as we know, there have been no policies enacted by Hamas that would aim at the extermination of the Jews; while there's ample evidence that the Israeli policies, over years, have been made with an intention to destroy the Palestinian nation. You will find ample sources in the two articles you linked above. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I !voted, and you disagreed. I said that Hamas actually has genocidal intentions instead of just being accused of them, you disagreed at first, but then, when it became clear that you were wrong, moved the goalposts from intentions to actions. I could point out that "destroying a nation" is what defines anti-Zionism, but this leads nowhere, and I suggest we stop. This is moving towards WP:FORUM, so EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. Israel has been accused of genocide in a damning 84-page filing at the UN's highest court; these types of ICJ proceedings have been instituted quite rarely since the 1948 Convention. This is an extremely notable development in the context of the larger war. In contrast, the October 7 genocide claims have been trotted out by Israel and its ally, the US, as a form of mirror politics which should not be lent any further credence. The disparity in coverage, the disparity in legitimacy, and the WP:FALSEBALANCE issues of this approach should be obvious. WillowCity^(talk) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• it is genocide - I think it would be wrong to say "accusation" because that implies a lack of credibility, but I cannot think of a better word. Possibly just "credible accusation". Irtapil (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying that you have sources saying that every Palestinian in the Northern part of Gaza, which is controlled by Israel, is either dead or in extermination camps? Or are you saying that the article should be based on your opinion, in violation of WP:OR? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest you first read the legal definition of genocide before posting such dumb comments. Obviously, Irtapil did not say so, it's just you using a straw man argument, which amounts to manipulation in a discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Be civil Zanahary (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly against this proposal. Whether or not an accusation is credible is wholly subjective, and it is not Wikipedia’s place to make that judgment. And if that judgment had been uncontroversially made (lol) by secondary sources, we would have to report that the accusation has been interpreted [by …] to be credible, or something similar: Zanahary (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is what I meant with my Are you saying comment above - "it is genocide" is classic POV pushing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think said or stated should be used instead of "accused". So "x, y, and z stated that ..." FunLater (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option A Israel is being taken to the International Court of Justice over this and there is the Palestinian genocide accusation documenting these accusations over time (as opposed to the half baked accusations against Hamas which have only appeared as a result of recent events). Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not half-baked at all. We have whole articles on Wikipedia documenting the indiscriminate slaughter and torture-murder of Israeli civilians including children, as well as the numerous statements of genocidal intent, advocacy, and celebration from Hamas. People seem to have forgotten Oct 7 already. JM (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option C or D. I agree with Hob Gadling that A and B obviously against the body of the article. A and B would violate WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C Notable accusations against both sides. --Andreas JN466 19:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A, with Option C as second choice: Given the ICJ court case, not mentioning the accusation levelled at Israel in the lead seems unsupportable. This should be fixed as soon as possible. The accusation levelled at Hamas is factual and supported by good sources as well, but given the far smaller numbers of victims involved – the ratio is in excess of 20 to 1 – it seems to me that the need for a mention in the lead is less strong than in the other case. --Andreas JN466 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• option D preferred as these accusations are secondary to the conflict and come from others. I would compromise on option C. Any other options (A or B) are showing serious bias. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D, per Chuckstablers, Hob Gadling, and Graeme Bartlett. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option D for now Too early at the current time. Option C might be worth later, but for now best to wait.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

But the accusations themselves, credible or not, both already have an impact on the war.

• Option A. With South Africa garnering sufficient support from various countries to file a genocide claim at the ICJ, specifically targeting Israel's conduct during this war, there is simply no reason not to mention the genocide accusation against Israel in the article lead. I also want to address some users here for supporting the rape accusations against Hamas while avoiding the genocide claim against Israel. The latter is evidently more relevant than the former for this article, which focuses on a war spanning more than three months, not the single-day incident which sparked this war. Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C but if is essential to have some sense of scale - a neutrally worded clear comparison - such as total number of deaths in the same sentence, or a prominent mention that only one case was brought to the ICJ. If that doesn't work, then A. Irtapil (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• A Mention that Israel is accused of genocide. Abo Yemen✉ 12:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• A, with attribution. As in the organizations "X, Y, and Z stated that Israel is commiting a genocide against the Palestinian people. FunLater (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C Seems to me that A and B are non-starters for Wikipedia, especially given the content of the article. D would be an alternative. Nigej (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• C or D for now. Things can change and evolve. Maybe Israel will take Hamas to the ICJ. CurryCity (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• A. Though there are accusations in both directions, the encyclopedic weight is not even close to being equivalent. The extent and quality of sources for the one, particularly surrounding the ICJ case, rises to the level of the lead. The other does not. False balance is not NPOV. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option C, but my opinion weighs myself closer to Option A. Both accusations are highly-discussed and contentious. South Africa has taken Israel to the ICJ. I do also agree with Irtapil about the scales of the genocide accusations (i.e. 25,000 dead vs 1,500 may both be a result of genocide, but they have different magnitudes). It won't be like this forever: Israel's claim of genocide may or may not be rejected in sources later on, and South Africa's claim of genocide may or may not be ruled as correct. SWinxy (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option A or, failing that, D. Strongly oppose B and C. There has clearly been significant coverage of genocide accusations made against Israel; accusations made against Hamas simply don't have the same degree of coverage outside Israel itself. A quick search for 'israel hamas genocide', for instance, overwhelmingly shows sources discussing genocide accusations against Israel. Option C would therefore be inappropriate WP:FALSEBALANCE; if they are currently balanced in the body, then that is a problem that should also be corrected - just looking at the sourcing for the two sections makes it obvious that the one for accusations made by Israel is lower-quality, relying on a far more sparse scattering of sources and in particular relying heavily on sources that are obviously WP:BIASED on this topic. By comparison the other paragraph cites 800 scholars across the world and an ICoJ case that has received massive coverage. Obviously B isn't worth considering, though I think it's noteworthy that everyone seems to recognize this and nobody has actually argued for it, which isn't really what I'd expect if the coverage was evenly-matched. That said, this doesn't mean we must include the accusations against Israel in the lead; whether they are leadworthy is another question and comes down to complicated questions about the relative weight of sources vs. other details of the conflict. I think there is enough coverage to put it in the lead, but leadworthy is a high bar for a topic that has this much coverage, and coverage of this particular aspect is probably at the level where it's a reasonable editorial choice to either include or omit them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Prefer C, Happy with Option D: Both sides are accusing each other of genocide, same goes for most sources from my understanding. Omission of either side would not be providing the whole picture of the situation. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reasons for attack in the lede

Currently the lede only mentions the stated reasons for the attack. The experts acknowledge some overlap between the stated and actual reasons (e.g., freeing Palestinian prisoners), however they also believe that there were other reasons, such as resisting the normalisation trend, re-established ties with Iran and burnishing resistance credentials. These are some of the sources which discuss the reasons CBS, Al Jazeera, NYT.

This should be reflected in the lede per WP:DUE as otherwise only Hamas's stated reasons are mentioned. Also, WP:LEDE should summarise the article and now this part of article is not reflected in the lede.

My attempt to improve the lede has been reverted, so I'd like to understand which policies it was based on. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The experts can be left to give their opinions later. The stated reasons by Hamas were attributed to them and definitely are of lead type interest. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the opinion of neutral geopolitical experts is at least as relevant as the stated reasons from Hamas: the average reader will want to know why experts believe Hamas started the war, and not only why Hamas says it started the war. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chessrat - absolutely support this. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There was an 11 minute speech by Mohamad Deif which Al-Qassam Brigades shared to announce the attacks, it's probably the closest thing to the definitive "why they said they did it".

Al Jazerra and France 24 dubbed into English overlapping 1 minute grabs.

There must be a full transcript and translation SOMEWHERE but I've not had much luck.

It even probably sort of covers what the actual plan was, in that it was somewhat calling for support from some of the groups they are in less cost contract with, like in the West Bank region.

07:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add that stated reasons are often bollocks meant for non-expert domestic audience (i.e., the electorate). We don't write, for example, that Russia attacked Ukraine "in order to save its population from neo-Nazis", or that the US invaded Iraqi or Libyan oil fields "to combat terror". Hamas's statements (of revenge, etc.) are also destined for its domestic audience. IMO, wider geopolitics should be given a prominent place in such articles, even if it means relying on sources not consumed en masse by the electorate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that expert opinion should be emphasized over Hamas' view, I'm not sure your Russia comparison is quite accurate. Russia's justifications were simply lies ("Donbas genocide"). This is why we did not take them seriously. However, Hamas' justifications regarding settlements, West Bank flare-ups, and Palestinian prisoners are true and independently attested to. JDiala (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, although I simply wanted to underscore that there are war rationales, and there are rationales for the masses, and both usually deserve to be mentioned. I didn't intend to compare the veracity of individual claims. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I said 'The stated reasons by Hamas were attributed to them'. The attributing is important. The attributed reason is more encyclopaediac than some american expert sitting halfway across the word spouting his expert opinion on what are the 'real' reasons are - which most definitely should also be attributed properly wherever it is stuck in. NadVolum (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this comment. In the version I suggested both sets of reasons are attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 08:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The reverted bit removed some important bits of what Hamas said. Its quite likely the leaders did have the concerns the experts said but I hardly think that was primary or that three thousand militants went into what was essentially a possible suicide mission because of that! Russians and Americans didn't think of the Ukraine or Iraq as possible suicide missions. NadVolum (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to keep the lede concise and so mentioned the key issues ("desecration" and settlements) while labelling everything else as "other actions in the West Bank and Gaza." If that was the issue, we can mention more of them. I'll give it a try shortly.

You're making a good point when you say that the geopolitical reasons are unlikely to have motivated ordinary Hamas fighters. The motivations of the Hamas leadership are not necessarily the same as those of Hamas fighters and ideally the article should discuss both of them. Unfortunately, our sources do not allow us to make this distinction for now. Alaexis_¿question? 11:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: reverted, most immediately because of the weasel wording. Being the lead in a contentious area in which you've made similar bold edits twice, I think a full-text draft of the proposed change and then getting clear consensus is the best path forward. To be clear I agree in spirit with what you're trying to do it just needs more polish before it goes live. I do want to not per the exchange immediately above - I don't think motivations of the individual combatants is of encyclopedic interest to the lead in an article about the war. We care about the strategic reasonings, not the individual motivations of the people involved (which will vary by individual with a near-infinite number of permutations). Also, we generally should focus on the reasons for the war as evaluated by third-party sources, not the stated purposes by the parties (even if attributed) to the conflict (which will be heavily politicized at best). VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the change.

−

Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]] the latter of whom it sought to free by taking an estimated [[2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis|253 Israeli and foreign captives]] into Gaza as leverage.

+

Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]]. According to experts Hamas wanted to disrupt the [[Arab–Israeli normalization]], assert its presence as a significant security and political force, and resolve internal debates over its primary focus between governance and confrontation.

The main goal of the change is to give equal weight to stated reasons and to reasons reported in secondary sources (although you're right that the latter should eventually have greater weight). The clause I've removed in order not to inflate the lede isn't crucial for the lede in my opinion. If the problem is with "according to experts," then could you suggest another way of introducing this (the CBS article does include several experts' opinions)? Alaexis_¿question? 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The experts added renormalization as a reason rather than saying it was the reason. As far as I can see not all mentioned wanting to resolve internal tension or wanting to reassert themselves as a reason. NadVolum (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body. Where in the body do we talk about the expert opinions on the cause of the 10/7 attack? (I didn't immediately see it but the article is rather long and I may have just missed it). VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Very good point, @VQuakr, I have, likewise, struggled to see it clearly in the main body of the article. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

These opinions are discussed in the 3rd and 4th paragraph of the Hamas motivations section. Alaexis_¿question? 08:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The text I'm proposing also doesn't say that preventing the normalisation was *the* reason. It's listed as one of the reasons.

As to your second comment, it's true that only one source supports each claim ("reasserting its power" and "resolving internal tension"). Let's look at the reasons mentioned in the 3 articles I've listed above (Al-Jazeera, CBS and the NYT). Please feel free to add more sources dealing with this.

1. Derailing the normalisation: 3/3
2. Mending fences with Iran: 3/3
3. Palestinian desperation: 2/3 (AJ, NYT)
4. Reasserting power: 1/3 (CBS)
5. Resolving internal tension: 1/3 (NYT)
6. Drawing Israel into a quagmire 1/3 (CBS)

So it looks like the reasserting power and resolving internal tensions should be removed and instead we should mention the ties with Iran. Here's a new version. Per u:VQuakr's comment I'm starting with the reasons from secondary sources and then mention the stated reasons.

−

Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]] the latter of whom it sought to free by taking an estimated [[2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis|253 Israeli and foreign captives]] into Gaza as leverage.

+

The reasons for the attack included the desire on part of Hamas to disrupt the [[Arab–Israeli normalization]], Palestinian frustration with settler violence and deepening ties between Iran and Hamas. Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]].

Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support something like this but the sources clearly also focus on Al-Aqsa among Hamas's stated reasons, so that warrants inclusion. Perhaps:

Analysts suggested that Palestinian frustration at Arab–Israeli normalization despite the ongoing blockade of Gaza and rising settler violence in the occupied West Bank—combined with deepening ties between Iran and Hamas—contributed to the attack.

