Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Inclusion of mention of friendly fire

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

---

In the lede, after the first casualty mentions, should we mention that some of the Israeli and Palestinian casualties were caused by friendly fire? If so, should we include this as a footnote or as direct text?

Specific wording would be determined through normal editing, but may be along the lines of:

• For Israeli Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by friendly fire or as a result of the Hannibal Directive
• For Palestinian Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by the approximately ten to twenty percent of militant rockets that fall short

04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (friendly fire)

• Support both as direct text. Friendly fire casualties are widely reported in reliable sources (For Palestine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 etc, as well as major incidents such as Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. I understand that a similar number of sources can be provided for Israel), and it is important to inform readers that contrary to their expectations Israeli casualties are not all caused by Palestinians, and Palestinian casualties are not all caused by Israeli's. I prefer direct text to footnotes as research has shown that most readers do not view footnotes, but I would prefer footnotes over excluding it entirely. I would also oppose including just one, as casualties on both sides include those from friendly fire, and it would violate WP:BALASP to only inform readers about one side of this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many issues with your position. Several of the sources you have cited are not WP:RS. Of those that are RS, many fail to establish the claim. For instance, 16 merely states that "the portion that were killed by misfired rockets aimed at Israel, is not known". With the exception of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, no source establishes that any individual casualties were the result of friendly fire. Even that Al-Ahli case is somewhat disputed. For instance in our article we clearly state that claim that it was the result of a rocket misfire "is not a conclusive finding". JDiala (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are all reliable sources - none are listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. I also believe they all support this information; that an unknown number of the casualties (unknown in part due to Hamas impeding investigations) were killed by friendly fire. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is non-exhaustive. My understanding is that editors can in general exercise their own judgement as to a reliability of a given source, especially when considering the context of the topic at hand see e.g., WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It is my judgement that an American evangelical website like christianpost.com or a Sheldon Adelson-backed right-wing project like jns.org should not be given significant weight with respect to assessing rocket misfires in the Israel-Hamas war. JDiala (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to start discussions at WP:RSN, but I note that regardless of what you think of those two sources there are seven on the list that are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP; the presence of some that you disagree with isn't reason to dismiss all of them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support including October 7th IDF friendly fire as footnote but Strong Oppose for including alleged Palestinian friendly fire in Gaza. It should be a footnote in any case. The lead is far too long for these minor points to be non-footnotes. I oppose the inclusion of alleged Palestinian friendly fire. With the possible exception of the Ah-Ahli case, there is no clear evidence of Palestinian casualties due to rocket misfires (and even the Ah-Ahli is "not conclusive" according to our own article). This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is highly misleading as it suggests to the reader that the vast majority of deaths in Gaza were not caused by the IDF. It's also a WP:SYNTH case e.g., many of the sources cited by the user above just speculate on the point rather than offer concrete evidence or make definitive statements of fact. War and large battles almost always have some amount of friendly fire. It's only notable if there's exceptional circumstances e.g., the friendly fire is particularly frequent, the ratio of casualties caused by friendly fire is high or the friendly fire is of a systematic nature. No evidence of this in the Palestinian case, but for the Israelis there's more compelling evidence considering the admission of "immense and complex [quantities]" of friendly fire and the Hannibal directive. JDiala (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  No evidence of this in the Palestinian case There is evidence of this in the Palestinian case; reliable sources say that between 10 and 20 percent of rockets fall short - that's between 1500 and 3000 rockets in this war. According to the BBC and many other sources these kill Palestinians in Gaza, while Human Rights Watch notes Documenting damage caused by misfired rockets is difficult because the authorities in Gaza have impeded investigations of such incidents. For example, authorities in Gaza detained two Palestinian journalists investigating rocket misfires during the August 2022 escalation.

  We know that these rockets fall short, we know that they kill people - we shouldn't exclude this information because Hamas have covered up the specifics.

