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.

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)

If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv. Evaporation123 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Userd898: Please participate in this discussion before making any changes. It was argued here that a distinction couldn't be made by separating where Israel currently and formerly operates. You also appear to have drawn incorrect boundaries as to where Israel operated. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 13 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
   7. Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood

07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood added 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

• Oppose per length, strongest possible opposition for any measure replacing/excluding Hamas in one of the primary titles.Weak oppose to alt titles per footnote due to number,Oppose other inclusion. The first and third position are primarily based on LEAD and conciseness to prevent excessive length per the arguments made above. The second is based on NPOV, secondarily IAR should the primary lack strength: searchability, 'common sense' and the move to a (more) NPOV title are the significant arguments against. FortunateSons (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding Israel–Hamas: this is not an RM and we aren't discussing the primary title anytime soon. NasssaNser 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am aware of it. This is specifically about listing a secondary title in the style of Israel-Gaza, as implied by some above. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify :) FortunateSons (talk) 08:50, 14 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)

  Palestinian militants use “battle of Al aqsa flood” to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and “operation of Al aqsa flood” or “battle of October 7” to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has “معركة طوفان الأقصى” even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for that clarification; I've found a source that supports that. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 14 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)

  the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text This isn't necessarily the case for descriptive titles, MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY, for example, we don't want to say "The Israel–Hamas war is a war between Israel and Hamas."

  There can be another RFC that asks a different question, and that does not conflict with this RFC, "Is the existing title NPOV?", for example. Selfstudier (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should consider whether confining the name of this war to Gaza is even appropriate. Gaza is the main front, but the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) is obviously another front of this war, albeit a less intense one. That includes the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel. You could classify the Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war as yet a third front as well. We should maybe think of a name that incorporates this fact. If the northern front intensifies into a full-scale invasion of southern Lebanon and/or a wider conflict with Iran I don't there will be any doubt about the need to do that.--RM (Be my friend) 22:23, 18 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)

Proportion of civilian casualties

Question 1. How should we describe the proportion of civilian casualties

• A: state that there are no reliable figures, per [27] (with or without in-text attribution)
• B: give several estimates or a range (e.g., "10% according to X, 90% according to Y", or "10-90% according to various estimates")

(Options A and B can be combined)

• C: other (don't include at all or anything else that's not covered by A and B)

Question 2. If we were to provide estimates (Option B of Q1), then which sources should be taken into account (I've listed the ones that were brought up in the discussion here so far and had explicit percentages or ratios)

• A: "Prof Michael Spagat, said he would "not be at all surprised" if around 80% of those killed were civilians" [28] (December 2023)
• C: 60% (1:1.5 ratio) according to John Spencer [29] (March 2024)
• B: 61%, according to the IDF [30] (December 2023)
• D: 66% (1:2 ratio), according to Andrew Roberts [31] (February 2024)
• E: Other estimates.