Hamas said it was responding to the blockade, occupation and settlements, as well as the "Judaization" of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinian refugees and prisoners, who it sought to free by taking an estimated 253...

PrimaPrime (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) PrimaPrime (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also see #Hamas statement released today for elaboration on Hamas reasons. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting background, but we can't use the statement from a primary source to inform or shape encyclopaedic content. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure we can, if that statement is covered by secondary sources. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That is true. And I'm not against using primary sources at points. But has to be led by the secondary sources. To my mind, the common theme is that Hamas has always wanted to "obliterate" Israel. Has very little to do with responding to anything, as discussed in this short summary report from CBS News. I would expect the wiki article to make that clear. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For sure, but good luck getting editors here to agree to that. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the lede reflects body. And the lede's sentence in question is related to Hamas' initial justifications. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that we prefer secondary sources over primary sources, once we decided to include some aspect of the motives for the attack we shouldn't even be questioning whether we should include what analysts assess their motives to be - if we want to question some aspect of these, we should be questioning whether their own claims of their motives are WP:DUE for the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The lede's purpose is to summarize the body. What you have inserted is not a summary of the body. Furthermore the context in question is Hamas' initial justification for the attack, and not analyses. There are many different analyses, including that Israel wants to make Gaza uninhabitable, reoccupy it and build settlements there. Should we also include that in the lede, or are we going to cherrypick what analyses we like? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I also support having Hamas reasons first and analysis afterwards. What's the point of analysing something without some basic facts first? And can I also say it just gives me a wrong feeling considering that America is such a strong supporter of Israel to see the analysis cited to two american newspapers and Al Jazeera - with an analysis from America, to see those views on why Hamas did it given prominence compared to Hamas itself. An anyway the reasons are in addition to what Hamas said so putting them there without the other reasons gives secondary reasons undue prominence. NadVolum (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

@PrimaPrime: There are no sources saying that this war in Gaza is part of a proxy conflict.

You also claimed that your edit is reflecting the sources here [10], which is false since the source explicitly says that these killings have occurred since the start of the operation.

Waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Most sources have not found an Iranian connection to the October 7 attacks. This connection has been explicitly denied by Israel itself[11]. Also, not sure why the one-state solution part was removed. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, even if you take Iran's statements about revenge for Soleimani as BS. Arkon (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As editors we don't take anything, we reflect RS, and zero RS have made that claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

One state solution part isn't included in the initial declaration of war by Israel and to be honest sounds like original research as this isn't explicitly mentioned in the source. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's common knowledge, well attested to by reliable sources, that these events are linked to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, see for example: [12] [13] [14][15][16]

The number of Palestinian deaths is since the start of the war on October 7, as the source makes clear. If they're since the start of anyone's "operation", it's Hamas's. PrimaPrime (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the RS. They do not support the claim that the Israel-Hamas war is part of the Israel-Iran proxy war, but they make claims that these groups are proxies. That's not the same claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You have an interesting definition of "do not support".

• Foreign Affairs: "Already, Hamas has succeeded in bringing the proxy war between Iran and Israel—typically fought in Lebanon and Syria—to Israeli soil."
• Bloomberg: "The shape-shifting conflict in the Middle East saw Iran openly go on the offensive for the first time since the war in Gaza began, as Tehran’s latest round of existential brinkmanship with Israel spread further from the tiny Mediterranean enclave."

PrimaPrime (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither say that the war is part of the proxy conflict, but that the war brought the proxy conflict to Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Palestinian death toll is due to the Israeli operation, just as much as the Israeli death toll is due to the Hamas operation. Please do not revert again reliably sourced material. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Likewise. "Neither say that the war is part of the proxy conflict, but that the war brought the proxy conflict to Israel" is a non-sentence. If the "war brought the proxy conflict to Israel" then by definition the war is or has become part of the proxy conflict. PrimaPrime (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas incursion is verified as having nothing to do with Iran (that's in the Foreign Policy article above - "U.S. and Israeli officials have stated there is no evidence directly linking Iran to the attack, and some U.S. intelligence sources have suggested that Iranian leaders were caught off-guard.") then to argue that the subsequent incursion by Israel is part of a proxy war with Iran is ludicrous. The logic that Iran supports Hamas so it is part of proxy war is faulty, it requires at least active participation, that's why the situation is not part of an Iran US proxy war, at least not atm. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also the article clearly mentions that spillover fighting with supposed Iranian proxies is spillover fighting, and not the war in itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The claims of unnamed US and Israeli officials now count as "verified" to you? We also have claims in the WSJ to the contrary. [17][18]

And of course, saying this war forms part of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict is not the same thing as saying Hamas started it on direct orders from Iran. The bar certainly cannot be the "active participation" of Iranian armed forces, it's a proxy conflict.

The fact is we have multiple reliable sources contextualizing the war within the context of the proxy conflict. This is not mere "logic that Iran supports Hamas so it is part of proxy war" (i.e. SYNTH). This is literally what sources say:

Hamas brought the proxy war to Israeli soil. Tehran's brinkmanship with Israel spread from Gaza.

In response to this, all I see are frivolous attempts at hair-splitting. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Iran asked Hamas to start or continue the conflict, therefore no evidence of their being a proxy for Iran. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That is neither the issue at hand, the definition of a proxy, or an argument grounded in any kind of Wikipedia policy. Sources say Hamas brought the proxy conflict to Israeli soil, and it spread beyond Gaza. Your reason for excluding this information? PrimaPrime (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hamas brought the proxy war to Israeli soil. Tehran's brinkmanship with Israel spread from Gaza." does not signify a proxy war in Gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The proxy war could not have been "brought" by Hamas "to Israeli soil" or "spread further from the tiny Mediterranean enclave" if it was not in Gaza to begin with. This is approaching "didn't hear that" territory. Words in the English language do not cease to mean what they mean just because we may want them to. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We can say that this is part of Iran proxy war with US per NYT Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

...and with Israel.

• "For all the fears of an outbreak of fighting in the Middle East that could draw the United States, Israel and Iran into direct combat"
• "The whole purpose of the Iranian proxies, they argue, is to find a way to punch at Israel and the United States without setting off the kind of war Tehran wants to avoid"
• "Iran has pushed its proxies to make trouble for the American military and to pressure Israel and the West"

PrimaPrime (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The proxy argument refers to Iran's making use of proxies to stir the pot, but Hamas is not a proxy for Iran in this war. Houthis, Hezbollah, yes. So it is not applicable here. The material can be added to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict article and the Iran-US proxy conflict except the latter doesn't exist, so Iran US relations or some other relevant place. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources which state that Hamas is not acting as a proxy for Iran in this war, in any way, contrary to the sources that do state that?

Again, this is a different issue from direct responsibility for ordering October 7, although even then there is disagreement. Either way Hamas can act - and according to sources is acting - as a proxy for Iran in the grand scheme of this war, which is what this article is about. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I just pointed to foreign policy article, it says quite explicitly that Iran had nothing to do with starting this war and were even surprised by it. There are other sources saying the same. Iran then supporting Hamas afterwards does not suddenly turn Hamas into a proxy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Or the Guardian "No evidence yet of Iran link to Hamas attack, says Israeli military" Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually looking more closely at the article, it is all over the place on this issue, needs sorting out in general. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Iran supporting Hamas afterwards by definition turns it into a proxy...and of course it was supporting Hamas before. So for the umpteenth time, it's irrelevant whether Iran directly ordered Hamas to start the war. The most immediate cause of the Indochinese wars was French occupation but they were still a US-USSR proxy conflict. Drop the red herring. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Iran supporting Hamas afterwards by definition turns it into a proxy Nope, otherwise every time anyone supported anyone they are automatically prodiucing a proxy, which is nonsense. The ordinary meaning of proxy is the giving of authority to someone to act on their behalf, which Iran has plainly not done with Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

A proxy war is defined as an armed conflict between two belligerents in which at least one party is a non-state actor, supported by an external power.

"Iran has pushed its proxies to make trouble for the American military and to pressure Israel and the West" sounds like giving them authority to me in any case. In fact you have conceded that direct responsibility for ordering October 7 is a red herring, what matters is the overall relationship between the two actors. And of course, what can be verified in reliable sources irrespective of what any one of us considers the ultimate "truth".

You simply have zero arguments against inclusion. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, consensus is against you right now, so suggest you open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Now why would I waste any more of my time on that? Enjoy your "consensus" that sources don't say what they say in plain English. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I second @Selfstudier, also because of this or this. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly at this point this is definitely original research by citing the definition of proxy war, rather than just giving one RS that says explicitly that the war with Hamas in part of of the proxy conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Your response to being given multiple RS that explicitly link this war to the proxy conflict was to engage in incomprehensible hair-splitting and goalpost-shifting. Here are some more for you to ignore:

• "Both Hamas and Iran have publicly acknowledged a strategic partnership. They hold separate goals in the decades-long conflict with Jerusalem, but those aims appear to have aligned during the early Saturday attack, which has left hundreds dead in Israel and fighting still flaring up in the south near Gaza. Iran has for years been fighting a shadow war against Israel through proxy groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and others." [19]
• "Hamas's surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7 has sparked numerous questions...But the latest war should not have been entirely unexpected. For years, Hamas has been one of the primary vehicles supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its strategy of confronting Israel on multiple fronts, with at least three fronts established since the 1980s." [20]
• "Hamas, which controls the strip and is a rare Sunni Muslim organization among mostly Shiite militants, catapulted Iran and its allies back onto the global radar on Oct. 7 with a brutal cross-border attack on Israel." [21]
• "Many observers, however, see Iran's primary goal more as waging a proxy war from afar by supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad, thereby forcing Israel into a de facto two-front war." [22]
• "The various militias and terrorist groups that Tehran nurtures have allowed it to indirectly evict America from Iraq, sustain the Assad family in Syria and, on Oct. 7, help inflict a deeply traumatizing attack on the Jewish state." [23]

PrimaPrime (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

These are all sentences which you are using to synthesize that they mean that the war is a proxy war. There is no explicit mention anywhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Some explicit mentions in bold for your convenience:

• "Many observers, however, see Iran's primary goal more as waging a 'proxy war from afar by supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad, thereby forcing Israel into a de facto two-front war."
• "Already, Hamas has succeeded in bringing the proxy war between Iran and Israel—typically fought in Lebanon and Syria—to Israeli soil."

Your removals are borderline vandalism. PrimaPrime (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought you weren't going to waste more time on this? Kindly start a RFC if you wish to argue against consensus at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've read the entire thread, and am content to accept that the Reliable Sources are clear the conflict is a Proxy War.

@Selfstudier, @Kashmiri and @Makeandtoss you have not achieved any kind of consensus here. At all. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, there may well be no consensus, in which it case it stays out. I still fail to see how one can reconcile proxy war for this conflict with top drawer sourcing confirming that Iran had no knowledge (or was even surprised) by the Hamas attack. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

On 25 June 1950, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel. Doesn't matter whether Beijing was across the details of that particular operation or not, let alone whether they ordered it. That is almost irrelevant. The Korean war was still a proxy war between the Communist bloc and the West. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Victims of oppression and apartheid dared to lift a hand against the oppressor... It's totally unfathomable, sure there must be an evil actor behind it.

BTW, WP:ONUS is on the editor(s) wishing to add stuff. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Not really moving the conversation along is it, randomly quoting articles, which I can do as well as any editor, WP:NOTARG comes to mind, but not sure it really adds a whole lot. Let's go back to actual content. That's our job. Improving this patchy article. The place we're up to is this. There are many excellent reliable sources who have described the conflict as being a Proxy War. They are all listed above. I, and other editors above, can see that, without this dimension being sketched out, the article will be the poorer for it. I believe it's time that we simply crack on and include the relevant content. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to saying that Iran is in a proxy war with the US. And the sources do not describe this conflict as a proxy war. How could they if Iran had no idea about the attack to begin with? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Except they do. Your novel personal opinion to the contrary is irrelevant. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The RFC option continues to be available, The one you said you did not want to waste time on, but you seem quite content to continue wasting time bludgeoning this discussion, where the consensus continues to be against. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaken to say the consensus is against anyone. There is no consensus here. Not yet. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Call me pedantic, but...

The lede states that the Yom Kippur War began exactly fifty years prior to 7 October 2023. Nearly all sources agree that the Yom Kippur War began on 6 October 1973, a date which most would not consider to be exactly fifty years prior to 7 October 2023. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It was 50 years nearly to the day. In contrast, approximately 50 years ago would be anything between 49 and 51 years ago. So, I'm fine with the current wording. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a good catch, but I also agree that the wording should stay the same as it is now as per Kashmiri's comment. Cheers! Johnson524 17:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the word "exactly" should be removed. It conveys the same point without the to-the-date precision implied by the word "exactly." JDiala (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree and made the edit just now. Jikybebna (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether focusing on the (numeric) date instead of the (named) day could be something of a cultural bias. Both happened on the first Saturday of October. If your cultural frame is weeks, it's the same; if it's months, it's off by one day.