  I am also confused by your point that this addition will suggest that the vast majority of deaths in Gaza were not caused by the IDF; if that is true, then wouldn't including the text about Israel suggest that the vast majority of deaths in Israel were not caused by Hamas? Why would it only apply to one side and not both? BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is textbook WP:SYNTH. A large number of rockets frequently falling short, and one documented case of a plausible rocket misfire which resulted in fatalities, does not allow one to conclude that rocket misfires frequently resulted in casualties. That Hamas does not allow proper journalism in Gaza is irrelevant and does not give us a free hand to engage in WP:OR. For that matter, Israelis also do not allow independent journalism in areas of Gaza that they control or areas in Israel attacked on October 7th. It is all a highly curated show by the IDF. But in any case, that gives us no authority to just make things up. As for your subsequent point as to why we cover the Israel case but not Hamas, I've already discussed this. The admission of "immense and complex [quantities]" of friendly fire and the Hannibal directive makes the Israeli case qualitatively exceptional. JDiala (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't synth because reliable sources explicitly connect the two; for example, the New York Times says Between 10 and 20 percent of Hamas’s rockets fail and fall into Gaza, Human Rights Watch said in a recent report, citing Israeli military data. Sometimes those misfires fall into Gaza, killing Palestinians. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read the article, that quote is specifically in reference to the Al-Ahli explosion, which is the only case where there's compelling evidence for this. I have already discussed this. It is a single case, not indicative of a pattern, and even then our own article about it concedes it's "not conclusive" that it was friendly fire. Also, most of your other sources are clearly synth. None of this is remotely comparable to an admission by Israeli personnel that "immense and complex quantities" of friendly fire took place on October 7th indicating a systematic pattern. JDiala (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention Al-Ahli at any point; the statement is general, and the fact that it links to an article about a specific incident doesn't make the statement less general. Further, many of the sources I provided neither mention Al-Ahli nor link to articles mentioning it - the BBC points out An ongoing criticism of the existing figures is that they do not give a sense of how Palestinians were killed - whether this was as a result of Israeli air strikes, artillery shelling or other means such as misfired Palestinian rockets. All casualties are currently counted as victims of "Israeli aggression". I think we're about to start going in circles, so I will just say that I stand by the sources I've presented and leave it at that. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The specific quote that you cited links directly to an NYT piece on Al-Ahli. That is clearly what they are referring to. The BBC quote you cited again just proves my point that you're engaged in synth. They're basically saying that "maybe some casualties were by friendly fire, we don't know how many" it's purely speculative. JDiala (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support including Israeli friendly fire, as that is a subject that has actually been covered in depth in a huge number of sources, and oppose the SYNTH laden proposal to attempt to balance that out with Palestinian friendly fire. BilledMammal is taking sources that say rockets fall short and then making the leap that there is some significant number of Palestinian deaths attributable to that. But sources do not do that by themselves. For Israeli friendly fire and the significant impact on those casualties, we have reliable sources that actually give considerable amount of attention to it. We have Reuters reporting the Israeli military opening an investigation into the reports of friendly fire on October 7, same for Haaretz, we have Haaretz reporting on Israeli helicopters opening fire on a music festival and hitting its own citizens. We have the Israeli army killing three of the Israeli hostages in Gaza, we have an estimate that one fifth of the Israeli casualties in Gaza were the result of friendly fire. There simply is not the same level of coverage of Palestinian casualties resulting from friendly fire. And the presentation of this RFC in which the attempt is made to supposedly balance the two pieces of information fails both NPOV and SYNTH. So yes, Israeli friendly fire should be included in a footnote, Palestinian friendly fire should not be unless and until sources actually discuss that topic in any sort of depth at all. A solitary line from a BBC article saying "rockets fall short and some may cause injuries" is not that. It is a straightforward misapplication of BALASP to demand what is not balanced in the sources be balanced in our article. This is not a "both sides" issue, similar to the claim that we can only include the very widely covered accusations of genocide against Israel if we cover the comparatively minuscule amount of coverage that claims of genocide against Hamas has generated. nableezy - 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support both. Including only friendly fire by Israelis on Oct. 7, and not including Hamas friendly fire falling short in Gaza, would be overt POV-pushing and a serious NPOV violation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Adding that the mention of friendly fire should be in the body of the article, not the lead. But it should be in the infobox. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  NPOV does not mean treating two things with completely different levels of coverage the same. That is actually the opposite of NPOV. nableezy - 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't WP:BLUDGEON. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Odd you say that to me for my second comment in this RFC but not to BilledMammal who has 6 comments here? But sure thing pal. Just want future respondents to be aware that NPOV actually says the exact opposite of what you are saying, that NPOV is determined by the weight in reliable sources, and where here that weight is very much on one side of this topic. nableezy - 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  If he bludgeoned me, I'd make the same request to him. I'm not going to meddle! Perish the thought. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Responding to a single vote is not bludgeoning, and making unfounded claims of bludgeoning is uncivil. Toodles. nableezy - 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Don't include in lead, but do include in body. I imagine friendly fire is a common occurrence during any type of military conflict. It bears mentioning but I don't believe it is unique enough to this situation to be included in the lede. Slacker13 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2024
• Oppose including in lead; this obsession with stuffing the lead/infobox as much information/notes as humanly possible is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines and needs to stop. Yes, of course there is friendly fire; yes, of course there is a huge amount of coverage on it; no, it is not part of the "most important content" of this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Include Israeli, as Friendly fire during the Israel–Hamas war makes clear, with Palestinian side as a note only, since there is no comparison, and making one would be false balance. Note NPR "Nearly a fifth of Israeli fatalities since the invasion of Gaza in late October were caused by friendly fire or accidents, accounting for 36 of the 188 soldiers killed at the time of the report. Experts say it's one of the highest such percentages in recent military history." Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Only Israeli friendly fire seems to be notable. The percentage of deaths in Palestinian friendly fire seems to have been nothing out of ordinary for such a conflict, and so it's only superficially mentioned in sources. We don't mention friendly fire incidents in other war-related articles when they are typical; Israeli was not. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support both. While we don't mention friendly fire casualties prominently for other conflicts, here we have a lot of coverage for friendly fire on both sides (in case of Israel related mostly to the infamous Hannibal directive and in case of Hamas due to inaccurate rocket fire, see sources provided by u:BilledMammal). Alaexis_¿question? 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support adding info about misfired rockets (the info about Israeli friendly fire is already there). The editors of multiple news platforms considered it significant enough to mention misfired rockets as causing an unknown number of casualties. The Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, in particular, was an example where Human Rights Watch questioned the Health Ministry's casualty figures and said that evidence pointed to misfired rockets. I have no strong opinion on adding the info to the lead or to a body paragraph. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support only Israeli fires that can't even be called friendly because a significant number of it has been the result of Hannibal Directive, meaning that it was deliberate, and that make it notable to be mentioned in the lede. Since the lede should be a summary of what we have in the body:

In January 2024, an investigation by Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth concluded that the IDF had in practice applied the Hannibal Directive, ordering all combat units to stop "at all costs" any attempt by Hamas terrorists to return to Gaza, even if there were hostages with them. It is unclear how many hostages were killed by friendly fire as a result of the order.

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Friendly fire occurs on the margins of all wars and isn't generally lede-worthy. Especially given the current proposed weaselly wording and weak sourcing, inclusion would violate not only SYNTH but arguably also NPOV, by giving UNDUE weight to the implicit victim-blaming narrative peddled by partisans of both sides. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would also agree with this, to not include either sides’ friendly fires. I would support including friendly fires for both, or for neither. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any specific mention about the Hannibal Directive or rockets falling short, which reads as editorializing in context - it doesn't really belong here, is wildly WP:UNDUE for the lead, and feels WP:SYNTHy in that it implies that these specific things make up meaningful amounts of casualty figures and are highly relevant, which isn't really supported. I would not be opposed to a includes friendly fire note is used to encompass both, with no other details; but the bare minimum to me is that there one note, encompassing both identically. Trying to get into elaborate contortions about how and why each side causes friendly fire absolutely does not belong in the lead for the entire war; and trying to cram it in here feels inappropriate and forced. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both oppose any one-sided inclusion, and an inclusion in the lead is only desirable if it can be done equitably and in a balanced (and short) manner, but support including BOTH if possible. Per Aquillion and others, it needs to be balanced and non-synth, and avoid inclusion of common incidents on either side. FortunateSons (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support mention of Israeli friendly fire, neutral leaning oppose for mention of Palestinian friendly fire (if there is such a mention, it should be very brief). Israeli friendly fire has attracted more coverage and seems to account for a larger proportion of victims overall than its Palestinian counterpart. --Andreas JN466 18:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both, since there is news coverage for both. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for both it isn't important enough for the lead which is already quite long and will undoubtedly continue to grow. NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both, the lead is already filled as it is and we shouldn't continue to add even more in-the-weeds information. Of course include in the body the well-sourced and important information as found by above editors. Yeoutie (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/Support both and only both as per FortunateSons. Vegan416 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support including Israeli friendly fire, oppose including Palestinian friendly fire. There are three policy reasons for this:

1. The language proposed viz Palestinian friendly fire is synthetic, and not well-sourced (see this discussion from a couple of months ago for my prior lengthy discussion regarding numerous issues with most of the same sources recycled above).
2. Including both in the lead perpetuates false balance; if indeed Palestinian friendly fire was widespread enough to merit this level of attention, we could expect frequent and repeated discussion in blue-chip RS; the claim that the proportion of Palestinians killed by alleged friendly fire even approaches the proportion of Israelis killed by the IDF is simply without adequate foundation.
3. Perhaps most significantly, the lead must follow the body, and Palestinian friendly fire simply does not have a level of coverage in the body that would justify discussion in the lead (as is appropriate, given points 1 and 2 above). The term “friendly fire” itself is only used in the article in relation to Israeli casualties. WillowCity^(talk) 21:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (friendly fire)

References

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

Lead - 15 March : a new sentence added

between 07:52, 14 March 2024 and 19:07, 15 March 2024 "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history and has been described as a major intelligence failure."

the 1st part of the sentence doesn't really have anything to do with the 2nd part; the 2nd part deserves a sentence on its own and would need to be extended.

This "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history" is a Israeli narrative; this had been discussed before and there isn't any consensus to add this here. Note: there isn't any similar sentence for the other people like "deadliest moment in their history". Deblinis (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Now the lead reads "The attack has been described as a major Israeli intelligence failure." I'm not sure why this sentence should be in the lead at all; it is clunky, uninformative without going into the weeds, and breaks up the paragraph while also potentially being WP:UNDUE. Also a side-note, "The attack was the deadliest day in Israel's history" is well sourced and should remain included in the body of the article and is well sourced and included already in the October 7 article. Yeoutie (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We have an entire section named "Israeli intelligence failure". The lede is a summary of the body. This sentence simply summarizes the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I must point out that there are plenty of sections not included in the lead (examples include almost everything else under the "Background" and "Media coverage" main headings) and I would further say that info relating to the "background" should probably be afforded less weight than to the actual content of the war, especially when there is such a cramped lead/article already. Yeoutie (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The major intelligence and military failures are the explanation for the war – it is the how and why of what has happened. No intelligence and military failures, no humiliation on the part of the Israelis, no unchecked response among genocidal lines. The entire conflict stems from Israel's intelligence and military failure in response to the surprise attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead - how much detail?

Pinging @Makeandtoss: as the edits here pertain to him. The lead previously contained mentions of things like Gaza's healthcare collapse, lack of medicine, lack of communication etc. among other things. I removed this detail and replaced it with

>Israel's blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

My main concern here is that a too detailed lead is undesirable and contrary to WP:LEAD. It is most simplest to describe everything with the standalone term "humanitarian crisis" rather than going into details. The details would naturally be in the body. Makeandtoss has objected to this edit and I'd like to discuss the matter with him here further, possibly with input from other editors. JDiala (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As discussed, collapse of healthcare has its own standalone article and deserves at least a mention in the lede. As for Israel's blockade, this waters down the severity of the siege which cut off basic life necessities, unlike the previous longterm "blockade"; the least we could do is elaborate in a footnote, to maintain both concision and accuracy. As for the famine, it must be attributed to Israeli attacks on food infrastructure, as RS have notably reported. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

On further consideration, I've re-added the healthcare collapse. That the blockade is more severe is already indicated in the lead (it is mentioned that Israel "tightened" it). The famine thing is already referred to as "Israel using starvation as a weapon of war" which clearly indicates Israel is responsible. The exact ways it does this (attacks on food infrastructure) is too specific for the lead. I'm also not sure about the utility of footnotes here. The lead is already very large, and again this detail ought to be in the body. JDiala (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: People are accusing everyone on everything, so if anything the accusation is too detailed rather than the attacks on the infrastructure. As a middle ground (where attacks on infra is combined on both healthcare and food; and the focus is reduced) we can go from:

"Israel's blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, including a collapse of the healthcare system. By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed more than half of Gaza's houses, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and dozens of cemeteries. The developing famine in Gaza has led to accusations that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war."

To "Israel's tightened blockade and attacks on infrastructure has led to a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, including a collapse of the healthcare system and a developing famine in Gaza. By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed more than half of Gaza's houses, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and dozens of cemeteries." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Your phrasing is grammatically incorrect but I agree with it in principle. I'll edit it in. JDiala (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done but I changed developing famine -> ongoing famine since I think "developing" is too weak at this point. The famine has already arrived per sources. JDiala (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the wacky, debunked October 7th stories

The article mentions "necrophilia" and "playing with body parts" by Hamas members on October 7th. This evidence is based on specious eyewitness testimony by lying Israelis (e.g., Yossi Landau, Raz Cohen) or obtained from "interrogated" (read: tortured) Hamas militants. This should be removed altogether or highly qualified. The most lurid allegations have been debunked at this point.

In general, the entire section on sexual violence is far too charitable to the pro-Israel side. JDiala (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

All the gossipy, debunked, nonsensical stuff that literally has no bearing on the war need not be in this article, some of it might fit in some other articles. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I also support the removal of any debunked or highly dubious 10/7 claims Unbandito (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Any debunked claim should be removed. That means it has been debunked by reliable sources, not by any WP user (see WP:OR). Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only debunked claims should be removed, but also claims which have no corroborating evidence. The necrophilia claim was one such example - the only evidence for it was a testimony that one could not be sure was reliable, with little to no coverage in reliable sources and no corroborating forensic evidence like photos or other media for either the testimony or the claim itself. As editors, we can't insert our original research into the process but we also can't let the sources do all the thinking for us. A basic level of skepticism towards highly charged and extraordinary claims allows us to eliminate obvious atrocity propaganda from the encyclopedia, and should be employed in any articles about this conflict. Unbandito (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Lies belong in the bin, not an encyclopedia. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you removed the definition of the reference "BBC News-2023" from this article. Because it is used in two or three more places, I replaced it. It's not clear to me how you've proven that article as "testimony by lying Israelis", or even if you intended to delete the reference completely from the article or not. It doesn't mention the two names you give above, so maybe it's unrelated. Who knows -- but articles shouldn't have referencing errors, so I've replaced the reference. If you want (and there is consensus that) the reference should be completely expunged, please do so -- but please make sure you're not re-introducing referencing problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of propaganda in this conflict has been quite out of the ordinary and easily merits an artcle by its notability. I think it should be covered in a separate article and this article just have a small section referring to the article on the propaganda. NadVolum (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth introducing a misinformation section at some point, though this will surely prove contentious. However, the Nigerien crisis (2023–present) article does a good job with such a section Unbandito (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This section should essentially be a trimmed down summary of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Reported atrocities. Yeoutie (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Writing articles about The Gospel and Lavender