Alaexis_¿question? 08:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

RFCbefore at #"2:1 ratio" and #Spagat Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Giving percentage estimates seems like the way to go to me. It was also the method used in the 2014 Gaza War. Ecrusized (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Include Spagat or No change. Spagat is the only one with any expertise in the matter of those in A-D. They should have included the figures already there in the RfC, the Health Ministry, an Arab estimate and the IDF for balance to give the end points. Since I'm pretty certain the direct deaths now exceed fifty thousand I find it very difficult to fit in the IDF estimates but I suppose we go by 'reliable' sources. Then again if they are including people like Dr.Youssef Abu Al-Rish deputy head of the Ministry of Health in their Hamas most wanted playing cards who can say what they mean by their figures? NadVolum (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  John Spencer is an expert is urban warfare. Alaexis_¿question? 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  We're not talking about expertise in killing people. We're talking about expertise in estimation of casualty numbers. Have you any evidence he has expertise in that? NadVolum (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Even if he were, publication in an opinion-piece in Newsweek would require a very high level of expertise to use, especially in a situation like this where many better sources are available. I don't think that it's reasonable to consider that as a source, especially not in an infobox where we wouldn't be able to provide context (is this discussion about the infobox? The RFC is vague.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) No change. --Andreas JN466 12:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change for now. Nobody has raised any serious objections to the current sources, and the ones presented here are not better. An opinion piece in Newsweek? A commentary piece from the Telegraph? "Not at all surprised?" For something that has received this much coverage, these are unserious. Why would we replace the Euro-Med HRM number with these? And why would we even consider complete removal when so many sources offer ranges of numbers? Spagat is the best available source out of the ones presented here (since he's an expert on death tolls in particular and is cited in a non-opinion piece) but even then it's hard to see it as an improvement over what we have currently; and since he's attributed in the source, he's more someone we would mention with attribution in the body, not the infobox. I'd definitely push for complete omission of the opinion pieces (the Spencer and Roberts ones) - this isn't a topic where we want to use opinion pieces from talking heads whose expertise is tangential to the main subject of casualty counts. I also somewhat object to the wording of this RFC; it clearly quotes Spagat selectively in a manner intended to make readers skeptical of him, while omitting details of the other sources that would similarly call them into question (like the fact that half of them are opinion pieces.) It also stacks the deck with a bunch of low-quality or WP:BIASED sources stating 60%, while omitting sources in the other direction that we already have in the article. Generally speaking this needed more WP:RFCBEFORE. --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change John Spencer is not a reliable source, and his numbers appear to be taken straight from the IDF (it's a "democratic American ally" so it should be trusted, in his view, ignoring the fact that many regard it as a fascist apartheid state by many). JDiala (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No Change Better to quote the IDF directly than an American army officer stating the same thing. All that would do is obscure the origin of the claim. ArthropodLover (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• No change (IDF and EuroMed estimates in infobox, concise mention of main estimates in body), plus maybe put Spagat back in as major expert. Spencer and Roberts definitely not due here. This section should be a short summary of the Casualties article, where we can go in to more detail and quote more commentary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment @Alexis: Atm, the article says "...70% of them are women and minors. In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed." Shouldn't "no change" be an option? Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Since a couple of editors have already !voted for No change, I guess it is now a de facto option. Alaexis_¿question? 12:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• So, wait, what about what we are saying currently? Those don't seem to be options. The current infobox says 90% civilians (per Euro-Med HRM[38]); 66% civilians (per Israel[39]) Those aren't listed in B - does that mean that the Euro-Med HRM number would remain no matter what, or is it being taken as a given that it would be removed, and if so, why? Nobody that I can see has given any rationales for removal, so my assumption is that it would remain regardless of the outcome of option B. --Aquillion (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is my oversight. This source wasn't brought up at the talkpage in the RFCbefore discussions (2:1 ratio & Spagat) and this is why I didn't include it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Jordan

Should be added as a co-belligerent on the Israeli side, cooperating with them and intercepting Iran’s drones from yesterday

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/latest-israel-hails-interception-drones-missiles-unprecedented-attack-109214109 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement "The Jordanian Council of Ministers says that its forces “dealt with” parts of the Iranian attack that flew over its territory, “to prevent them from endangering the safety of our citizens and residential and inhabited areas." in the source you cite is inconsistent with the notion of Jordan being a belligerent. It's not a belligerent engaged in war, it's shooting things down that are unauthorized to fly through its airspace. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