However, an online date converter tells me that the dates are 10 Tishrei 5734 and 22 Tishrei 5784 in the Hebrew calendar and 22 Rabi Al Awwal 1445 and 10 Ramadan 1393 in the Islamic calendar, so I prefer not saying "exactly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Casualty counts and false precision

Giving precise figures for casualty counts in the infobox, prose, and elsewhere, is false precision. 25,295 might be the most recent number reported in the media, but of course we do not actually know if it was 25,295 or 25,294 or 25,296 or some other number. False precision not only gives the reader a likely-incorrect number, but it gives the reader a false sense of confidence in that number, as if we know down to the person how many were killed. In actuality, the casualty figure is constantly changing, minute-by-minute, and giving an exact number obfuscates that fact and presents the casualty count as if it's a fixed, known quantity, when it's actually a constantly-changing estimate.

To avoid this false precision, I propose saying "25,000+" (in the infobox) or "more than 25,000" (in the prose) and then updating that by the thousand ("more than 26,000," etc.), and doing the same with all casualty figures (e.g. "more than 1,400" Israeli casualties, etc.) throughout the article (and Wikipedia, really). (In the case of hostages, the precision isn't false, so exact numbers can be used, but that doesn't apply to casualty counts.) Levivich (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

But the figures are backed by the cited sources anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would also like to address the inclusion of casualty breakdowns by occupation on one side. Journalists have been killed in Israel too but that's not lede-worthy. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The figures from the Gaza Health Ministry are believed to be accurate, they are registered deaths. They also have estimated numbers of dead missing as 7000+, however I think that is a gross underestimate despite their experience from previous bombing. The Euro-Med figures are estimates of actual deaths, it still has problems though and can be debatable. We should indicate better how figures are got at. NadVolum (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This article has Israeli sources confirming that Israel also believes the GHM stats to be reliable, fwiw. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If the number is based on registered deaths, it's a lagging indicator, so it will systematically be an undercount. That looks like an average of about 120 deaths per day. If we're getting daily updates, we should probably round to the nearest 100. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2024

Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Gaza war – Following the last move discussion, it is clear that some editors consider the current title biased, and would support a move to a more neutral and thus better title. Several organizations and media outlets, including the United Nations, BBC, The Guardian and recently CNN, are also using the latter term. NasssaNser_talk 09:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Jump to:

Survey

Discussion

Proposed moratorium

Survey (RM)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, and can we please stop with these constant move requests? - there was a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war" less than two weeks ago.
  In the past 24 hours, 60 sources have used "Israel-Gaza war", compared to 158 using "Israel-Hamas war"
  Further, the nominator cites sources like CNN as evidence for this proposal. However, CNN continues to use the current title; in the past week CNN has used "Israel-Hamas war" many times more than it has used "Israel-Gaza war". BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  To expand on this, the current title is more neutral than the proposed title. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "whatever Wikipedians think is more neutral", it means "whatever aligns with reliable sources". On this topic, reliable sources consistently describe this as a war between Hamas and Israel, not a war between Israel and Gaza. This can be seen with the following Google Scholar results since the war began:

  1. 3 sources describe this as a war between Gaza and Israel
  2. 14 sources describe this as a war between Palestine and Israel
  3. 95 sources describe this as a war between Hamas and Israel.

  Not all of these sources are relevant but most are - enough to establish that the most prominent viewpoint is that this is a war between Israel and Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nah, lots of editors disagreeing with this. You yourself argued that the name was descriptive and there is the small matter of consistency with previous article titles, see Gaza War. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I got the impression that the consensus was for the date format only. Jikybebna (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because RS are gradually shifting to this naming rather than the initial one; also important to note that there are many groups fighting with Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Under two weeks ago it was clear that the current title is the common name by such a degree that POV or other concerns were mitigated. This has not changed and seems unlikely to for the foreseeable future: ABC, AFP, AP, Bloomberg, CBC, CBS, CNN, DW, FT, France 24, Globe & Mail, LA Times, NBC, NPR, NYT, PBS, Reuters, SBS, Sky, The Telegraph, Time, Times of London, USA Today, WSJ. On the other side we have just a handful: BBC, Guardian, WaPo. Perhaps another moratorium on move requests is in order. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Some of the examples used to oppose the proposed title are fundamentally misleading, as they ignore the actual content and titles of news reports. The keyword 'Israel-Hamas' is often just a legacy category used by many news agencies, and some may find switching to a more appropriate name technically cumbersome. For instance, in the January 23rd report by the Associated Press about Israeli soldier casualties in Gaza, the article refers to the conflict as the 'Gaza offensive.' 'Hamas,' on the other hand, is mentioned in relation to the October 7th attack and Israel's objectives in this military operation.[24] Similarly, CNN also uses 'Israel's war in Gaza' in place of 'war against Hamas' in some cases.[25] Conversely, you would never find anything like 'Hamas' defense against Israel' due to the extreme asymmetry of this military conflict. Frankly, the asymmetric nature of the military conflict should be reflected in our article title, similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine since 2022. And this marks my support for the proposed change to the new title. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  You may note that the Guardian and WaPo still have "Israel-Hamas war" in their URLs, so "technical difficulties" plea strikes me as a reach. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Proof of, I would have said. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  It means the majority of sources haven't changed the name they use because they haven't seen fit to, not because they can't. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Israel has made it very clear that this is not actually about Hamas, we shouldn’t be using a biased framing. Snokalok (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Snokalok and Makeandtoss on this point, considering calling it the "Israel-Hamas war" is far too limiting, as the war has expanded beyond conflict against Hamas, with Israel claiming to fight many armed Palestinian groups during the war. I have to disagree with the info-dumps by two other users to support their case, one of which uses Google hit as "evidence" of a name (to my knowledge, previously this has been stated to not be the best measure of whether something is a common name).Historyday01 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. While Israel argues they are only purusing Hamas, there is more than sufficient evidence proving that the actual Israeli targets included non-military facilities, critical infrastructure, healthcare, and the civilian population (including its own hostages). Israel's claims should be assessed similarly to the Russian claims of attacking only "neo-Nazis" in Ukraine, or the US claims of invading Afghanistan only to track down Osama bin Laden: as a prime example of war propaganda. Since Wikipedia is obliged foremostly to abide by NPOV – which comes first before counting WP:GOOGLEHITS for media-coined phrases – we must call this conflict what it actually is. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Please hat this; consensus just reached on article title Consensus on this exact same issue was resolved via an RfC that commenced on 23 December and concluded on 10 January, [26]. That RfC found a consensus that this article should be titled "Israel-Hamas war," but no consensus on whether it should have a year attached. Editors dissatisfied with that appealed to the admin who closed it and he declined to do so. Then there was another RfC to resolve the exact title. That was concluded three days ago [27]. Repetitive RfCs that duplicate identical RfCs concluded just days earlier are disruptive. They exhaust the patience of the community, clog talk pages and drive away editors. They are especially corrosive in controversial topic areas. This RfC thereefore should be hatted. If not hatted I Strongly Oppose but editors should not be permitted to repeat the same RfCs over and over again until they get the outcome they desire. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and speedy close - Very little has changed since the last RM. Supporters have cited absolutely no policies or evidence, only thing that Israel "does", which has no weight in the naming process. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose While I prefer the proposed as a matter of personal taste, this is a clear WP:COMMONNAME situation. Israel-Hamas war is just far more popular. JDiala (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Support I have changed my position. I support changing the name. While Israel-Hamas is somewhat more common in WP:RS, it is not an extreme preference and Israel-Gaza is reasonably common too. More importantly, the neutrality aspect should also be considered. Having "Hamas" in the title downplays the extensive and unprecedented damage to civilian infrastructure and the "collective punishment" nature of the war. Israeli leaders have admitted as much in their public remarks. On the flip side, we know that some Gazan civilians participated in October 7th. In sum, the totality of evidence indicates that this war is a "total war" between Gaza and Israel, not simply a typical skirmish between a state and a militia group. JDiala (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but NPOV comes before COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just not seeing why Israel-Hamas is NPOV. It's just factually correct that the two belligerents are Hamas and Israel. Sure, there are some other Palestinian militant groups, but these are a smaller minority and still ultimately coordinating with Hamas which is leading everything and governing the Strip. JDiala (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please try and keep discussion in the below section, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not always true, WP:POVNAME: ...the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK, since we are not keeping the discussion where it says discussion, I'll join in as well, per the discussion below, there is no consensus yet whether the name is commonname or descriptive WP:NDESC and while the current title may initially have been a commonname, there are indications that is not necessarily the case currently (again,see discussion below). As for bias, I merely wonder why previous wars, which were also against Hamas, were not called such. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  NPOV comes before COMMONNAME. I've seen this asserted a number of times, but I haven't seen any arguments or evidence for the current title not being NPOV.

  I think my explanation from the move earlier this month still applies:

  As a general point; NPOV isn't what we think is neutral, it's what reflects reliable sources on a topic. If reliable sources on a topic describe this as a war between Hamas (and other militant groups) and Israel, declining to describe it as a war between Gaza and Israel, then to comply with NPOV we must describe this as a war between Hamas and Israel, including in our titles; to describe it as a war between Gaza and Israel would be an NPOV violation.

  BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. per WP:NCE and, more importantly, per WP:NPOV. I’ll repeat my comments from the December RM, for ease of reference:

  I would emphasize … that WP:COMMONNAME is specifically subject to the requirement of NPOV (like everything else on Wikipedia). The policy states: Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. WP:NPOVNAME allows for a POV title only where the subject is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources (emphasis added). Here, "Israel–Hamas war" may be used by a preponderance of sources, but it is not the single common name, nor is it demonstrably used by a significant majority of sources, and many of the sources that do use it do so alongside other names. The fact that it is the preferred name of one party to the conflict should give us pause. … Israel–Gaza war is more internally consistent with our other article titles, and there are other armed groups involved, making the current title inaccurate and simultaneously imprecise and overprecise.

  I previously provided sources in support of the proposed title, but other !voters on this thread have beat me to the punch. WillowCity^(talk) 16:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• [Sorry for putting this twice, I accidentally put this text above this section so my fault for this] Strong Oppose; this is getting out of hand. First of all, there is an article called the Gaza–Israel conflict, so having another article named similar to this one would confuse some people. Secondly, the war isn't just happening in Gaza alone, factions such as Hezbollah from Lebanon and the Houthis from Yemen contribute to the conflict in other areas other than Gaza, also called a spillover. Moving this to what you want wouldn't be good either. Alright, two points proven wrong, what else? Well, thirdly, news anchors don't matter when it comes to these types of things. They call these types of situations whatever they want. They called the start of the war "a surprise attack" (at least from mine) and if you search it up, most call this the "Israel-Hamas war". Oh boy, three. Want a fourth point? Here, fourthly, you say and I quote "...would support a move to a more neutral and thus better title". Listen to it again. "...would support a move to a more neutral and thus better title". In what way would this make it "neutral" as you said it would? All the points I proved do not make this neutral in any way. Half of us are split between Support and Oppose because of this, and neutrality wasn't made from this. So these are why I Strongly Oppose this. Overthrow-dictator (talk 13:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  If the US and UK are not treated as belligerents in this war (in Gaza) despite providing Israel with unwavering military supports which mostly went hitting Gazan civilians, there is no reason to take the spillover conflicts which involve direct attacks from the US and UK into consideration. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  If the war isn't happening in Gaza alone, then surely that would mean the title "Israel-Hamas" wouldn't be accurate either, considering how Hezbollah and the Houthis are not a part of Hamas? Regardless, we can't call this article a name that isn't used by a large amount of sources, which both of the currently proposed titles are. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, this war involves many other Gazan factions fighting alongside Hamas, and Israel is at war with Gaza's military power as a collective whole, not specifically Hamas and the Gazan civilians dying are not "Hamas", they're Gazans. This change would make things much less bias and much less confusing. RamHez (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest support possible. I will repeat several of the points I made the last time this was suggested:
  1. The fact that over 60 sources, according to BilledMammal themself, have used the term "Israel-Gaza" clearly indicates that "Israel-Hamas" is not the sole common name of this war. Yes, there are more that use the latter, but it's clear to most people that there are at least two ways to call the war (besides obviously biased terms like Swords of Iron or Gaza Massacre), and renaming it to "Israel-Gaza" is not like we are making some neologism or some unknown term never used by the media. People will understand what the article is about regardless of what title we use. WP:NPOVNAME only applies if there isn't another common name we can use.
  2. Again, I have yet to see any substantive arguments on why Israel-Hamas should be used besides the fact that more English sources use the term. There exists a POV issue, there's the glaring omission of the fact that most people dead in the war are not Hamas, there's little prior precedent for calling wars between a group and a whole state (especially considering how the state is clearly not just targeting the group), and finally we did not reach consensus the last discussion we had (it was cut short by the need to immediately fix the date issue in the title), so procedural wrangling doesn't really apply.
  3. The factual problem of the usage of just "Hamas" has been relevant from the start and is still a problem now. The article outright says that more civilians in Gaza have died than Hamas members, and not even the IDF disputes this. One can make the argument that Israel is not intentionally targeting civilians but rather they are getting in the way of their war against Hamas, but does the intention of a state really matter? America's intention in Vietnam was to destroy the Viet Cong yet we call it the Vietnam War regardless- not just because sources and everyone calls it the Vietnam War, but we understand that it was a war fought against Vietnamese people the same way this war is fought against the people of Gaza. To put it simply- the war is not between just Israel and Hamas and the article itself makes it clear that it's not.
  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that more English sources use the term is official policy per WP:COMMONNAME; note that the article on the 1918 flu pandemic, for example, is titled Spanish flu despite that name being a misnomer. DecafPotato (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." There's the caveat. And "Spanish Flu" is arguably the single common name for the pandemic, while I argue there's at the very least two common names for the war. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support per point 2, also weak support alternate "Gaza War" Support per HadesTTW point 2, Support per C&C five pillars. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support proposed or Gaza war (disambiguation). As can be seen from the discussion/comments, major newsorgs have shifted their position such that a majority of them are not/no longer using the current title for current reporting. That aside, a simple sniff test ought to inform any reasonable person that what is occurring cannot possibly be understood as a war between Israel and Hamas when we see that the differences between this war and previous Gaza Wars are the ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli forces accompanied by an unprecedented level of civilian casualties (Gazans).Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, and can we get another month-long moratorium on these never-ending Move requests? While consensus can change, consensus was determined for this issue not two weeks ago. Currently, "Israel-Hamas War" continues to see more usage in reporting (~9.6 million results) than "Israel-Gaza War" (~100k results), and "Israel-Hamas war" remains the preferred search term. There is NOWHERE NEAR enough new material to be re-litigating this consensus again. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Where do you see 9.6 million? Both links that you posted only show ~300 results each for the last month. Moreover, be careful not to use the exorbitant numbers shown on top of Google search results – they have no relation to reality.[28][29] — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  On Desktop, click 'Tools' to hide the toolbar - # of hits show up behind it.