Hi all

I'm interested in writing about the AI systems used by the Israeli military, The Gospel and Lavender. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on if they should be covered in separate articles or should be covered in one 'use of AI by the Israeli military' or both? Here is a bit more info about them:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/the-gospel-how-israel-uses-ai-to-select-bombing-targets

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

They are both covered in this article, Idk whether there is enough material around to make a decent spinout article out of it though. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"2:1 ratio"

Can someone please remove the recently added 2:1 ratio nonsense from a Telegraph article? Given ample evidence that the Israeli military considers every male of fighting age, a "terrorist." Makeandtoss (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to open a discussion about this. Seeing that I'm not the only one who thought it was a dubious and poorly sourced addition, I'll remove the content for now while it is under discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What are your RS-based arguments that this ratio is "nonsense"? It comes from an expert and is published in an RS.

The 2:1 ratio is calculated under the assumption that there were 27,500 total casualties of which 9,000 were Hamas militants (as of mid-February). The latter number is quite reasonable, being somewhere between the Israeli and Hamas numbers (12,000 and 6,000 correspondingly). Alaexis_¿question? 08:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel Gaza: Checking Israel's claim to have killed 10,000 Hamas fighters: Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What you cited was quite a weak source and it should have at the very least been attributed. Even then, the analysis of Isaac Schorr of the Daily Telegraph, in what appears to be more of an opinion piece, is likely undue for this article. WP:BESTSOURCES. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not just Isaac Shorr's analysis. The 2:1 ratio comes from Andrew Roberts. If other sources have different opinions regarding this we should add them rather than removing this information.

I'm fine with attributing this statement, however the section should be consistent. If we state in wikivoice and don't attribute other assessments sourced from newspaper articles ("The first month of the war has been the deadliest conflict for children this century", "The rate of killing exceeds that of US-led attacks in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan") then we should use the same approach here.

Are there any policy-based arguments against including this? "Weak source" and "nonsense" is just your personal opinions. Alaexis_¿question? 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Shorr's and Roberts' analyses both depend on the same propagandistic militant casualty figures provided by the IDF which were cast doubt on in the BBC report for numerous reasons, and even by IDF whistleblowers. Let's not compare universally agreed upon facts on this being the deadliest conflict for children this century, with flawed fringe analyses by conservative politicians and commentators. They are not the same. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's quite unlikely to be the deadliest conflict for children this century. The war in Tigray led to ~600,000 casualties, and about 10% of the confirmed ones were younger than 20 years (see Tigray: one year

of conflict – Casualties of the armed conflict, 2020-2021 by Vanden Bempt et al).

Anyway, the fact that someone doubts the IDF's figures is irrelevant. We don't even know if they used the IDF's numbers (it was 9k and not 10-12k). This is a reliable source and the numbers are not too far even from Hamas's own numbers (6k). Alaexis_¿question? 12:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece, it is headed "Comment" at the top and the author is not on the Telegraph staff, described as "a staff writer at Mediaite and a Robert Novak fellow". Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The source for the 2:1 ratio is Andrew Roberts.

I've added another source by an expert (chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point). Alaexis_¿question? 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a source from December showing where the figure for civilians comes from [1]. Seemingly it is quite standard in some studies to consider all men of milit5ary age as potential military snd it is just a short step from there to only considering women and children as civilians. Basically the 2:1 shoud be added to a separate article about the widespread propaganda in this war. And by the way the actual deaths are probably far higher, a study of deaths among a group where they could be counted indicates the health ministry was only recordng two thirds of the actual deaths - I notice they seem to have stopped giving an estimate of the number buried under the rubble or otherwise not accounted for. NadVolum (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Roberts is not a relevant expert, more of a politician nowadays (of the Tory persuasion).

The bigger problem here is that the commentary seems at variance with other RS, apart from apparently taking no account of other unreported dead under the rubble.

Anyway, I have reverted while discussion is ongoing. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Another opinion piece with an extraordinary claim that Israel has set new standards for warfare - one I personally find outrageous. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I notice he cites under "Hamas' likely inflation" a piece by a professional statistician Abraham Wyner that has been thoroughly debunked. More stuff for an aricle about the rampant propaganda. Reliable sources seem to have done a fairly reasonable job of avoiding putting in sources like these despite the impetus to include any rubbish into news channels these days. NadVolum (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, why would you restore the claim made as a statement of fact? At the very least this needs to be attributed. That much should be clear. The Modern War Institute is a part of the United States Military Academy, and the US is Israel's biggest ally so why would this not obviously need to be attributed? Does anyone else find this to be disruptive? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We now have two sources (Roberts and Spencer). As I said before, I'm not against attributing this claim, I just didn't find a way to do it so it doesn't sound unwieldy. Now I've realised both of them have their own wiki articles, so let's attribute it as "According to Andrew Roberts and John Spencer...". Alaexis_¿question? 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please attribute it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw if there are *other*, higher estimates of the ratio, I'm happy to include them as well. Alaexis_¿question? 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel’s rules of engagement seem looser than ever – if they are followed at all Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I've now read the Israeli version and it stinks. My guess is someone down the line did it deliberately to stop aid to Gaza. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Per this BBC article (from Dec 20 2023):

"The pace of killing in this war has been "exceptionally high", says Prof Michael Spagat, who specialises in examining death tolls in conflicts around the world, such as the 2003 Iraq war, Colombia's civil conflict, wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as previous wars between Israel and Gaza. "Within the series of Gaza wars stretching back to 2008, the current one is unprecedented both for the number of people killed and for the indiscriminateness of the killing," he adds."

"When asked directly, the IDF said it "does not have an exact number on the number of Hamas terrorists killed". News agency AFP reported that senior Israeli officials had suggested Israel had killed two Palestinian civilians for every one Hamas fighter. That ratio was described by the IDF's spokesman Jonathan Conricus as "tremendously positive", to CNN. The BBC has not been able to establish a clear method of verifying the number of fighters killed. Prof Michael Spagat, said he would "not be at all surprised" if around 80% of those killed were civilians. The IDF's numbers for combatants killed "have been all over the place, devoid of details and without explanations", he added. There are "no reliable figures" for the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza, say Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, an organisation that examines the number of deaths in the Iraq war."