An Iran Israel affair has nothing directly to do with this war anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It has everything to do with this war, Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria because of its support to Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran retaliated because of it. How is that no linked to the war in Gaza. Daran755 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No one said it has nothing to do with this war. Carrying out actions linked to a war doesn't make the party a belligerent. The source describes what happened and why from Jordan's perspective. There is nothing in there supporting the notion that Jordan is a belligerent in a war. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Jordan is a belligerent in this war, but that Iran is. Jordan only shot down Iranian drones and missiles to "protect its airspace", but Iran directly attacked Israel, making it a direct belligerent against Israel. Daran755 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This would be inappropriate without a reliable source making the claim that Jordan is a co-belligerent on the Israeli side. Please review our policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sourcing. Further, there's no logical reason why Jordan's self-defense of its airspace against Iranian intrusions would be added as a co-belligerent in the Israel-Hamas War. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing or improving the "names" section

The section only states that "Western media outlets have shifted from calling the war the Israel-Hamas war to the Israel-Gaza war"—listing and citing examples of articles calling it 'Israel–Gaza war' and names other than 'Israel-Hamas war'. None of the cited sources discuss this shift. (permanent link to the section; normal link to the section) FunLater (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(Self-reply) I think moving it to the "media coverage" section may make more sense, as the names section discusses what the media calls it, but I still think that the section needs sources that discuss such a shift, or how naming affects people's perception of the war, etc. FunLater (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed it as WP:SYNTH for the reasons you explained. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good move; it was pure WP:SYNTH. — Czello ^(music) 08:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) FunLater (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich It's now been restored by @Deblinis. Isi96 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The presentation has been changed to be factual, mentioning that "as of April 2024 certain Western media outlets have called the war as the Israel-Gaza war". WP:NEUTRALITY is the rule in this case. Deblinis (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also etymology/name is not a significant WP:ASPECT of this topic (at least not per the sources cited), so not suitable for a separate subsection. A section about etymology/name would require sources talking about etymology/name. And for Wikipedia to say there's been a shift in the name would require sources saying there's been a shift in the name. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is completely insane. The article is already too long. This is an unimportant issue (Israel-Hamas, Israel-Gaza --- who cares?) and the whole topic is just WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. I removed it again after it was reincluded by @Deblinis. JDiala (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to add my support for what appears to be the consensus anyway, per Levivich, Czello, and FunLater, that this is not a significant aspect and would be OR. I'm also not sure it's also appropriate to have made the edit this pending completion of the RfC about naming above, as they are closely connected. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

who cares? I do, for one. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Rfc: Media coverage > Several media outlets (Washington Post, The Guardian), name it the "Israel–Gaza war": a mention of that in "Media coverage" ?

Western media outlets (The Washington Post, BBC, El País, The Guardian, CPJ), name it the "Israel–Gaza war";.

Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section ?

If so, could this draft work ?

In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.[32][33][34][35][36][37] The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".[38] BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".[39] El País called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".[40] The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.[41] CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.[42] Deblinis (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per WP:NPOV. Deblinis (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is (i) not significant enough to warrant an entire subsection in an already unusually large article, (ii) an instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the meta-narrative of a naming controversy isn't discussed in the cited sources. Rather, you are yourself inferring that there is a controversy because there is disparate naming, (iii) not relevant to WP:NPOV as I'm not sure why "Israel-Hamas war" is somehow a pro-Israel characterization. Elaborating on (iii), the irony is that the claim itself that "'Israel-Hamas war' is biased" is tacitly making a pro-Israel assumption, namely that Hamas is somehow a bad actor and mentions of Hamas are shameful to pro-Palestinian people. Many pro-Palestinian people are proud of the resistance of Hamas fighters against what they consider a genocidal onslaught; thus the exclusion of Hamas in the title is itself biased against Palestinians as it fails to credit the bravery of Hamas fighters. JDiala (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Being factual with these sources that are some of the highest standard sources of journalism is WP:NPOV. Some users should realize that they have to search compromise with valid suggestions, wikipedia is a collaborative project.