  And saying those numbers have "no relation to reality" based on those sources is a bit much; neither of them seem to make that conclusion. The numbers may be overinflated (or deflated), and they might be fudged a bit - but they are semi-reasonable estimates.

  If you could provide a statistic that compares phrase usage across all RS sources that's better, I'd love to see it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Google numbers are not "overestimated". At best, they are simple estimates of how many times the search term has been indexed, but without deduplication and source ranking (same source, e.g. a forum comment, might have been indexed thousands of times under different URLs). At worst, they are completely made up, existing only for promotional purposes, and Google has even stopped listing them on the first page. In this thread, former Google Search staff explain how this number is generated. But in short – the number bears no relation to the term's actual prminence in relevant sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, an anonymous message board. That seems legit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Besides, "Gaza war" has seen more usage worldwide in the last 30 days than "Israel-Hamas war"! [30] — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Gaza War" isn't on the table in this RFC; the options provided are "Israel-Gaza war" and "Israel-Hamas war" PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Web searches seem irrelevant to notability – we're interested in news searches, and they show "Israel–Gaza war" as more common.[31] — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, we're not interested in "news searches" - what people are searching for is not the best indicator of what the title of the article should be. But overall search interest is of some value. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, which is it? Is search volume not a worthwhile indicator of what the title should be, or is it valuable? It can't be both. And if searches are of value, why are overall searches more valuable than news searches, in relation to a current event? WillowCity^(talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  One of the goals of article titling, per WP:TITLE is: Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. So, obviously, the general search interest of the public is of some value. Which I said, by the way. Limiting this to only "news searches" is rather odd, and seems to have been done only in response to my first bringing up general search interest.

  But there are other, more specific considerations as well - such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:NAMECHANGES, etc. We place more value on what reliable sources call an article's topic than what the general public thinks (generally best known from search results). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  General usage can guide article naming but certainly cannot be the key determinant. Just a single example (but there are countless others): we have a guy's bio at Donald Trump, not at "Trump". — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's a shortening of a full name, not a different name altogether. The "Donald" is still implied semantically, its just skipped over for the sake of efficiency. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think we cannot make everyone satisfied with title. Israel-Gaza war might be right for some reason, but there were other Gaza wars of which Israel was belligerent of, so this suggested title could be another topic for Disambiguation. And also I agree with PhotogenicScientist. I think we should now focus on ongoing war's situation, not to suggest another request. Also, we should remember that current title was the result of compromise and consensus over numerous idea which already had suggested. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose on process and substantive grounds. My mind has not changed since i opined on the last move request and neither has any one else's. Yet here we are, repeating ourselves, two weeks after conclusion of an identical Requested Move and three days after the "year or no year" discussion concluded (which was called for in the close of the preceding discussion). I see that this latest move request was commenced by an editor who wanted "Israel-Gaza War." So he started this move request. Well that's not how things work around here. Editors who don't like the consensus established in a move request don't get a "do-over" in the hope that the next bunch of editors and the next closer will cause a more pleasing outcome. Close this, give the initiator a trout slap or worse, and let's start sanctioning initiators of duplicative, time-wasting Requested Moves. Let's not make a mockery of "consensus." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Gaza is not a belligerent in its own right, it's constituent part of the State of Palestine (and, as I suspect, it can't be viewed as a sovereign belligerent under international law). Also, Israel declared the war against Hamas rather than against Gaza (although I can't find the full text of the declaration at the moment). Brandmeister^talk 15:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wars are not commonly named after belligerents (e.g., we don't say "Wehrmacht – Red Army war" or "United States Armed Forces – Taliban war"), unless in propaganda when the invader doesn't want to announce attacking a country. Also, we routinely name wars after affected territorial entities (Falklands war, Nagorno-Karabakh wars, Kosovo war, Transnistria war etc. etc.). — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed juxtaposition "Israel-Gaza" may wrongly imply that the war is between two sovereign countries, while Gaza is not a country. The current name is precise. Brandmeister^talk 12:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  We already have Gaza war and other articles where that implication is not considered to be a problem, in fact consistency with prior article naming is a reason to change the article title. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plenty of sources call it Israel-Hamas war - see the hatted table below to which I've added a few items. Alaexis_¿question? 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose- Not neccesary, Why are we doing this? Also please provide examples of editors considering the title "Biased". File:WaRei.png WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me File:WaRei.png 20:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion, already linked in the opening post, has at least two editors clearly raising POV as an issue. NasssaNser_talk 03:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --Yorkporter (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. We already had a discussion about this, although I understand why some object to the name. – Howard🌽33 23:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support while WP:COMMONNAME is persuasive, being neutral is even more important. Describing the Geographic areas impacted is as factual as we can get. When I was younger, my political worldview on this topic was quiet different, but the one thing that has remained consistent over the past 2 decades is my confidence that no matter my worldview, English Wikipedia will give me a reasonable and factually accurate summary of the different viewpoints in this conflict. In an ideal world, every Wikipedia reader would also check out each of sources of our article to make their own assessment, but in practice, many will solely read the text we write. Starting the title, we should present an encyclopedic summary of the topic, instead of parroting POV political phrases, even if it is WP:COMMON. It is also debatable whether this is a war altogether, but in the interest of both clear English communication and addressing contested political claims, I can live with Israel-Gaza war. As to requests for procedural close, previous RfCs were malformed and or changing in scope. I don't think this will be the last RfC on Article title either. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to be conflating "neutral" and "factual." Could you explain in more detail how you feel "Israel-Hamas War" is a non-neutral title? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  We should not be using the preferred titles of either Israel or Hamas (or not exclusively). Israeli state wants to call it Israel-Hamas war, and Hamas likely would want to call it Israel-Hamas resistance.

  I similarly would oppose a title to the effect of Hamas-Likud war or Hamas-IDF war (depending whether you want to focus on Hamas the militant faction, or the political party). For the same reasons that focusing on Hamas is a strategy to delegitimize Palestinians in the global-arena (and I do not care to defend Hamas either), solely focusing on Hamas armed actions against the IDF, a military power would incorrectly imply that Hamas does not intentionally or de facto kill Israeli civilians, on 7 October and in general in its indiscriminate (albeit ineffective) rocket attacks over the past 18 years.

  The reality of this war, whatever it is called, is that mostly civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian have been killed, and calling it a Hamas-Israel war feeds into a very cynical nationalist and biased narrative, that Israel is solely at war with Hamas. At best the evidence show that they're doing a bad job at exclusively or primarily targeting Hamas, and at worse...a deliberate strategy to equate all Gazans with Hamas (Gazans voted for Hamas, they're all animals, etc...) and Israeli propaganda goes further to even equate Hamas with ISIS and Nazis. If we were to be super crude, we'd offer titles like Israel-Nazi war, or Israel-ISIS war. No one is suggesting that here on Wikipedia fortunately, but referring it to as Hamas war is the same logic. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 04:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  We should not be using the preferred titles of either Israel or Hamas Why, exactly? Especially in the case where, as it is, plenty of reliable sources are using the same name for the war that Israel does? Should we not follow RS?

  There's some argument here that "Israel-Hamas war" isn't exactly precise - there are more belligerents than just Hamas at this point. But your interpretation that because Israel is causing civilian collateral damage, they are waging war against more than Hamas is just wrong - it's WP:OR unless backed up by reliable sources.

  Moreover, re: feeds into a very cynical nationalist and biased narrative, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs - in sticking to what is verifiable in reliable sources, we're limited to essentially repeating what has already been said about this conflict. And by and large, the name that is being assigned to this conflict is "Israel-Hamas war". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, it is standard practice on wars between states and non-state militant organizations to use the name of the militant organization in the title- War against the Islamic State is not titled War against Raqqa. "Gaza" is ambiguous as it is also a city in only part of the Gaza Strip so if anything the proposed title should be "Israel–Gaza Strip war", but that is even less commonly used. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  "War against the Islamic State" is an umbrella term that's similar to "War on Drugs" or "War on Terror." While the Islamic State is indeed an actual group instead of a concept, the war against IS is a global war with no single location, as IS was found in Africa, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and more. On the other hand the current war is primarily around the Gaza Strip (and initially, the invasion by militants coming out of Gaza).

  You can mention the other fronts of the war, such as the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the West Bank settler violence, but those were all specifically branching out of the Gaza conflict, in contrast to the war on IS where the conflict against the Nigerian government isn't directly a result of what's happening in Syria. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Gaza Strip is an exclave of the State of Palestine, it's a geographo-administrative entity, not a state per se or an organization, and Israel is not fighting against the State of Palestine but against Hamas which just happen to be based mainly in Gaza. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Who was Israel fighting in the Gaza War (2008–09) and the 2014 Gaza War? Also applies in reference to the above comments by Chessrat. "Israel will retaliate and Israel's response will focus on Gaza, which is set to suffer its fifth war in less than 20 years." and There have been five Israel-Gaza wars since 2008. These charts show the latest one is by far the deadliest Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  In those cases the name refers to the location rather than belligerent (meaning "war in Gaza" rather than "war against Gaza"). Brandmeister^talk 12:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I asked 'who' Israel was fighting, not where. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh... It fights Hamas primarily, so the current article name is correct. Brandmeister^talk 12:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  And the previous ones were wrong? Don't think so. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  If one chose a purely location based title then Gaza War (2023–present) would be fine by analogy with those previous articles, but that would have the problem that the fighting has not been contained to Gaza and in fact began with fighting in Israel. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Israel-Gaza war or something to that effect would address the legitimate concern of implying that the war is solely in one place. And yet, an article like Russo-Ukrainian War does not explicitly state where the war is happening, even though reading it quickly reveals mostly in Ukraine. As to the point that there's a wider regional outbreak, that's true, but calling it Middle Eastern fallout could be more correct, at the expense of clear communication. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 04:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier The namings you listed all point to the georgraphic location where said wars took place. The Gaza Strip is NOT a state, Israel is NOT fighting against any state currently, so a title like "Israel-Gaza war" would be objectively inaccurate per the above. Probably had to read my comment before writing yours. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I already supplied links to RS pointing to 5 wars with Israel, which this is just the latest one, plus see comment below. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Would closer please determine whether current title is WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NDESC. If the former, please also establish what are the WP:ALTNAMEs.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NDESC doesn't even apply here. This article doesn't have a "descriptive title", "invented specifically for" this article - we didn't invent the phrase "Israel-Hamas War", reliable sources did.