This is article is months old but it seems to me -and I believe this is rather uncontroversial, with many RS supporting it- that "There are "no reliable figures" for the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza" and that we should probably be focusing on that, with all attempted estimates being presented with attribution, and ideally mentioning or describing their methodology used.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty and it might have been a good idea to wait a few years until we have high quality scholarly sources parsing all the competing claims and evidence, but that's not the standard the rest of the article and Wikipedia in general adheres to.

I'll add this to the article, along with the attributed estimates. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Also regarding "I'm not against attributing this claim, I just didn't find a way to do it so it doesn't sound unwieldy.", it might just be better to say "According to the IDF", as I believe that is what the sources you're presenting (Roberts and Spencer) are going by. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be OR as we can't know for sure which data they used (also 9 thousand is less than the IDF's 10-12 thousand). Alaexis_¿question? 13:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Please self-revert your re-addition of contested material; there is no consensus so far on the inclusion of this extraordinary claim. The burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't just say that this claim is exceptional. You need to show that this claim is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community." Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I am still not happy about this, "proportion" is being mixed up with "rate", that's two different metrics, I am pretty sure that the rate of killing is way up there at the top while the proportions depend on some dubious assumptions, the latter in particular giving rise to dueness questions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think that the word "proportion" works better I have no problems with that. Rate is not incorrect either, as one of the meanings is "a fixed ratio between two things" [2]. Alaexis_¿question? 19:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There's just no basis for the 2:1 and 1.5:1 ratios and very good reason to suspect them. The original 61% from an Israeli university was under the assumption that all men of military age were potential militants and even that was flawed about the numbers. I believe it comes under WP:EXTRAORDINARY - basically it is just propganda and fails due. NadVolum (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been reverted by another editor. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This is even worse actually - Spagat's 80% speculation was retained while other viewpoints were removed. Alaexis_¿question? 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a dedicated section on Israel rules of engagement and targeting, there are a lot of sources for that now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Spagat is an expert in the matter. My estimate is a little higher than his but I consider his estimate to be very reasonable. The IDF figures are hogwash. NadVolum (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So is John Spencer. Please note that I've added Spagat's opinion too. Alaexis_¿question? 15:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The reality is that no-one knows, these are speculative opinions, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No he's not an expert in estimating the number of casualties in a war. Spagat is. NadVolum (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

He's an expert in urban warfare. Alaexis_¿question? 14:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

He has zilch expertise in estimating numbers of deaths. His [3] is interesting though - it talks about the US having got past the stage of classifying every adult man as a possible terrorist combatant, exactly where I believe thei 2:1 business originally started from. Try and find anything at all relevant from his list of publications if you can. NadVolum (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obvious that not just any random, minor military expert's opinion/analysis/estimate is WP:Due here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what makes John Spencer (military officer)'s analysis WP:Due here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This thread is ridiculous. The 2:1 figure was garbage that was ridiculed from the get-go, and such transparently propagandistic POV crap that it should never have been loaded onto the page in the first place, not least on the basis of the shoddy sourcing that was used. Given that Haaretz has also now revealed that the IDF's "terrorist" numbers include absolutely anyone that walks into an invisible kill zone, we know that if the Israeli forces even do have an accurate count of enemy combatants that they've killed, the one thing that is certain is that the numbers provided to date are not them. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

9,000 militants

Why do we have the 9,000 militants killed figure from the IDF even when this figure is cited to the Haaretz report which says that the IDF was indiscriminately killing any man of fighting age? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It can vary between 8 and 15 thousand I think at the moment according to whatver Israeli soure you read. Hamas has given out a figure of six thousand a little while ago but there's no real confirmation. Wikipedia is just reporting what some fairly reliable sources say. You're on your own about what to make of it. NadVolum (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum: Wikipedia is just reporting what some fairly reliable sources say, but without importantly mentioning that this figure includes civilians who happened to be killed just because they happened to be men of fighting age? That's is extremely misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I know. But see WP:OR. The article Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war covers it better and perhaps a link to that could be placed there. NadVolum (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli estimates are all over the shop, 13K the latest figure, I think, Hamas said 6K at some point, and the US said that their estimate was lower than the Israeli figure but most sources say that we cannot really know for sure. I would say that any specific figure is false accuracy, all we can do is give a range. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes the 9,000 figure could be right by now for all I know. Even wetting my finger and sticking it in the air and waving it around doesn't seem to make the figure any more accurate. NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not right as evidenced by Haaretz. It’s not OR to avoid using a figure that is likely to be an overcount. This figure needs to be attributed, a criticism of it must be added in body and in a lede footnote, or a range can be added. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to say what the different sides say if it is reliably sourced, the best that can be done is attribute it so people know where it comes from. My own estimate is that more, maybe a lot more than half of the militants that are killed lie underneath rubble and aren't counted in the overall casualty figures, how can anyone be sure of a more accurate figure while the war goes on? NadVolum (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the above section ('2:1'), the total number of casualties as well as the number of combatants among those casualties is unknown and currently unknowable. We should probably focus on / emphasize this fact and present all estimates with attribution. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza healt ministry figures try as far as possible to be recorded deaths and not estimates of actual deaths which by now are probably around fifty thousand I estimate. But then again someone in Israel would probably just divide that by three and claim sixteen thousand militants killed. NadVolum (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit had been made on 1 April.[4] The previous figure (6,000-12,000) seemed too vague but this change can be undone (as it is based only on a Israeli source), Especially after reading this other article, "Israel Created 'Kill Zones' in Gaza. Anyone Who Crosses Into Them Is Shot".[5]. Deblinis (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless figures like that have some good corroboration they should be attributed. here to the IDF. In a war each side practically always overestimates the others casualties. There is nothing wrong with being vague when one simply doesn't know. NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel's isolation

Multiple RS are now reporting that Israel's international isolation is growing: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. This is significant as evidenced by the widespread dedicated reporting and should be mentioned in both the body and the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Careful, you will wake up ClayCax. Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Include in Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war. Might warrant a sentence in the body but definitely not the lead. Yeoutie (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Claims of Palestinian victory

I've noticed that in numerous articles on battles that have ended (Battle of Shuja'iyya (2023), Battle of Beit Hanoun, Siege of Khan Yunis) the result was listed as "Palestinian victory". To me this seems a bit of a stretch, the IDF withdrawing with some Palestinian militants surviving doesn't necessarily mean Palestinian militants "won", it could easily just mean they deemed the objective to be achieved. For example in Khan Yunis the IDF basically demolished Hamas' fighting units as organized forces, does the fact that some Hamas fighters survived and emerged after the IDF left mean they won? It could just as easily be that the IDF simply saw nothing further worth destroying. Certainly the implication that the IDF was militarily defeated is absurd.