  Many people and journalists have realized that initial name of this conflict, doesn't fit anymore with the actual situation six months after. Around 16,000 children killed in Gaza (without counting the disappeared children), potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza, potential incitement to genocide and possible genocidal intent in Gaza, starvation as a weapon of war on an entire population; urbicide with destruction of all the ancient buildings, destruction of all the universities, destruction of all the schools, will to erase any trace of Palestinian culture, an entire area made uninhabitable. And Hamas only got 30¨% of votes in Gaza. Whatever, these Western sources known worldwide and their approach to the conflict and how they name the conflict, should be brought to the attention of the readers. Deblinis (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Might this be better as part of an etymology section? Many conflicts have multiple names, so it wouldn't be out of place to have a short etymology section to explain the different names that are used. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  On condition of relying on Western media sources.

  Middle East sources in this case are irrelevant, because history is not written and named by the belligerents in power and patriotic partisan media. Deblinis (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per u:JDiala. This is WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources examining the coverage itself. Alaexis_¿question? 08:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Time to underline that even just one another conciser sentence like this one "In April 2024 certain Western media outlets including The Washington Post, BBC, El País, The Guardian, CPJ, called the war as the Israel-Gaza war" in the 'Media coverage' section, would be seen as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for some users. The WP:NPOV rule looks trampled and wikipedia is in a cul de sac. Deblinis (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry to throw a curveball into this RfC, however, based on the sources cited I Support overturning all prior consensus and renaming the entire article Israel-Gaza War per sources cited. With recent (as opposed to early) RS coalescing around the term "Israel-Gaza War" (as cited in the examples uncovered by OP), maintaining the term "Israel-Hamas War" is outdated. It's also, per OP, violative of WP:NPOV, as well as simply being confusing and inconsistent with the infobox, by inaccurately aggregating the conflict into a binary engagement between exactly two belligerents. Beyond that, I'm neutral about listing it in the "media coverage" section as this seems WP:EXCESSDETAIL, unless we are to spin out a separate etymology section as suggested above, in which case that seems fine. Chetsford (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Major media outlets known worldwide (see also RTBF [43]) 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.[44] On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict".[45] Deblinis (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think we need sourcing more along the lines of The media navigates a war of words for reporting on Gaza and Israel ("who are the adversaries? Israel and Gaza, Israel and Hamas or Israel and the Palestinians" @ 2'25). We know that CNN were instructed from on high to go with the second version. It is possible that it is too soon to expect scholarly coverage of the issue, which is what is really needed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate Deblinis (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  But then you also need to mention what all the other sources call it? You can't cherry pick just to suit a POV. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Israel's war in Gaza" is used only by Le Monde, among the high standard Western sources. Adding it might be wp:undue. Deblinis (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I mean you also need to mention all the sources that call it the Israel-Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks. Deblinis (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the latest on NYT bias "..restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps”.." There is plenty of material out there to make the case that major newsmedia have a bias and we should be focusing on that. This, plus actual facts on the ground, together with the fact that IH war is not commonname but descriptive was the basis for the "no consensus" outcome at the last RM and that is what will be replayed at the next RM. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Article size and child articles

Currently the prose size is 23,000+ words, which is WP:TOOBIG by at least 8,000 words.

Regarding numerous child articles that have been split off, most notably but not exclusively:

• Humanitarian impact -> Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)
• Allegations of war crimes -> War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war
• Negotiations and diplomacy -> Diplomatic impact of the Israel–Hamas war (as well as Ceasefire -> 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire)
• Regional effects -> Effects of the Israel–Hamas war
• Media coverage -> Media coverage of the Israel–Hamas war

WP:SUMMARY guidelines appear pretty clear but not followed here: Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.

None of these sections are lead-like summaries, whereas ideally they would simply be lead excerpts of the main article. I'm also aware this is similar to many other articles that are too big, but this shouldn't be an argument for why these guidelines aren't being upheld elsewhere. The bottom line is this article could easily be around 10,000 words(*) if guidelines were correctly followed and upheld, as well as encourage improvement of the child articles, namely the lead sections that aren't all as strong as they could be (some are very weak). (*) Excluding excerpted content that wouldn't contribute to article size but probably still be upto 5,000 words from numerous strong child leads.

