Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:24, 7 October 2024 view sourcePadFoot2008 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,657 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit Revision as of 14:34, 7 October 2024 view source Raskolnikov.Rev (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,433 edits →'October 17' section: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 711: Line 711:
:::::::::@] The lead very literally does attribute the FA report in text: {{green|Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive".}} ] (]) 14:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC) :::::::::@] The lead very literally does attribute the FA report in text: {{green|Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive".}} ] (]) 14:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::And what the lead does not do is start that sentence off with "The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture...", which is exactly what is being discussed here - the in-text attribution of reporting to those 4 sources. ] (]) 14:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC) ::::::::::And what the lead does not do is start that sentence off with "The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture...", which is exactly what is being discussed here - the in-text attribution of reporting to those 4 sources. ] (]) 14:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I just want to make it known for the record that @] does not care about what the lede on the main page says, as they went ahead with adding additions to the section here paddings the details of the intelligence agencies even though that is not on the other page's lede.
:::::::::So this is merely a grasping at straws attempt to keep the padded references to the various media outlets that back what they believe to be the only legitimate side of the controversy because Western intelligence agencies are imbued with superior reliability and honesty to any other RS.
:::::::::The facts are that categories here are not merely reflections of ledes from main pages, as we can see from the other categories that link to main pages and contain information not only from the ledes but also the bodies of those pages.
:::::::::Moreover, as @] ], consensus has been established here regarding this particular section (more recent than the brief discussion on the other page) to include the RS references to the FA report in-line. However, I and others were willing to leave that out as a compromise, before they decided to violate established NPOV consensus by padding the other side of the controversy, first with the aforementioned intelligence agencies, and when that failed to gain any traction, with the media outlets.
:::::::::And as pointed out by @] and others, the arguments brought forward for this have been absurd on their face. ] (]) 14:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}} {{ref-talk}}


Revision as of 14:34, 7 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel–Hamas war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Extended-protected pageThis page is currently under extended confirmed protection.
Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why is the article named the way it is? Should we name it something else? A: Please consult the list of "requested moves" listed at the top of the talk page to see the history of multiple extensive discussions that have led to the current name.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and review the FAQ before commenting.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Israel–Hamas war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Israel–Hamas war at the Reference desk.
          Other talk page banners
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
WikiProject iconLebanon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconSyria Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYemen Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Redirects for discussionThis page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 24 November 2023. The result of the discussion was Keep.
In the newsA news item involving Israel–Hamas war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 October 2023.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 13,647,220 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Section sizes
Section size for Israel–Hamas war (60 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 21,632 21,632
Names 5,165 5,165
Background 22,622 22,622
Events 140 312,543
7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel 23,381 23,381
Initial Israeli counter-operation (October 2023) 17,657 52,663
Israeli blockade and bombardment 9,387 9,387
Evacuation of Northern Gaza 9,273 9,273
17 October 16,346 16,346
Invasion of the Gaza Strip until the truce (October–November 2023) 17,460 17,460
Duration of the truce (November–December 2023) 2,596 2,596
Resumption of hostilities (December 2023 – May 2024) 145 58,606
Continuation of operations in Northern Gaza (December 2023 – January 2024) 11,707 11,707
Advance into Central Gaza (December 2023 – February 2024) 10,088 10,088
Withdrawal from Northern Gaza (January–February 2024) 8,812 8,812
Preparations for the attack on Rafah (February–March 2024) 7,933 7,933
Second raid on al-Shifa Hospital and withdrawal from southern Gaza (March–April 2024) 19,921 19,921
Beginning of the Rafah offensive (May–July 2024) 26,491 26,491
Continued operations throughout Gaza (July 2024 – present) 10,843 131,206
Second and third battles of Khan Yunis (22 July – 30 August) 3,198 3,198
Polio vaccination campaign 8,402 8,402
Ground operation in Rafah 3,857 3,857
Attacks in central Gaza 25,824 25,824
Siege of Jabalia (5 October – present) 18,940 18,940
Killing of Yahya Sinwar 2,471 54,018
Generals' plan 51,547 51,547
Interference with aid deliveries in central Gaza 6,124 6,124
Other confrontations 3,652 127,098
West Bank and Israel 19,272 30,592
Israeli settlements 1,516 1,516
Attacks in Israel 2,493 2,493
Israeli prisons and detention camps 7,311 7,311
Lebanon 1,339 53,053
Clashes 4,465 4,465
Escalation 15,620 15,620
Invasion 31,629 31,629
Yemen and the Red Sea 10,325 10,325
Iraq 5,899 5,899
Syria 9,948 9,948
Iran 3,734 13,629
Iranian strikes on Israel 3,286 3,286
Israeli response 6,609 6,609
Casualties 2,620 2,620
Humanitarian crisis 12,689 12,689
Scale of destruction 9,897 9,897
War crimes 18,653 18,653
Diplomatic impact 7,216 7,216
Reactions 382 18,659
Israel 3,317 3,317
Palestinian territories 1,578 1,578
International 9,102 9,102
Evacuations of foreign nationals 4,280 4,280
Impacts 56 14,110
Regional impact 5,778 5,778
Economic impact 8,276 8,276
Media coverage 2,837 2,837
See also 402 402
Notes 138 138
References 3,054 3,054
External links 1,824 1,824
Total 581,159 581,159