  Regarding WP:ALTNAME, "Israel-Gaza War" seems appropriate to use, in bold and in the first sentence, as it's been established that this is another name RS use. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I ask because of this edit which insists that it is descriptive and was supported by other editors so bold title was not restored. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @PhotogenicScientist No it doesn't as the Gaza Strip is not a state and Israel is not fighting against any state currently, so a title like "Israel-Gaza war" would be objectively inaccurate. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  That makes no sense, we used Gaza war for the other wars with Israel, where they were also fighting Hamas. Consistency and all that. Gaza-Israel conflict is also a thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as illustrated by other editors above and below. I also still do not understand how this article is a POV issue even after reading supporters. Yeoutie (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Supporters of Israel maintain (and Israel has argued at the ICJ) that they are conducting targeted counterterrorism/counterinsurgency operations against Hamas. The counterpoint is that "counterterrorism" is a fig leaf intended to obscure what is actually a state-led genocide. By using the I-H moniker, we are implicitly adopting and perpetuating Israel's view of the situation. It is about as neutral as styling the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) the "United States–Al Qaeda war" or "United States–Taliban war" or some such; in both cases it's reductive, and I would argue, it overemphasizes a belligerent's POV regarding the war's purpose and aims when those are legitimately in dispute. I'm sure others have a better way to explain the serious POV issues with the current title, but that's my read. WillowCity^(talk) 19:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like the Afghanistan comparison here is the best argument for me, Israel is a widely recognized nation state while Hamas is a sub-national paramilitary. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  "counterterrorism" is a fig leaf intended to obscure what is actually a state-led genocide Do you have any reliable sources to provide that make this claim? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  [32]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The question is currently before the World Court, so we'll see where they land on it. WillowCity^(talk) 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, then - until that time, we're not going to make unsubstantiated claims of genocide. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  No one is saying that we should; but nor should we uncritically parrot the talking points of a state that's been credibly accused of genocide. WillowCity^(talk) 01:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support - The war is against gaza as a whole, and the bombing has been against gaza far more than its been against hamas DarmaniLink (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support: per WillowCity, "Israel–Gaza war is more internally consistent with our other article titles, and there are other armed groups involved, making the current title inaccurate and simultaneously imprecise and overprecise", and Hades, "There exists a POV issue, there's the glaring omission of the fact that most people dead in the war are not Hamas, there's little prior precedent for calling wars between a group and a whole state (especially considering how the state is clearly not just targeting the group)." CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support I do think the counterargument that this title might be confused with Gaza–Israel conflict exists is a valid point, but that page is already disambiguated at the title by linking to this page. I find some of User:HadesTTW's arguments were persuasive. Hamas is far from the only belligerent group involved here, and there's a very real NPOV concern by suggesting that the conflict is limited to fighting Hamas, which is less accurate. One oppose !vote above was confused at why some supporters cite NPOV concerns, so I will specify that the concern is that the title might imply that Israel is limiting their attacks to a targeted attack on Hamas, when the conflict can be more accurately described as a siege on the Gaza strip as a geographic location. The entire Gaza strip, not just the highlighted areas on the map; these areas represent where Israel is invading and occupying Gaza, but its siege applies to the entire region. I am sympathetic to the counterarguments that Gaza, being a geographic location and not a political entity in its own right, is not something that you can "go to war with." But I also find that User:Selfstudier made a fair counter by noting that titling this page as a Gaza war rather than a Hamas war is consistent, citing the aforementioned Israel-Gaza conflict page. Precedent on its own is not a strong argument as it falls into other stuff exists territory, but sometimes other stuff exists for a reason and precedent can be a legitimate consideration. All in all, I don't really oppose either the current title or the proposed title. I think both are perfectly acceptable. But I do think the arguments in favor of the proposed title  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Several news outlets are presently describing the war as "Israel-Gaza war".

"The Guardian"

"The Washington Post"

"BBC News"

"Al Jazeera"

"The National"

"Haaretz"

"The Business Standard"

"The Nation"

UN is currently describing the war as "Israel-Gaza Crisis" : Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Haaretz prefers Israel-Hamas war, I haven't verified the others. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per arguments put forward above. G-13114 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as I haven't seen a persuasive argument on how the current title isn't Neutral. Include what others have said above regarding WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that most sources still refer to "Israel-Hamas War" (even those who have begun calling it "Israel-Gaza" have been extremely inconsistent in doing so). I also think there needs to be a moratorium on move requests, as this RfC strikes me as WP:BLUDGEONING. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: It has now been quite some time since this conflict morphed from anything resembling a targeted operation against any given militant group and into a wholesale conflict embroiling an entire territory, and as such, it is befitting to use the alt name in sources that most aptly aligns with Wikipedia's internal descriptive title principles, which generally calls for the use of geographies to describe events, not actors, per WP:NCWWW. Here we have a conflict that has impacted an entire geography, displacing its people and destroying most of its infrastructure. To represent it as a mere operation against a single militant group is not only to misrepresent the conflict at this point, but to belittle it, not least when the extent of the destruction is now such that the ICJ has issued emergency orders due to the risk of genocide. How can a possible genocide be contained within the descriptive framework with a "war" against a single militant group? The answer is that the framing no longer fits, and worse still, more and more reflects the POV of one belligerent, which would like to assert that its fight is solely with one militant group when the case is plainly otherwise - again, as now affirmed by an ICJ case. Given the alternatives, is is far better for Wikipedia to align itself with the more neutral and geographically descriptive alt name than the awkwardly framed one with potential POV issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm seeing no preference stated in WP:NCWWW to name wars with geography. In fact, there are plenty of examples in that guideline of articles that omit the "where" - like September 11 attacks and Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena.

  As to the rest, the ICJ has made no ruling regarding the count of genocide as part of this war. As a preliminary ruling, they've said South Africa's claims of genocide are "plausible"; they've said that Israel must make specific efforts to prevent genocide from happening; and they've not said that Israel must cease hostilities [33] [34] [35]. You seem to be asserting that Israel is "plainly" waging war on Palestinian civilians, and committing genocide in the process - that, however, has yet to be determined. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously? WWW stands for when, where, what. Gaza is a where; Hamas is not. And the current title doesn't omit the where: it has half a where (Israel), and half a who (Hamas). It's internally inconsistent as a title, alongside inconsistent with other pages for similar conflicts centered on Gaza. And yes, Israel is plainly blockading and waging war on all of Gaza. Senior Israeli figures have stated it repeatedly, and they're doing it. Waging war is not however equal to genocide - a legal term that will only be decided at the merits stage of the ICJ case. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  But Israel is also a who, isn't it - the nation of the people of Israel. I see no internal inconsistency in lining up Israel and Hamas as the belligerents here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am agreeing with placing a moratorium; the timing of this RM is not without questions. NasssaNser_talk 01:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Stiffling the much-needed discussion administratively will be counterproductive to Wikipedia's quality, — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that this discussion is not "much needed" - "disruptive" seems a better descriptor. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would appear to be a minority view. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Seven days might be enough for the current state to be reflected for a month to come, I suppose. NasssaNser_talk 01:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your comment. Repetitive RMs are disruptive, and as someone pointed out, "Mulligans" like this are a form of WP:BLUDGEONING. We can't be constantly reevaluating the title of an article because editors are aware of the consensus that was just established a few days earlier but they want to get another chance to get their way. There is a consensus already but they don't care. They appealed to the closing admin, and he says no. So OK, no problem, let's just start another one. That is POV-pushing, not an effort to establish consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Alternatively, continuously commenting about bludgeoning when the majority are happily giving their views might well be considered disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have "continuously" commented a grand total of three times, counting my !vote. How many times have you commented in this RM? Does anyone have the time to count? Reaally now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support: It is a war that has devastated much of the Gaza infrastructure and forced people to displace over a whole geographic area. Geographies should be used to explain events rather than characters in such a massive war engulfing a whole map, according to WP:NCWWW. Even Gaza hospitals, schools and mosques are targets to the continued bombings. Also, as the OP mentioned, the reliable sources are gradually shifting towards covering the involved geography not a single entity. The suggested title is also WP:consistent with other pages like Gaza–Israel conflict.

On the other hand, we also have the South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) at the International Court of Justice which states the fact the Gaza is being targeted. The court said "at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the [Genocide] Convention".[36]. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Good point, a genocide can only be committed against a people, the court said specifically that Palestinians in Gaza were a people, and Hamas is not that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't need to point out that "in Gaza" does not necessarily mean "Gaza" is being targeted... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but given the presence of other clues like death of children and women, Gaza target maybe established. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a WP:RS to establish that, it's purely original research to say so. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support: It is being used very frequently now and far better describes the situation, And if it isn't resolved soon those reliable sources will start calling it the Gaza genocide instead. NadVolum (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose current name meets WP:COMMON and is more WP:PRECISE than any alternative.  // Timothy :: talk  21:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, and can we please stop with these constant move requests? - there was a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war" less than two weeks ago.
  Further, the nominator cites sources like CNN as evidence for this proposal. However, CNN continues to use the current title; in the past week CNN has used "Israel-Hamas war" many times more than it has used "Israel-Gaza war". Drsruli (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is a carbon copy of BilledMammal's post. NasssaNser_talk 12:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Drsruli if you found BilledMammal's argument so convincing, the typical way of expressing that is by saying "per BilledMammal" or something. Copying their words and posting them as your own is confusing, at best. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support: as many others have noted, the quantitative considerations in WP:COMMONNAME do not override the need for titles to be precise, neutral, and consistent. "Israel-Hamas" has never been accurate, and only less so as more belligerents enter the conflict. Wars are almost always titled by involved regions and years because those titles so naturally satisfy naming requirements. "Israel-Gaza" isn't perfect either, but it's a big improvement. StereoFolic (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support per reasons above. Ecpiandy (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Article titles. It is important to note that there are 5 CRITERIA for deciding on an article title: (1) Recognizability, (2) Naturalness, (3) Precision, (4) Concision and (5) Consistency. Despite the fact that everyone keeps citing it like it is the full expression of our policy on article titles, WP:COMMONNAME is only a small aspect of the above 5 criteria. COMMONNAME only captures recognizability and perhaps naturalness. In considering the title for this article, COMMONNAME doesn't account for precision and consistency.

It is imprecise to describe this war as between Israel and Hamas. Despite the false claims by the Zionist entity, the death toll is indiputable evidence that the war is against all of Gaza. If this was just a war with Hamas, 20,000 deaths would mean the entire strength of Hamas would have been destroyed.

It is also inconsistent with the many articles with "Gaza–Israel" in the title. Per WP:AT, A good Wikipedia article title... is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. This article and its children are the only titles that include an organization Hamas hyphenated with a country Israel. The current title is inconsistent with May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes, 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes, November 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes, May 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes, March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes, and 2006 Gaza–Israel conflict ...

Even if we inappropriately only considered COMMONNAME, there is no clear evidence that Hamas is part of the common name used for the war. There is just as much evidence that Gaza is used as the common name in reliable sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The Palestinian Joint Operations Room contains many other organisations fighting, thus including Hamas alone is imprecise. Including Gaza in the title maintains recognisability. Many news organisations (as cited above) have run with Israel-Gaza, maintaining that is is a common name for the war. It is also more consistent with other articles detailing wars in Gaza involving Hamas. ArcMachaon (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: This is not solely a war against Hamas, but rather a war against multiple other Gazan organizations and the Gaza Strip as a whole. Of course, at least 90% of casualties so far have been civilians with no affiliation to Hamas. Skitash (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose What the heck? We just had an RM several days (weeks?) ago and moved all associated pages. The arguments above in favor of "Israel–Gaza war" are grounded purely on subjective WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments, with no real basis in policy. Personal opinions and feelings have no bearing in article titling decisions. We are source-summarizers, not truth-finders. Such arguments (which contradict WP:COMMONNAME and ignore the existence of WP:NPOVNAME) should be disregarded by the closer, regardless of how many support !votes there are. WP:RMCI states: Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. I would also suggest there be a six-month (or similar length) moratorium on move requests, as this is getting out of hand. As for the proposal itself, as this has already been discussed a few days ago, I will just copy-and-paste my previous !vote:

  "Israel–Hamas war" is the widely agreed-upon term used by the vast majority of publications and style guides, including: AP, NYT, The Times, WSJ, AFP, CNN, The Telegraph, FT, CBC, Time, Bloomberg, NPR, Sky News, LA Times, The Independent, PBS, ABC News, ABC News, NBC News, Politico, CNBC, The Hill, USA Today, Pew, etc. For the record, there were also a few outliers: the BBC, WaPo, and The Guardian use "Israel–Gaza war"; The Atlantic calls it "War in Israel"; Reuters, The Economist, and CBS News are deliberately ambiguous. But it is clear that the overwhelming majority of sources have settled on "Israel–Hamas war".

  InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Care to analyse sources other than US and UK? These two countries are belligerents in the conflict, while a belief that US/UK media is independent from respective governments is naive[37]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Belligerents"? Are you kidding? If you're considering the US/UK belligerents, might as well throw in about half of the world's countries as well. Most countries have a stake in how this plays out. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the world haven't sent commandos to the war zone.[38] — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh... to track down American hostages taken by Hamas, not to participate in operations against them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Source stating that they are belligerents? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  For instance, [39] — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  The US is a co-belligerent in this war. The US military has flown drones over the enclave to help the Israelis gather intelligence while high-ranking American military officers have participated in Israel’s military planning. Doesn't exactly fit the definition of "belligerent" [40] [41]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  (ABC News is Australian; AFP is French.) This is the English Wikipedia. We are trying to determine the common name in nglish used by English-language sources in the English-speaking world. Of course most of the sources we are going to be looking at are going to be from developed English-speaking countries. More than half (unverified estimate) of the sources listed at WP:RSPS noted to be highly reliable are based in the U.S. or UK. But of course, you are welcome to go through additional high-quality sources and provide evidence that the majority of sources favor "Israel–Gaza war" over "Israel–Hamas war". Simply suggesting that there may be other sources out there does not prove anything.