I changed the Khan Yunis article to withdrawal because a debate was already brewing in the talk page there, I've left the rest up for now but I think this is worth a serious debate. I think it would be better to just put Israeli withdrawal.--RM (Be my friend) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Israeli withdrawal for now; anything else needs to be sourced to RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

All we can really tell is that the Israeli army made the place practically uninhabitable. NadVolum (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case it sounds like the Siege of Khan Yunis should be an Israeli victory considering their war goal is to make Gaza as uninhabitable as possible /s. ArthropodLover (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Edited ArthropodLover (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the opinion of a single French author / former soldier as your source states. Please do not overinterpret the personal opinion of someone as fact (even if said opinion is reported in a reliable source). Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war

Hi all

I've just published Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war, I would really appreciate some help in expanding it and integrating it into this and other articles. I've been very careful to be as accurate to the sources as possible, quoting as much as possible for potentially contentious areas. The main things I'd love some help with:

1. Expanding the article, there are a lot of sources available, I've started to make a list of extra ones on the talk page
2. Integrating information of the environmental damage onto this article and others, its extremely extensive and impacts many of the topics related to the war
3. Suggestions for improving the title of the article (on the articles talk page)
4. Adding it to watchlists, I'm assuming based on recent experience it will get some vandalism and biased editing/conspiracy theories added. I'm assuming telling people about it here might attract some of this, but hopefully any help will outweigh this, fingers crossed.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

New map needed

Following recent events of course, an updated map should likewise be put in the lead infobox. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

extremely outdated map

[Gaza War Unit Tracker]

Possible revision: [Only one IDF brigade remains in the Gaza Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor]

Filled

the map is outdated and shows no accuracy.

Beit hanoun was withdrawn from in December, and the map didn't change. Lukt64 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it shows maximum Israel advances not current control. Borysk5 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The Institute for the Study of War still displays most of Gaza as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. If you can find a better, more up to date source, I could change the map. So far, ISW has been the only reliable source providing updates on the conflict map. Ecrusized (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

ISW is reliable in that sense, but the only thing here is that they show areas cleared as blue even if the IDF has withdrawn so it was basically a “furthest extent” map. Note that the areas still remain blue even after the ISW acknowledges that israeli forces withdrew from the area

https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-1-2024 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a map with withdrawal areas. Borysk5 (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User Borysk5 has made a map citing a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker, it links to a custom Google Maps page. If this source is considered reliable enough, I can update the main map file with it. Let me know what you think. Ecrusized (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a possible revision of the map showing only Netzarim corridor as being under Israeli control. According to reports, only one IDF brigade remains in the Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor. Ecrusized (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend adding areas they withdrew from Lukt64 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

They are included in blue dashed lines. Ecrusized (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone Lukt64 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered. Ecrusized (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho. Lukt64 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess. Ecrusized (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Spagat

Makeandtoss removed the following: Michael Spagat, an economist at Royal Holloway University of London who specialises in analysing casualty figures, said in December 2023 that there were no reliable figures for the rate of civilian casualties. with this edit summary: WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information; also putting this fringe view at the top of the casualties figure is misleading as there are many more RS saying otherwise; please seek consensus before reinserting. I am therefore seeking consensus. This is very much not fringe; it's from the BBC and he's one of the world's experts on this topic. (PS it wasn't me who included him btw; no idea who did.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think but don't know, if Makeandtoss overreacted a bit there, following on from the #"2:1 ratio" discussion up above, I don't have a problem with that part of Spagat, I think it is a useful statement. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I think you can guess from what I said there I have no problem with it. It was the BBC and he has the relevant expertise. NadVolum (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just as a factual matter, his statement is undoubtedly true. Given the collapse of infrastructure in Gaza, the unaccounted for dead under the rubble, and Israeli control of certain areas (e.g., Northern Gaza) possibly impeding access of healthcare workers, there's no way that the numbers are accurate at this point. This fact is important enough to share to the readers. I vote inclusion. JDiala (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This was wp:undue, and this "he's one of the world's experts on this topic" is wp:original research. The Lancet reduces to nothing this false assertion. Deblinis (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Have a look at Casualties of the Iraq War, his name is all over it. He certainly wasn't the only one to disagree with the Lancet article! As an aside, if you have a look at that article though you'll be very wary of accepting body counts as being anything like a good estimate of the actual number of deaths! Especially in this war where so many buildings are destroyed by bombs and bulldozers have been used to cover up bodies. This is why I say the Gaza Health Ministy figures should be annotated as recorded deaths. NadVolum (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Renaming the page as "Israel-Gaza war"? Adding "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" next to the current name in the Lead ?

April 2024: several major Western newspapers have decided to rename and present the ongoing war as Israel–Gaza war and only under that banner.

Here are a few significant instances:
Washington Post - "Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key"
BBC - "Israel Gaza war: History of the conflict explained"
Le Monde - "Israel's war in Gaza"
El País - "La Guerra entre Israel y Gaza"
The Guardian - "Israel-Gaza war : Which countries supply Israel with arms"

Time for a change as Wikipedia has to reflect sources' content per wp:Neutrality and wp:Be Bold. Deblinis (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would stick to the current title, as the state of Israel and Hamas are the main players.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Israel and Hamas are the main players" is the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's. Six months later, the story doesn't look the same from the ground and from the sky. Deblinis (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It should definitely be up there as an alt name. I hadn't realised it wasn't, and I'm going to add it now. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There are many alt names; as such, per WP:ALTNAME, we shouldn’t include them in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Says who? What other examples of alt names are there for the whole war? I can't think of any other examples that are both unique to the conflict and routinely used in independent RS media. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Many. Even just looking at the source provided by Delinis, we have two alt names - "Israel Gaza war" and "Israel's war in Gaza". Elsewhere, we get "Gaza war", "Israel's war on Gaza", "Swords of Iron", and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" - and looking at our recent move requests, there are yet more options used by reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is totally bogus reasoning, as I'm sure you're well aware, just as you are aware that repeatedly reverting other editors on this is borderline edit warring. "Israel–Gaza war" is far more prevalent than any of the other alternatives; it's not even a contest. "Israel's war in/on Gaza" is more prose than title, and rarely used (mainly just Al Jazeera I believe). "Gaza war" is generic and not specific to the conflict. "Swords of Iron" is an operation name, not the war. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", same, and specific to the initial Palestinian incursion. The last two are clearly specific operational names, and it's taking the micky a little to suggest these are valid alt names for the entire war. What are you up to? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Gaza war might be generic, but it's also a commonly used name for this war - we would need to disambiguate it, but that doesn't make it any less of an alt-name.