Requested move 13 August 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Israel–Hamas war be renamed and moved to Israel–Gaza war.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Gaza war – Despite the move request to Israel-Gaza war being closed as no consensus in February 2024, a lot has changed since then and RS have converged to use this name. This move is long overdue and aligns with the relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE.

RS per WP that uses the Israel-Gaza war name as the title of their coverage category:

Other RS that uses the Israel-Gaza war name as the title of their coverage category:

RS per WP that uses the Israel-Gaza war in their coverage:

  • Reuters: , , : Israel-Gaza war
  • CBS news: Israel-Gaza war
  • Vox: , : Israel's war in Gaza

This name change would also align with a third Misplaced Pages guideline, all five of the WP:CRITERIA one, namely #5 on Consistency, as this would align with Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza war. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Update to add other RS mentioning Gaza instead of Hamas in one way or another in at least one instance:
  • Save the Children: : War in Gaza as coverage category title
  • Haaretz Israeli newspaper: : Gaza war as coverage category title (RS per WP)
  • Relief Web: Relief Web: Gaza war
  • Crisis Group: : Gaza war
  • Norwegian Refugee Council: : Gaza conflict Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
    Support replacement of Hamas with Gaza in a new title (open to variations). It is both more accurate (not limited to Israel and Hamas) and recognizable in RS per original request. Mason7512 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nominator has presented no evidence that the common name has changed, just that a small number of selected examples use "Israel-Gaza war", and it is clear that the most common and recognizable name among our readers is Israel-Hamas war.
In addition, the title has accuracy issues - Gaza has no army and is not fighting this war, while Hamas does and is.
Regarding the evidence the nominator does present, it is highly misleading. For example, they imply Reuters has shifted to "Israel-Gaza war". This is false; in the past week they have used one article with that term, compared to many (eg. 1, 2, 3) for Israel-Hamas war.
They also cite WP:CONSISTENCY, but the proposed title is not similar to the titles they claim it would be consistent with, and even if it was the wars are too dissimilar for consistency to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
A commonly recognizable name per WP is a "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)," i.e. determined by RS not by readers.
As for accuracy, Gaza has no army indeed, but Hamas is not the only one fighting this war, as it is fighting alongside Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the Gaza Strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
And "Gaza war" blows away both, see here. nableezy - 05:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Taking out the "-" character provides a clearer picture of what people are searching for. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Gaza War (2023-202x) would be best, but Israel-Gaza War is an improvement over the current title. It squares better with the facts and daily coverage on this topic is largely about Gaza. Israel-Hamas is one thread of the tapestry of this war, and arguably, one point of view; it is not the whole, but a part. The war includes more than the IDF, Hamas, and other factions fighting; Gaza has been largely reduced to rubble, reminiscent of WW2 photographs; its people are killed day in and day out, excused as "attacks on Hamas," and they run from place to place with what little they have left. Hospitals, schools, and infrastructure are bombed. Doctors and journalists are killed. History is erased. The Israel-Hamas War title focuses on the part, leaving out the other big pieces, and we know that leaving out information is one technique of lying. It continues a one-sided Western narrative, that it is a war on Hamas and civilians are, unfortunately, in the way, when the facts say otherwise.
GeoffreyA (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
So you wish to replace the "Western Narrative" with you narrative? PaPiker (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I only wish for all narratives to be replaced with the truth. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Your truth? PaPiker (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