  Your statement that These two countries are belligerents in the conflict, while a belief that US/UK media is independent from respective governments is naive reflects a clear personal, subjective bias that has — again, zero relevance to this RM, or any style or naming issue that will be raised in the future. Wikipedia does not take sides or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; again, we are source-summarizers, not truth-finders. Surely you are aware of this, but perhaps the weight of the subject matter has clouded your and many other editors' judgments. Please remember that these decisions are not so much about what you think, but what sources say. We are not a source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is very well put and puts forward the most complete summary of the oppose responses. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, and I would add that starting this RM right after the last one was finished is forum-shopping. The practical effect is the same as the conduct prohibited by that policy. You don't like the result in one RM so you gin up another one. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm going to ignore the two essays you linked as they are essays, not Wikipedia policy. Crucially you are missing the fact that the basis of the move argument is that "Israel-Hamas war" is not the only common name for this subject. Even from your own assortment of sources you mention how multiple sources use Israel-Gaza or interchangeably use different names for the conflict.

  Keep in mind that there are five characteristics for a good title according WP:CRITERIA, not just "whatever the most sources use." I've already outlined my arguments on why Israel-Gaza fits them better, but ultimately any argument that hinges entirely on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVNAME needs to establish why Israel-Gaza isn't also a common name for the subject. Evidently, it's not a name that we conjured ourselves or came up with ourselves.

  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm going to ignore the two essays you linked as they are essays, not Wikipedia policy. Now that is a strange comment. I assume you are referring to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, neither of which were part of my rationale for opposing the RM's proposed title. The point was to show that many of the arguments above are grounded in subjective opinions rather than policy, and are thus irrelevant. Essays are meant to document perennial talk page arguments that are struck down from time to time as faulty or fallacious, or to give advice on how to edit constructively. Just because a page is an essay does not invalidate its contents, nor does it mean there is no consensus for what it says. All it means is that it is non-binding and cannot get anyone "in trouble" for not following them.

  Yes, there are sources that use "Israel–Gaza war". I already acknowledged that. But it's basically 10% of reputable sources, versus 85% that use "Israel–Hamas war" and maybe 5% that use something else. To avoid being accused of WP:CHERRYPICKING (oh dear, that's an essay!), I included all of the sources I looked at in my !vote, regardless of what name they used, but it seems people are now cherry-picking the three or four sources that use "Israel–Gaza war". "Israel–Hamas war" very clearly satisfies all five CRITERIA, so I have no idea what you are trying to say. "Israel–Gaza war" is not more common, recognizable, natural, concise, or precise than "Israel–Hamas war", if that's what you're suggesting.

  More evidence: Google News for "Israel–Hamas war" (121,000,000 results) Google News for "Israel–Gaza war" (18,100,000 results) Google Scholar for "Israel–Hamas war" (829 results) Google Scholar for "Israel–Gaza war" (123 results). Ngrams are not available since it only has data up to 2019. I also noticed that Israel–Gaza war actually redirects to Gaza–Israel conflict, so we would need to disambiguate the current conflict with 2023–present — thereby failing WP:NATURAL. Not disambiguating on the grounds of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would cause major confusion, as "conflict" and "war" are often synonymous.

  I think it's important to remember that like how Wikipedia is a WP:LAGGING indicator of notability, we also "lag" on article titles. Wikipedia does not set a standard/trend for others to follow, nor join in when a handful of sources deicde to change the way they refer to something; we follow what most sources use, only changing if it becomes clear after a reasonable amount of time that a new name has become the new common name. We only recently moved Robb Elementary School shooting to Uvalde school shooting. We still haven't moved Twitter or Kanye West. January 6 United States Capitol attack has just been nominated for the 99th time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME Israel–Hamas war having been and still being used widely, and common sense - the chief belligerents are in fact, the State of Israel and Hamas. Gaza is not an organization or a political entity engaged in the conflict, but rather the primary, although not only location, and Israel–Gaza war is thus less accurate and NPOV. --Chefallen (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. The support arguments in this RM very much encapsulate the worst thing about Wikipedia's community: long-time veteran editors with axe to grind misinterpreting WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to push their own agenda and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with their original research. Like, come on, at this point how could anyone here not know about the core content policies after so many years and edits? WP:NPOV means we give the most weight to viewpoints most prominent in RS. For article titles, this means the name most widely used in RS will be prioritized regardless of neutrality. WP:Verifiability and WP:OR mean Wikipedia simply restates what most RS say about a subject and whatever "truth" any user comes up with based on their own original research has absolutely no place here. If the current title has POV issues then the same goes for "Israel-Gaza War". Wikipedia's contents only have to be verifiable and have no obligation whatsoever to be the truth or to respect any group, ideology, government, or anyone's definition of justice. Any argument on here that is not based on policies should be automatically discarded just like any argument saying a content is "harmful", "dangerous", "does not deal with a topic sensitively", "not truthful".

While I have omitted some sources that use both, "Israel–Hamas" is easily the more widely used name:

Israel–Hamas: Associated press, Atlantic Council, Bloomberg, Brookings Institution, CBC, CBS News, Center for Strategic and international Studies, Chicago Sun Times, CNBC, CNN, Council on Foreign Relations, Deutsche Welle, The Economist, Encyclopedia Britannica, Euronews, Financial Times, Forbes, Foreign Policy, France 24, The Globe and Mail, The Hill, The Hindu, Hudson Institute, The Independent, The Jordan Times, The Mainichi, Le Monde, Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, NBC News, Nikkei Asia, The New York Times, The New Yorker, NPR, PBS, Pew Research Center, Policito, Reuters, Sky News, The Straits Times, The Telegraph, The Times, Time Magazine, Toronto Star, USA Today, Vox, Wilson Center, Wall Street Journal

Israel–Gaza: ABC News, Al-Jazeera, BBC News, Euractiv, The Guardian, The Nation, NPR, PBS, South China Morning Post, Tehran Times, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Yahoo News

StellarHalo (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems very non-WP:GF to accuse those who disagree with you of "[encapsulating] the worst thing about Wikipedia's community." JDiala (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what "POV issues" does the "Israel-Gaza War" title has? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - the people offering WP:COMMONNAME as a reason are misunderstanding what that policy says. What it says is [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). That is, if and only if a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources use a name is it the "common name". When there are several competing names, and there is not a single name that has a significant majority, then we look at the WP:CRITERIA directly. And when we do that we are obliged to consider several aspects, among them neutrality. The framing of this as a war against Hamas is decidedly non-neutral. It directly represents the POV of one of combatants. As I wrote in the last move request I participated in, and these numbers have all gotten considerably more extreme in the meantime, Israel is bombarding Gaza, it is preparing to launch a ground invasion of Gaza, Israel has cut off the electricity and water supply to Gaza, half of the population of Gaza has been displaced, over 2,000 non-Hamas civilians of Gaza have been killed. This framing of Israel is only at war with Hamas is as POV as you can get, it is pushing the Israeli propaganda line that they are only targeting Hamas. Nearly every descriptive title for a war has the territories. eg Russo-Ukrainian War, or 2006 Lebanon War. When more than one name is commonly used we need to examine all five criteria. And here they support Israel-Gaza for consistency and neutrality. nableezy - 20:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? "Israel–Hamas war" is the name used by a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. That doesn't mean there must not be sources that use alternative names; in fact, that is practically impossible. Secondly, "neutrality" is not one of the five CRITERIA; see also WP:NPOVNAME and WP:POVNAMING. I think editors who are invoking CRITERIA as if it somehow overrides COMMONNAME and as if "Israel–Hamas war" does not satisfy CRITERIA need to carefully reread it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are right it is not a criteria, however for descriptive names, where there is no proper name for an event as here, WP:NDESC calls for Non-judgmental descriptive titles that reflect a neutral point of view. If there is no common name we are obliged to consider neutrality in our descriptive title. And here it supports Israel-Gaza over Israel-Hamas, a name that represents the propaganda of a combatant in a war (Israel). I disagree entirely that "Israel–Hamas war" is the name used by a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. The fact that major English language international sources are using multiple names, sometimes with a single source using both of the names discussed here, demonstrates that. If there were a single common name you wouldnt find BBC and The Guardian using different ones to Financial Times and The Economist. nableezy - 23:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a descriptive name. A descriptive name is a name coined by Wikipedia editors for the purpose of coming up with a title. Secondly, I have shown above (as have others) that there is clearly a most common name for the conflict, and that is "Israel–Hamas war". This is not a subjective statement, it's a fact. You can look at the statistics yourself. Again, having a COMMONNAME does not mean that a less common name does not exist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  More common isnt the requirement, a significant majority is. When you have sources such as BBC, The Washington Post, and The Guardian using another name you cant just wave that away and pretend like that is not also a common name. Currently I get 2.1 million results in google news for "Israel-Hamas war" vs 1.6 million results for "Israel-Gaza war". I do not think that constitutes a "significant majority". Nor can you ignore that many of the sources cited for Israel-Hamas use both, eg NYTimes calling it the Israel-Gaza war in this article. Both names are commonly used, and Israel-Gaza war is considerably more consistent with a range of other articles, and doesnt have the problem of parroting one sides propaganda. nableezy - 23:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Three or four out of thirty is the definition of "uncommon"; 20+ out of thirty is the definition of "significant majority". If it were 50/50 I might've supported a move, but even then there would be additional considerations like the status quo and WP:NAMECHANGES, and possible bias against the side that you believe the current title is "biased" in favor of. But it's not 50/50, it's closer to 90%. Not sure what you mean by Israel-Gaza war is considerably more consistent with a range of other articles; could you clarify? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Other conflict between Israel and various militant factions have locations as the title, as in 2008-2009 Gaza War, 2006 Lebanon War, 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, 2014 Gaza War. I don’t believe it is 90%, as, again, several of the sources you cite as using Israel-Hamas war also use Israel-Gaza war. I gave you a NYT example, which you have listed as exclusively Israel—Hamas. nableezy - 01:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, of course there are going to be discrepancies within sources, which is why I pulled links to their "topic" pages (if available) rather than individual articles written by different authors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  But that makes it so those sources don’t support a single supposedly common name. nableezy - 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:GOOGLELIMITS; those figures aren't reliable. Looking at the past day, we see 141 for Israel-Gaza war, compared to 290 for Israel-Hamas war.

  I would say twice as many uses is a "significant majority" - and note that the number of results for Israel-Hamas war is likely an undercount, as WP:GOOGLELIMITS have likely truncated that result.

  Further, as I've shown elsewhere, the current title is neutral, despite what your personal opinion may be. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I’m sorry, but your personal opinion doesn’t trump mine. And this does indeed toe the Israel propaganda line that this is a war against Hamas, despite the destruction of Gaza and the killing of Gazans being considerably wider than Hamas. So no, you haven’t shown any such thing, you’ve only provided your own personal opinion. There’s also zero evidence that one search term is more undercounted than the other, but that’s just another logical inconsistency in your argument. nableezy - 01:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Neither of us should be basing our assessment on whether this is neutral on personal opinion - and I didn't.

  There’s also zero evidence that one search term is more undercounted than the other, but that’s just another logical inconsistency in your argument Google doesn't present an unlimited number of results. They identify 300 results and then prune the duplicates. This means that if you recieve 300 results, or close to 300 results, you likely haven't recieved the full number of results for your provided search term. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I cited millions. nableezy - 01:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  And here’s a reliable source directly disputing the POV that this is a war on Hamas, Jeremy Schahill in The Intercept. This title and framing is a contested POV, the POV of one of the combatants. nableezy - 02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the millions, it's a highly inaccurate estimate - please, read WP:GOOGLETEST.