Regardless of whether you consider "Israel's war in Gaza"/"Israel's war on Gaza" to be prose, reliable sources consider it a title.

I don't have a source at hand for "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", but I have a source that makes it clear "Swords of Iron" is a name for the entire war.

Generally, I don't think we need any names in the lede, including "Israel-Hamas war"; there is much more relevant information to include in an already very crowded lede, and thus we are better off including this information in an etymology section as instructed to my MOS:ALTNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's three words (four with "or"). It's clearly not going to crowd out the lead. Come off it. And still with the operational names? An Israeli operational name cannot, by definition represent be the entire war because it doesn't include the original Palestinian incursion, which started the war. (And it would incidentally be a names section, not an etymology one – there's no meaning to explain in any of these names.) Clearly you don't want the alt name in the lead, but you're going to need to come up with better reason than any of the above to justify why it actively shouldn't be added/should be excluded. I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the name "Swords of Iron", supported by reliable sources, is that it includes the initial fighting in Israel.

I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. If you read my comment, you would see that I support excluding both the primary name and the alt names from the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would exclude all names when "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israel-Gaza war" are the prevailing ones – there are not really many other options here, whether based on prevalence or descriptive titling. Articles without names often invite hamfisted intros. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That first step /change has to be made now. Deblinis (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The far right wing Israeli source The Times of Israel doesn't have any Editorial Independence Policy [12], and they don't cover Israeli settlers' violence [13]. TToI doesn't provide factual, distinctive journalism for a diverse audience. And it is not a Western media either, contrary to the five major newspapers mentioned earlier. Deblinis (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We could include each parties name of it: Battle of Al-Aqsa flood and the war of Iron swords. Same has been applied to the 2014 and 2009 war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to month-long conflicts that readily fitted within the confines of a single operation. This is a six-month long conflict and Al-Aqsa Flood war just the initial part. There is also no evidence that the initial Israeli name for its carpet bombing is still the name for its highly confused ongoing activities in Gaza. We now appear to be on "operation meander about, damage infrastructure, kill aid workers and starve people". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Important point; in April 2024, each one of the following major Western newspapers gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category:

• Washington Post - see >
• Le Monde - see >
• BBC - see >
• The Guardian - see >
• El País writes the "GUERRA ENTRE ISRAEL Y GAZA" (= "Israel-Gaza war") category under the title of each article. - see >

Deblinis (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

These RSP alone are frankly more than enough to establish it as a clearly RS prevalent alt name. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding renaming the page, there is a moratorium on move requests until 27 May 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a link to see that 'moratorium' discussion ? Deblinis (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is that discussion. Note that it is also linked in the FAQ. NasssaNser 09:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post and NDTV also use Israel-Gaza war, the UN uses "Israel-Gaza" as the framing to describe events (crisis or whatnot) in the conflict, MSF uses "Gaza-Israel war" and ABC uses "Israel-Gaza conflict". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

[14] [15] [16] etc...

Someone should add the "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" words in the lead today; otherwise I would be forced to stick a bias tag at the top of the page. Deblinis (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of bias simply because you are not allowed to make a certain edit. You are not forced to add a bias tag and should seek consensus on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

A Neutrality tag is indeed a better term . Deblinis (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza war is more descriptive; although unfortunately it seems less used as a common name than Israel-Hamas war. So I would support the inclusion of also known as Israel-Gaza war in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a question of figures, it is about content and context.

These Five major newspapers known worldwide (among many others) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner.

The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media.

On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict" in this article "Why this Israel-Gaza conflict is so complicated for Biden".[17].

On October 8, CNN announced "Israel formally declares war against Hamas" and followed Israeli narrative like any other Western corporate media.[18]

All the journalists in newsrooms then had been hugely pressured and they had to reuse the Israeli state's narrative with key fake atrocities, (beheading babies) and the "horrific" and "barbaric" adjectives in frontlines. A lot of journalists after the South African request of last January have realized that the " Israel against Hamas" tag is not the right one. Deblinis (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Three of the sources already used Israel–Gaza War by the time the last RM concluded; only Le Monde of the list has switched over. I can't grep mentions of El Pais from that discussion.

The current title is kept only because there were too many move requests in a quick succession; there is no clear rationale or consensus supporting the current title (I am involved in the last discussion). We could start another move discussion by the expiry of this moratorium.

The alternative 2023 Gaza War was also brought up then, though not thoroughly discussed. NasssaNser 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