Digging deeper, the Humanitarian impact section contains "grandchildren"(*) article content which simply don't belong in the "grandparent" article, but instead simply summarised in the parent and referenced in the lead of that article, ie: Casualties, Healthcare collapse, Gaza famine, Scale of destruction and Environmental damage (assuming these all are correctly referencing main articles). This is also the case with other grandchild type articles in other sections, whereas the child article should be referencing this all in the lead sections, for a summary in the grandparent. (*) Ie, a child of a child article.

To make this article readable, ideally it would only "directly" contain the events and other confrontations (where this is the main article), and the other split off sections are treated as the child sections that they are. For example 7 October attack is a lead-like summary of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023, and much of these two sections have their child articles well summarised (excluding Invasion of the Gaza Strip that goes a bit beyond). So why can't the rest of the article follow suit?

I'm aware this is a controversial suggestion, because of the importance of documenting the other aspects of the war, but this is exactly why they have their own articles as children and are treated as "a complete encyclopedic article in [their] own right". For example next up would be a split of Reactions, which is all that's left to split, but this wouldn't bring the article down to a readable size anyway. So without summarising/excerpting the child sections and removing the grandchildren, this article will otherwise never be a readable size.

CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means when reading between the lines basically erasing almost everything that could tarnish and goes against a certain narrative. Strong oppose. Instead erasing any view/quote from patriotic partisan media advocacing their own country, would be a good thing, to start. Deblinis (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not "do" one of them, Allegations of war crimes, say, so we can see what effect it would have? Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a good idea for now I don't think, as the lead section only has two paragraphs to excerpt (basically just one really). At 13,000 words, it should easily be four paragraphs at minimum, probably even 5-6. It also fails to reference the grandchildren articles such as; Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel–Hamas war and Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, among others, that would all require referencing and linking in a single summary.

My suggestion wasn't so much as to reduce these sections to lead excerpts immediately, but more so to encourage improving the leads of the child articles so they can be used as excerpts in the future. The closest example would be Regional effects, but the lead doesn't reference the Economics child article (which it should). This is more of a bottom up proposal rather than top down, ie improving the child article leads to include the links and references to the grandchildren would be the way to reduce article size here. Naturally this wouldn't erase anything, it would simply be summarising it per guidelines. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As an example – and this is by no means intended as a comparison between conflicts but simply article size management – if you look at Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and attacks on civilians, it's a lead-like summary of the main articles (that totals a combined 23,000 words), and an example of how child articles should be summarised in the parent, as well as how to keep an article around 15,000 words as opposed to 23,000. By comparison, this articles Allegations of war crimes section is clearly not a summary of the child article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Agree per WP:SIZERULE.

Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree The article literally contains an entire list containing the full text of resolutions adopted by the UNSC on 5 April. Editors on this article are frankly being highly irresponsible or are inexperienced in their liberal decisions to include additional material in this already giant document. JDiala (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Like the man said, the problem is the child articles, that's what needs fixing first, then the leads of them form content here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree and support the spirit of this edit made following this suggestion even if it may have jumped the gun. Yeoutie (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Example (sort of)

• See this diff: [46] shown here [47] regarding Humanitarian impact section. It's not a big reduction article length wise, even if removes 2,000 words. Other sections are more difficult. @Moxy section doesn't require references as doesn't contain any content, per Template:Excerpt. --CommunityNotesContributor

First...Wikipedia:Template documentation " Editors should also avoid "quoting" template documentation pages as though they are policy". Sub pages not ready for this yet. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for 'statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic sources ..even more so on " contentious topics" like this. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. As linked at MOS:CITELEAD... H:TRANSDRAWBACKS "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors...." plus "Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. "Moxy🍁 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what your saying? this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy🍁 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The articles leads would need to be sourced.....or do your own summary.Moxy🍁 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)