  That's an opinion article, but I don't dispute that some sources hold the view that this isn't a war between Israel and Hamas. However, per WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  That isn’t the view of a small minority. You’re just making assertions. Al-Jazeera in fact calls it Israel’s war on Gaza, and when sources such as the Guardian and the BBC and the Washington Post all call it the Israel-Gaza war that is not a small minority. nableezy - 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per @GreatLeader1945 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support "Israel–Hamas war" may be used by a preponderance of sources, but it is not the single common name, nor is it demonstrably used by a significant majority of sources, and many of the sources that do use it do so alongside other names. The fact that it is the preferred name of one party to the conflict should give us pause. … Israel–Gaza war is more internally consistent with our other article titles, and there are other armed groups involved, making the current title inaccurate per WillowCity and similar, detailed arguments by Nableezy and others. Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Any attempt to claim "Israel–Hamas war" is not demonstrably the most common name, or at minimum a relatively more common name than "Israel–Gaza war", would be cherry-picking and ignoring the big picture, and possibly influenced by subjective beliefs on what is neutral and what is not (I will again reiterate that comments consisting simply of "support because I think the current title is biased" are equivalent to "support because I don't like it" and should be immediately discarded; consensus is determined by the strengths of arguments presented). Vague claims that the current statistics presented above by numerous, independent editors are inaccurate do not carry much weight without actual evidence (i.e. a formal reassessment, if supporters believe the previous surveys were flawed). And FYI, we can always discuss the discourse surrounding the naming of the war in the article itself, if it's not already there — where's the Etymology section? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  If our policy was to apply WP:COMMONNAME whenever there is a relatively more common name, then the policy would say so clearly. It does not. The requirement seems to be a standard approaching unanimity: why else would we require that the topic is referred to "mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources"? These adjectives/adverbs aren't just there for decoration. If the standard was lower, COMMONNAME would apply whenever a topic is referred to "mostly by one name, as evidenced through usage in a majority of English-language sources". Numerous editors have demonstrated that we are far from unanimity. The policy is intended to apply to topics like the Hindenburg disaster or the Watergate scandal or Ivan the Terrible, where there is a truly overwhelming consensus, not just a relative majority. WillowCity^(talk) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support the move since the original name is propaganda. Very few other wars have used that kinda nomenclature. This is a war in Palestine. There are some advantages to the original name because Gaza ≠ Hamas but in practice it's all of Gaza that's suffering. Jikybebna (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on evidence above, which is preferred over any WP:NPOVNAME/"accurate name" used on support arguments above. But I do see a shift in RS to Israel-Gaza although not there yet, so over time evidence for a move should be greater but not right now. DankJae 09:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support as the current name is extremely misleading given the indiscriminate bombing, killing, and starvation directed towards the civilian population. David A (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support but overall a support - While the current name is very popular, I don't think wikipedia should keep an inaccurate name as Hamas aren't the only faction taking part in this war and because Israel is literally invading Gaza in a war and according to almost every source out there, militants aren't the only people getting killed in Gaza (I pretty sure that you reading this have come across the Genocide Convention) Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• While there are certainly problems with the current name, I Strongly oppose this proposal per similarities with Gaza-Israel conflict. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  The similarities are the reason to move, per WP:CONSISTENT nableezy - 16:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  It seems like you're misreading WP:AT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As I noted above, iff this page is moved to Israel–Gaza war, it must be (un-WP:NATURAL-ly) disambiguated as Israel–Gaza war (2023–present) because Gaza–Israel conflict (which Israel–Gaza war currently redirects to) exists, and "conflict" is almost synonymous to "war". This in itself (naturalness is one of the five CRITERIA) is one massive reason not to move this page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Or 2023–24 Israel-Gaza war? nableezy - 18:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  We already went through a naming and disambiguation process, for heaven's sake. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not on the proposed title. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  That was based off the title being Israel-Hamas. This proposal has nothing to do with that, and I dont think it is appropriate to continue harping about a move request that was focused on changing 2023 because it had outlasted that year to something else. nableezy - 19:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Right, this is a "do over" since some editors didn't like the just-established consensus. And it looks like we're going to be engaged in an endless RM process until "Gaza" is part of the title. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  We had one RM 23 December, then a disambiguation RM right after that. Both concluded in January. We're still in January. Is this something we do continually until "Gaza" is in the title? In other words. There is no consensus until it says "Gaza" and then we reach the aha! moment. Now that is a consensus. Anything else gets a do-over. That's where we are here, I believe. Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  The first one was closed twice with contradictory outcomes and the disambiguation RM was clearly on the basis that it was without prejudice to any renaming RM, try again. Oh replying twice to yourself is confusing, btw. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  The closing statements speak for themselves. Nothing was "contradictory." The close was simply rejected by some editors. It was appealed. The appeal was rejected by the closing editor. So here we are again. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to refresh your memory: RM 1, began 23 December and closed 10 January, determined a clear consensus for "Israel-Gaza." There was no consensus as to whether a date should be affixed. So RM2 found there should be no date. RM2 was concluded three or four days before this one was commenced. So it was a long process but a simple one. Hope this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RM)

• Comment It is perfectly reasonable to begin this RFC based on the recent Title discussion, which also refers to discussions of the title that took place subsequent to the previous RM (here), and together constitute a respectable RFCbefore. In addition there is no consensus as to whether the current title is commonname or descriptive, see here and here Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Note that proposed title currently redirects to Gaza–Israel conflict, an overview of all Gaza conflict with Israel since 1947. In consequence, an alternative might be simply Gaza War, as was used in the two previous major conflicts between Israel and Gaza of 2008/9 and 2014, together with some suitable disambiguation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose that name change. Historyday01 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Would “third Gaza war” be a good rename, treating the 2014 and 2009 wars as “second” and “first” Gaza war respectively be a good solution, or is it just not notable enough The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Probably too original, yes. Some creativity will have to be expended for npov titles but they should still be based off of what the sources use. Orchastrattor (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment In the matter of CNN, if one goes to their live updates for the war, then one is greated with a large headline "The latest on Israel's war in Gaza" whereas in the recent past , said headline was "January 5, 2024 Israel-Hamas war" or similar. So it is correct to say that CNN has shifted its position. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Interestingly, the Guardian recently changed live usage to "Middle East crisis live" (from Israel-Gaza war), while its main usage is either 'Gaza war' or 'Israel-Gaza war' and the NYT has also recently changed to "Widening Mideast Crisis" (from "Israel Hamas war"), while its main usage has no specific naming. Reuters has not any consistent naming at this point. CNN, together with these three, are suggestive of a definitive shift. The listing given in one !vote above is misleading. If, for example we look at ABC main page it has 'Israel-Gaza conflict' as main and 'Israel-Gaza live updates'. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Then there was another RfC to resolve the exact title. That was concluded three days ago is misleading, the purpose of that RFC was to resolve disambiguation, and included the proviso "It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording." Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That is in neither of the closing statements finding consensus. The closing admin did not give, nor could they give, permission for editors to engage in disruptive, repetitive RfCs on the very same issue, over and over again, until editors drop from exhaustion. And your comment is misleading. As I point out, the disambiguation RfC followed an RfC on this very issue.Links to both move discussions are in my comment above.Coretheapple (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Source analysis (no longer useful due to POV editing)

Source Live page Main page CNN "Israel's war in Gaza"; provides daily updates as Israel-Hamas war Israel-Hamas war Guardian Middle East crisis live Israel-Gaza war NYT Widening Mideast Crisis Israel/Hamas & war in Gaza AJ Israel War on Gaza Israel War on Gaza/Gaza war BBC Israel-Gaza war Israel-Gaza war WAPO Israel-Gaza War Israel-Gaza War Reuters "Israel, Hamas at war" "Israel and Hamas at War" ABC "Israel-Gaza live updates" "Israel-Hamas at war" UN Israel-Gaza crisis Israel-Gaza crisis WSJ Israel-Hamas war Unclear; have used "Israel-Hamas war" [42] [43] and "the Gaza War" [44] AP Israel-Hamas war Israel-Hamas war NBC Israel-Hamas war Israel-Hamas The Telegraph Israel-Hamas war Israel-Hamas war France24 Israel-Hamas war, also Israel-Gaza war in some articles Israel-Hamas war The Times Israel-Hamas war Israel-Hamas war (if you click on Explore) USA Today Israel-Hamas war Israel-Hamas war

Above is an analysis of major sources showing their naming of the war per their live update page (if they have one) and per their main page. As can be seen, AP, Reuters and NBC maintain Israel Hamas usage, Guardian and NYT have recently switched to emphasize a Middle East crisis instead, while the rest are using Israel Gaza or Gaza war. This procedure is more indicative of the current situation than Google searches that reflect the initial usage of Israel Hamas by almost all sources. Selfstudier EDIT As of 25 January, the table is no longer useful due to POV editing, and should be ignored. (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There are some others that use Israel-Hamas war: The Telegraph, France24. Do you mind if I add them to the table? Alaexis_¿question? 13:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect anything else from The Telegraph given their editorial line. As to FR24, they use both.[45][46][47]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

If adding sources, please use live update page if the source has one in the first column and the main/middle east page in the second column. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

NYT is still using "Israel-Hamas war" as a subheading under "Widening Mideast Crisis". BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As per below, click on it and see where it leads. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier as BilledMammal and I pointed out, the live page obviously still calls the conflict "Israel-Hamas war", right in the header. Please do not re-revert the table entry for NYT again. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted, complete twaddle, that is not the "name" on the live page, it used to be called "Israel Hamas" and has been changed, while as I have already explained the "Israel Hamas link leads to a collection of photos entitled "Conflict in Israel and Gaza, in Photos" and is not therefore a name at all. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That reasoning is 1-ply paper thin. NYT officially publishes, and continues to publish, the title "Israel-Hamas war" in the Header of their coverage page. They clearly stand by that as the name for the war. Moreover, here's a (probably better) main page where they even more explicitly use the title "Israel-Hamas war". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The same basis was used for all the entries, the NYT changed their live feed from "Israel-Hamas" to "Widening Mideast Crisis" (check it). And pointing to a link that goers nowhere at the end of a banner as some sort of proof that it didn't is codswallop. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

NYT changed their live feed from "Israel-Hamas" to "Widening Mideast Crisis" Indeed they did - because their coverage is no longer just about the war in Gaza, but about all events that are unfolding in the region. However, they quite plainly still use the name "Israel-Hamas war" when referring only to the conflict itself.

You now continue to edit war [48] [49], against consensus on the talk page, to retain your preferred version of the table, while repsonding to criticism by calling it "rubbish", "codswallop", and "complete twaddle." This is by far antithetical to the behavior that is expected in the WP:ARBPIA CTOP area. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And I'll be waiting at this talk page for you to respond to the content arguments raised. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The table has been marked as no longer useful as of today due to POV editing of same. Discussion concluded. Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

All that over the single line entry for NYT? A bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, innit? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It takes you to a page "Conflict in Israel and Gaza, in Photos". This page has a different header, which leads with "Israel-Hamas war". When you click that link, it takes you to this page, which is titled "Israel-Hamas War News".

The NYT uses "Widening Mideast Crisis" for the broader conflict, and "Israel-Hamas war" for the conflict in Israel and Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As for the live page, the NYT appears to be switching between "Israel-Hamas war" and "Widening Mideast Crisis"; yesterday it used the former. BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

And today it used "Gaza war"[50] while earlier this week it also used "Israel–Gaza war"[51]. It offers evidence that NYT edutors are fine with all these terms. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

And if you go to the current ME page the first article there is How Leaders and Diplomats Are Trying to End the Gaza War, more and more articles are using the "Gaza war" formulation. I suspect the news outlets find the thing as much a conundrum as we do. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the live page; today, the live page is "Widening Mideast Crisis", although with the header structure that I detailed above.

Other articles vary, although with a clear preference for "Israel-Hamas war" - even the page you link says "Gaza War" in two places and "Israel-Gaza war" in one, compared to "Israel-Hamas war" in four and "Israel-Hamas conflict" in one. BilledMammal (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier you took a single headline from the WSJ page on the Middle East, and presented it as evidence that the name that the WSJ is using for this conflict is "Gaza War". Yet here they are, using "Israel-Hamas War" as of last week.

You also said WSJ has no live page for the war, but they did. And what was the name they used? Ah, yes - "Israel-Hamas War".

That was quite a poor interpretation of WSJ you made, and it calls into question the quality of the rest of your source analysis. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the live page for Guardian isn't "Middle East crisis live", but "Israel-Gaza War" (and interestingly, still uses the url www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I used the page that says "live" and updates.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As with the NYT, "Middle East crisis" refers to more going on in that region than just this war. And their page dedicated to the "Israel-Gaza War" has news from today, which seems pretty current to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am simply trying to show what the current situation is reporting wise, make another table if you want to highlight something else. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And come on... the live page for NYT has "Israel-Hamas War" right on the banner across the top. Seriously? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Click on it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And you get Conflict in Israel and Gaza, in Photos Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Er... it links to a gallery of photos from the war. Your point is? They clearly use "Israel-Hamas War" as the descriptor of the conflict, as I see no other phrase in which "war" is used. "Widening Mideast crisis" refers to all of the events unfolding in the region, not only the conflict in Gaza. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It links to a page that says "Conflict in Israel and Gaza" so my point is that you didn't have a point. Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright - find a source for NYT labelling the war, not the entire regional crisis, something besides "Israel-Hamas war", and we'll deal. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I already said above, make a different table if desired, I see no reason to change mine. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I missed the WSJ live page, I will add that. Oh wait, they did have one, they don't currently? Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a 'Live page' from a major RS is no longer live is immaterial to its relevance as a source. Current sources may be better in some ways, but old sources aren't to be discounted as if they no longer exist. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

All the links I gave are current, I am not discounting historical links but those would tend to flatter IH. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and in doing so, you've omitted a valid source. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not counting historical usage at all, I will leave that to the google searchers. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

So it's basically an even split, sigh. Levivich (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no knowledge on any previous RFCs before opening this move request though. I can't be neutral on this discussion, but I think this is going to be a no consensus or not moved.

I will not open further RMs on this however this one closes. NasssaNser_talk 03:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian and Israeli sources are obviously excluded, however, so are Arab sources apart from AJ, most of them favor Gaza War or Israel Gaza usage. People have added three sources (including two more from the UK) to the initial list favoring IH usage but it is simple to add several more favoring GW or IG usage so that is not definitive. At any rate, it is clear that there has been movement of late (CNN, NYT, Guardian) and I expect this might continue. At least here we set a baseline for any possible future RM. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Here it is reported by Algemeiner (fwiw) that Netanyahu at one point favored "Gaza War" as the name for the war, at least until it was pointed out that he lives on Gaza Street in Jerusalem. :) Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• @NasssaNser: You just edited your opening statement, but it's unclear what was added and removed. Can you please adjust you edit to comply with WP:TALK#REPLIED? BilledMammal (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reverted. NasssaNser_talk 08:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So this is probably the exact same situation as Special:PermaLink/1181585273#Requested_move_15_October_2023 here. NasssaNser_talk 02:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:Bludgeoning

A few editors are making what might be an excessive number of comments in this discussion; one has made 26, and another has made 40 - between the two of them, they've made almost half of all comments in this discussion. I suggest that editors who have made considerable contributions to this discussion step back and let consensus take its course. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Drsruli (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you want others to stop because of this? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that's just not WP:AGF, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and completely uncalled for. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Seriously... what the hell does that have to do with this discussion? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

An attempt to stop others because of own inability to respond? I only see a normal, sometimes heated discussion here. Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. Yet, no single editor dominates the discussions here. To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

one has made 26, and another has made 40 - between the two of them, they've made almost half of all comments in this discussion seems like a couple of users are IMHO. I also think that seperating a point for further discussion stated by a few other editors (myself included) is completely valid regardless of the motivation behind it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That in no way explains how bringing up an ANI thread from 2 years ago, that makes no mention of WP:BLUDGEON as far as I can find, is at all relevant here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So far, the majority of posts objecting to !votes are made by three editors, on both sides of this discussion. NasssaNser_talk 00:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONING says "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process".