For El Pais here are the links [19] [20]. @NasssaNser:Deblinis (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's time for a change. There's more than enough evidence for Israel-Gaza War to be included as an alternate name, and moreover it should be the actual title of the article. Israel-Hamas War is inaccurate given the number of participating Palestinian factions and the Yemen and Lebanon theaters of war and the scope of destruction in Gaza which has significantly affected civilian infrastructure. It is likely to become more inaccurate if escalation toward a regional war continues. It was always a pro-Israel framing of the war adopted by the Western press. While we don't want to insert our biases as editors into the article, the fact that it is still given a title that reflects a framing of the war that is clearly biased to the point of inaccuracy shows that there is a hazard in letting the sources do all of the thinking for us in instances where they have a uniform bias that is out of alignment with common sense and the realities on the ground. Unbandito (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that Israel Hamas war is a descriptive title rather than a common name imo. Although many editors in the last move request argued that it was commonname. Those that would keep the current title (the pro Israel crowd for the most part) dislike allowing the intrusion of any other name (BilledMammal has reverted probably half a dozen attempts to do so, including one of mine). However since the name has now been bolded in the lead then that allows at least two altnames to go in as well and I would suggest Israel Gaza war and Gaza war as the two. An alternative method is to debold the name in the lead and treat it as descriptive, in which case I agree to have a names section, which will be good prep for the inevitable debate over the title once the moratorium has expired. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not member of the "pro Israel crowd". However, I went along with Israel-Hamas war for the article name because it did appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME at the time of the discussion in 2023. What some people seem to be trying to say here is that the war has moved on and that its defining feature is now the suffering caused to civilians in Gaza; I would not argue with that assessment. The article will not be renamed without a new move request, and any WP:ALTNAME in the opening sentence should also have consensus to prevent back and forth arguments. The problem here is that news stories have come up with different names for this conflict, and as of April 2024, none of them really qualifies as the COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please realize that in April 2024 five major Western newspapers (and there are many others) gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. Deblinis (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is true and that was also the case at the most recent move request (+ the UN), what is more important for a future move is what has changed since then. Example, Haaretz has taken to using Gaza war quite often now, first crack in the Israeli coverage, CNN is tying itself in knots, "Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas" and others seem to alternate between different names depending the story. But the key to the altnames is whether or not the title is considered descriptive, if the name is bolded in the opening sentence that is saying it is commonname rather than descriptive. Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deblinis: five is not a lot. Take a look at the prior move discussions in the talk page archives; you'll see editors looked at dozens of sources, not just five. Back then, it was pretty evenly split between "Hamas" and "Gaza" IIRC. I don't know if that's changed, but if so, it would take more than five to find out. Levivich (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deblinis Note that there is a current moratorium to suspend/close any Requested Move discussion until 27 May 2024, unless you can provide a substantive set of evidence that there is a clear majority in the sources (not just five) on the change in the common name/descriptive name used. – robertsky (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky @Levivich, Is considering average sources as the same importance as The Washington Post, a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, relevant ? Are some average sources as important as Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, El País which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, and The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper? Deblinis (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the previous discussions. Why don't you put together a list of all the sources mentioned and then you can sort them into average and prestigious sources. Levivich (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Those corporate media owned by billionaires, is a scourge and only serves their own interest and business partners's. That 'Israel-Hamas war' label they took on, is the narrative created by Israeli state and it became the one of Israel allys overnight. Six months later, the story is no longer the same from the ground and from the sky in Gaza. Journalists say it [21]. Deblinis (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Since editors keep inserting the titles despite a lack of consensus I've opened an RfC to conclusively resolve this dispute below. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Primary title and alt titles in the lede

There are two primary questions.

1. Should the article include, bolded in the lede, the primary title ("Israel–Hamas war")?
2. If so, should the article also include, bolded in the lede, any or all of the various alt titles?:
   1. Israel–Gaza war
   2. Gaza war
   3. Israel's war in Gaza
   4. Israel's war on Gaza
   5. Operation Swords of Iron
   6. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood

Any additional alt names should be added to the list, with a timestamp noting when they were added 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

RFCbefore

@Deblinis: An RFC must be neutrally worded so this should not be here and it as well repeats what you said in the RFCbefore. You can include it in the discussion section if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Including the primary title is not necessary here, and given the size of the lede we are better off omitting it in the interest of conciseness. We should exclude the alt names for the same reason, as well as, since there are at least three alt names of sufficient significance to warrant inclusion, MOS:ALTNAME which instructs us If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal. Lead is already far too large. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please, could you read the discussion that has been open yesterday here and answer there as well. Deblinis (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  The number of sources mentioned in that last RM discussion is far more than the 5 sources you cited, with editors putting forth sources from both sides. I recommend reading that entire thread and also skim through the sources mentioned, and decide from there. NasssaNser 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Appendix:
  Everyone is invited to read this before commenting and answering.
  

It shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources respondingto the highest standard of journalism, are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. As of April 2024, fact is that the following major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. The Washington Post which is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, does it - see link archived. Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, does it - see link. El País which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, does it - see link1 see see link2. BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, does it - see link. The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner, does it - see link. This new discussion and rfc happen because of that factor.
The "Israel–Hamas war" also known as the "Israel-Gaza war" - bolded in the lead for now until May as there is a moratorium on move requests Deblinis (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Deblinis (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)war" category.

• Israel-Gaza war or Israel's war on Gaza per Nasssa in the discussion. This is how the war is being referred to in reliables sources. NadVolum (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• (invited by the bot) No need to bold, and it only needs one title, the current one Israel–Hamas war. That is the two parties engaged in the war. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, no need bold in the lead. Yeoutie (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please, could you read the "Appendix" written above and answer after ? Deblinis (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of any name in the article lead, in other words treat the article title as purely descriptive, as it is currently ("An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups[s] has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023."). If, otoh, the consensus is to include "Israel–Hamas war" (whether bolded or not) then the altnames 1 and 2 should be included as well on the same basis. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please, could you read the Appendix" written above and answer after ? Deblinis (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• On the alts, "Israel's war in Gaza" is effectively identical to "Israel's war on Gaza", and mostly synonymous with "Israel–Gaza war". "Operation Swords of Iron" and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. NasssaNser 09:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think if we are going to include alt names we should include "Operation Swords of Iron", which is Israel's official name for the war. I think I remember "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" being used in a similar manner, but I can't find any sources for that. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Reliable sources hardly ever mention those names. NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MILMOS#CODENAME says no. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nah, official names are just POV and no-one really calls them that anyway except those that create them. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Al-Aqsa Flood generally strictly refers to the initial attacks from Hamas, and I guess Swords of Iron is a similar situation of strictly referring to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Both has their dedicated articles. NasssaNser 07:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• There are really only two altnames of any significance, the first two. So the 3 or more thing doesn't really apply.
• The new rfc doesn't present what are the challenges of the terminology and the presentation in the lead. Some users already reply without answering and they don't take in view the editorial line of some of the most prestigious journalism sources worldwide, this is what the discussion (and rfc) should be about. That dead end in the first sentence of the lead is political: the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text, the fact that it is not the case serves Israeli narrative's state.
  If this rfc is about voting with this in view [22] and that [23]: the wp:neutrality issue in the lead will remain. @Selfstudier:, can one write a new rfc below this one ? Deblinis (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  At this point it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". NasssaNser 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Everyone has their own opinions", indeed > [24] [25] Deblinis (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality?

There is a neutrality notice on the top of the article. The person who put this in claims the article has a pro-Israel bias. In fact I find the article to be fairly evenhanded (we've all done a decent job, overall, despite heated discussions for several months). I propose this be removed. JDiala (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deblinis: Pinging tagger for courtesy. NasssaNser 08:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The tag placed in this edit is a classic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response to the user failing to get their own way in a talk page discussion. There is also the obvious problem of failing to assume good faith simply because some users disagreed with the edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Valid points have been raised [26] and in the end it shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. 'The Washington Post" is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work. Le Monde is the most prestigious newspaper in France. El País is the most read newspaper in Spanish online. BBC is the most famous British media worldwide. The Guardian is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner. As of April 2024, fact is that each one of those major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category.. Deblinis (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is an RFC now to resolve the names business so might as well see what that throws up and go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)