Additionally, if editors have concerns about bludgeoning then they need, in the first instance, to make that argument on editor talk pages and not here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to call out specific editors; I merely want the bludgeoning to stop.

And I too am very confused by the relevancy of that ANI discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If you throw shade, shouldn't be surprised if someone throws some back? I agree it is about as relevant as the back door rallying cry of bludgeoning ie not very. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

A simple reminder of discussion ettiquette to all parties is IN NO WAY on the same level as an unprovoked and irrelevant dredging of a 2-year old, actionless ANI thread about an editor. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed moratorium

As a high-traffic article with many, many "child" pages and categories, we need to keep the article title stable. I would suggest an RM moratorium of six months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteNexus (talk • contribs) 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• So a Wiki-ceasefire? I somewhat empathize, but given how unpredictable this conflict has been, it's hard to imagine a moratorium being effective ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a recent event, and it's normal for recent events to be renamed as the situation unfolds, changes its character, or as new information comes to light. Look for example at 2023 Wagner Group plane crash – had we blocked page moves for 6 months, we'd be stuck with suboptimal titles even now. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Obviously this one is premature, indeed ridiculous and disruptive, but editors filing premature RMs is a user conduct issue that really needs to be dealt with by arbcom, given that this is a contentious subject matter under arbcom restrictions. I don't think a general rule can be determined here one way or the other. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC) On further consideration, I support and I believe that such a moratorium needs to be effective with the RM prior to this one. We established a clear consensus, and as is pointed out above by several editors, most recently StellarHalo, the effort to overturn the consensus after a few days is, on the merits, contrary to article naming policy. RMs over and over again are a drain on resources and interrupt the constructive editing of this article. Editors have only so much time on their hands in this volunteer project, and focusing time and time again on the article title, because some editors don't like the consensus and are hoping for a different outcome, is disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. As stated. Drsruli (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) As a high-traffic article with many, many "child" pages and categories, we need to keep the article title stable is not a reason for a moratorium. 2) If there are continuing shifts in the way that RS report the war, discussion about that should not be artificially prevented. 3) The current RM is well attended and clearly not disruptive, accusations of that being made only by editors with an obvious interest in the outcome.Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  How is it not a reason for a moratorium? You are aware that every time we have an RM, a large banner appears at the top of the page, and every time we move the page, it creates major disruption with numerous associated moves, incoming links, and links from external websites, right? If there are continuing shifts in the way that RS report the war Unlikely, and Wikipedia does not necessarily follow suit even if that happens. The current RM is well attended and clearly not disruptive Starting a tenth RM within days after the previous RM was closed with clear consensus, and without advancing any major arguments that haven't been raised before (WP:DEADHORSE), and making subjective WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT comments with no basis in policy, is clearly disruptive. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Starting a tenth RM within days after the previous RM was closed with clear consensus Do your maths again. The last RM that ended up in a consensus was to rename the article[52], so it was a useful RM. The previous RM that had anything resembling consensus was closed 20 days ago after being open for nearly three weeks[53]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Missing the point. I didn't say anything about the "usefulness" of the RMs, nor is that relevant. RMs are disruptive, tiresome (again, WP:DEADHORSE), has the potential to cause additional disruption if the page is moved, and invite unnecessary drama. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  RMs have worked well to improve this article and many others. While sometimes it's ok to establish a moratorium – esp. when we know that the facts won't change anytime soon (e.g., the 2-year moratorium on renaming Allahabad to Prayagraj) – we shouldn't stiffle discussions that try to address fast-moving developments, such as quickly unfolding recent events. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  The event is fast-moving. The name that sources use to refer to the event is not "fast-moving". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Really? Are you absolutely sure that this won't turn into a 2024 Middle East war next month? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that if it evolves to that point, it would be deserving of its own article; I wouldn't expect the Russia invasion of Ukraine page to morph into the WW3 page or even a "2023 Russo-European conflict" page if it were to spill over. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  WW3? Enough that Lebanon or US join the ongoing fight, and the current title will become outdated, likely without a real need of a new article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ambox tags should not be avoided for the sake of appearance. If there is even a possibility of the current title being inaccurate then readers should be informed as widely as is appropriate. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Maybe three months instead of six, but clearly we need to do something to stop RM after RM being opened on this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Six months is longer than the entire war has been (at least the post-Oct. 7 flareup). That is absurd. The situation is dynamic and we cannot predict what will happen six weeks from now, not to say six months. I wouldn’t oppose a shorter moratorium (maybe one month), but it should be conditional, e.g., no RM unless there is a significant change in the scope of the war as reflected in RS. If !voters are confident that their position reflects policy and/or consensus, they should not fear further discussion of the subject. WillowCity^(talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find it a bit strange how people here are acting as if having a RM open is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia. There's a little box at the top of the article that says it might be renamed. That's it. There's no hinderance to anybody outside of editors here having a discussion about what to call the article.

Maybe we can have a moratorium if the discussion on renaming the article is finally closed one way or another. And yes, there has been a lot of RMs in the past few weeks, but they were over different issues like the date in the title or the lack thereof. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed to Conditional Support as long as the RM above is decided first. Strong oppose if this "moratorium" means prematurely closing the RM and retaining the article's current title. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the more recent and high-traffic an article is the more important it is for the title to accurately portray the subject. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support moratorium as the consensus has not evolved much from the October discussion, with highly similar rationales on both sides of the argument. Oppose six months term as this is a current event, and RS may change stances as this event unfolds. See also WillowCity's comment. NasssaNser_talk 01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) 03:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support moratorium along with revert-on-sight for any renaming proposal that is posted prior to the moratorium explanation. This has been working pretty well on Talk:Adam's Bridge, another article with a contentious name. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support moratorium per above.  // Timothy :: talk  14:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support two months: There are a few reasons why I think this would be the best approach:

1. It does appear that there is some kind of effort by RS to change the name from "Hamas war" to "Gaza war"; Wikipedia doesn't lead though, so we should let them simmer and see if it comes into common usage naturally.
2. When the moratorium lapses, it will have been about 6 mo. since the beginning of the conflict. I would think that (hopefully) most of us could agree that whatever name is in common usage is unlikely to change further and we won't have B2B move discussions.
3. I agree with the oppose justifications that 6 months is just a very long time.
4. It's important to note that moratoriums can be ignored if something sufficiently large happens and there's consensus. This is mostly to prevent requests like the one this is attached to; ones where nothing substantial has changed since the last one.

But that's just like, my opinion man. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists in the real world, it's going to lead whether it wants to or not. This would already be true enough for any even decently large article given the encyclopedia's scope, usage, and positive reputation, but is going to go doubly so for an article currently on the top two modules of the front page as this one currently is. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as it is wasting a lot of resources to argue about the name. But there should be a chance to reconsider after a fixed period. If this is the consensus, than any proposed move will be immediately closed. Hopefully sanctions do not have to apply to move requestors, but if it becomes a problem, I suppose they can be banned from the topic of move proposal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Although we cannot predict what will happen in this region, but we can have time to rest and focus on article itself. I think it is not too late to edit the new sources after moratorium for 6 month, because there are many editors who show interest and will to make this article much better. -- Wendylove (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support this is wasting too much editorial resources. If there is any change in the common name of this war, this can always be reversed by wide community consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support The move has been suggested many times and been shot down many times.

Ergzay (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the topic is current and developing rapidly; six months is far too long. The discussions only destablize it if it is actually moved, and in that case there's a consensus that moving it was worth the brief destabilization - all the arguments people make about how it is current and in a bunch of infoboxes equally means that we must get the title right, which means we can't completely shut down any discussion of it. Furthermore, at least in its current state, the discussion this is attached to is a terrible argument for a moratorium, since it looks at a glance like it might be headed towards no consensus - the result when there's a no consensus outcome is to step back and discuss compromises, not to immediately move to shut down further discussions. The argument that "of course" we can allow a move if there's some dramatic event isn't useful because editors will naturally disagree over what qualifies - it's extremely unlikely that we will suddenly find out that one of the combatants in the war is actually Luxembourg in a rubber mask; but it is quite reasonable to suggest that coverage (and thus the WP:COMMONNAME) will continue to evolve over time, which could easily shift consensus towards a move but which won't necessarily result from a single decisive event. I'll also point out that many of the people arguing that it is vital that we maintain stability even to the point of shutting down discussions or who feel these discussions are wasting resources supported a move made mere weeks ago, which obviously shows that discussing and even moving the article was not as big of a deal as they're saying here; I think it's fair to ask them to explain that contradiction. --Aquillion (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weakly Oppose: A rose is a rose is a rose. The dependence of this article on non-neutral SOAPBOX sources ensures that Khamas is seen as the sole antagonist, while never affording this seemingly singular belligerent the weight of having a POV equal to the so-called 4th most powerful army in the world. What it needs worse than a rename is a cleanup with lessons learned about sourcing. At least this way the critically thinking reader knows what to expect and can save time by not reading. You can't call it the Second Nakba even though that's exactly what Filestini children and Israeli politicians openly call it. You could have called it Israel War on Gaza like more neutral sources called it, except it's now more than that, innit. Looks like we're stuck, at least for a few days. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So your argument is: "the article is so bad that a bad name is good since it scares readers away", right? If so, the flipside to that is that the name is part of the badness and improving it includes improving the name. Things on Wikipedia improve piecemeal (and sometimes not at all, plenty of stuff that's still bad on here). Jikybebna (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the moratorium. This name and this set of pages needs to be able to evolve and change as the world situation does. Jikybebna (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support shorter (2-3 months), the constant RMs with no clear evidence supporting a new WP:COMMONNAME, but rather just opinions on how they view the topic, so it is becoming burdensome. However, I do see RS changing and feel it would be in less than six months. DankJae 09:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong support - This should be the last RM before the moratorium b/c let's be clear, the chances that this article's name changes is very low Abo Yemen✉ 13:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Support 2-3 months. I agree with the proposer but believe that 6 months is too long. — Czello ^(music) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Support 3 months seems reasonable. Ben Azura (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification

Pinging everyone involved in the recent RM that has not yet participated here. I believe I've correctly excluded those who have participated here, but apologies to any I miss or ping unnecessarily:

@Abo Yemen, Ainty Painty, Alexysun, Andre Farfan, Antny08, Aquillion, ArthropodLover, Cdjp1, ClaudeReigns, DFlhb, Dan Carkner, DankJae, David A, Dazzling4, Ergzay, ForerunnerAT45, FunLater, Governor Sheng, Jikybebna, Katangais, M3ATH, Marokwitz, Mathglot, Metallurgist, Mr Reading Turtle, NesserWiki, Parham wiki, PaulRKil, Politicdude, Presidentofyes12, Professor Penguino, Quake1234, Remagoxer, Richard-of-Earth, Riposte97, Sebbog13, Stidmatt, Sundostund, Swordman97, ToadetteEdit, WhatamIdoing, and Filelakeshoe:

For ease of navigation, see #Survey (RM) for the proposal, and see #Proposed moratorium for the proposed moratorium on additional RM's. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is merely a reprise of the ongoing RM, all a bit pointless, no? Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not certain what you are asking, but these are the editors who haven’t participated in the ongoing RM but did participate in the previous one. BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rhetorical. Did you pick up the !voters in the discussion following the previous RM in between the first closure of it and the second? In any case, if all the !voters (who want to keep the title as is) and all those who want a change just reprise their positions here, it seems pointless. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert of alternative name

This revert undoes the addition of a well sourced alternative name for the war, viz:

also referred to as the Israel-Gaza War, Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

First, we don't include the primary name in the lede. Given this, why would we include any alternatives?

Second, MOS:LEADALT tells us not to include alternative names in the lede if there are three or more such names and in this case there are many alternative names. No objection to creating an etymology section as recommended by LEADALT. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

First, we don't include the primary name in the lede I didn't bold the aka, but do go ahead and include/bold them both.

many alternative names What are they? Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In just the four sources you provide here we have two; "Israel-Gaza war" and "Israel's War on Gaza". Above, you have provided sources that have even more alternatives - and then we have Israel's official name for the war, "Operation Swords of Iron", and Hamas' official name for the war "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the two operations is an alternative name for the war. Both terms refer specifically to the actions of respective militaries, and not to the overall situation in the region nor to the legal aspect (war has a very specific meaning in international law, which is also different from military operation). — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This works better for AJ Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References