No. I don't believe in the notion of "one's truth," which is subjective. Rather, truth is the accurate mirroring, at a certain level of abstraction (quarks vs. atoms vs. humans), of Nature or the state of affairs out there. Unfortunately, the medium of human language is prone to a host of problems. Of course, Misplaced Pages has other principles to go by. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The only "truth" that matters on Misplaced Pages is the one that is shown by reliable sources, and they consistently call it the Israel-Hamas War rather than the Israel-Gaza War. I wouldn't be opposed to creating a redirect that takes it to this page and including it the lead, though. Jdcomix (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Certainly. That's why I added that last sentence. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
This is about the war, and by the way, the article still mentions the humanitarian consequences. But if you are concerned about the coverage of humanitarian issues, see Gaza genocide, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), and the many other articles detailing Israeli war crimes. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support, since the current title is a legal, philosophical and logical nonsense IMO. Correctly, wars are either between organisations (Government of Israel – Hamas) or between countries (Israel–Gaza). Mixing up the two feels badly incorrect. Also it smacks of propaganda (to give a feeling that the entire nation is fighting an organisation). Yet we wouldn't say "US – Ba'ath Party war" (rather, a US–Syria war), "US–Taliban war" (it was US–Afghanistan war; NATO–Taliban war would be correct, too), etc. In short, the proposed title sounds infinitely better than the current one, however widespread the latter may be. — kashmīrī  12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    ...or between countries (Israel–Gaza). Gaza, is in fact, not a country. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for all intents and purposes Hamas is Gaza. They started this war and that is who Israel is going after. If it was all of Gaza the Gazans would all be fighting back but they are not, it's just Hamas and its sycophants. PaPiker (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hamas is Gaza. Wow. Going by your logic, Israel is Likud. — kashmīrī  23:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hamas has subverted and replaced the actual authority of Gaza, the Palestine Authority. Hamas is not a political party. Hezbollah is a functioning political party. PaPiker (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The main participants in this war are Hamas and Israel. Gaza is a territory, not a side in the conflict. I don’t see any reason to change the title to something less specific. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that Israel is not a territory? — kashmīrī  23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    Israel is a country with an army. Gaza is a territory controlled by a militant group but who’s de jure administrators are the PA. Personisinsterest (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Hamas and Israel are the key players. Gaza is just a place, not a combatant. Waqar💬 20:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I think that this seems like a considerably more accurate title than what we currently use for this page, given that the Hamas fighters are only a very small part of the targets. Also, this is not a war, just an extremely onesided massacre. David A (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for moving a page. There has to be consensus among reliable sources to change the name, and there simply isn't at the moment. Jdcomix (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hamas is the primary target with the other smaller groups less so. The fact that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure and civilians as cover/shields makes said infrastructure/civilians no longer safe. Launch rockets from a hospital the hospital becomes a target, same thing with schools et al, coupled with Hamas not allowing some people to leave some areas. The people that can leave the area are leaving. PaPiker (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Theres going to be no consensus on this issue like what happened last time. Fundamentally the issue is that reliable sources are mostly using the term Israel-Hamas war some use Israel-Gaza war but not much in comparison to Israel-Hamas and I wouldn't include Al Jazeera I think we can all agree they are just a biased news source, we can look at Britannica's article on this event as an example of why we maybe shouldn't move the article. Also I encourage users to be as neutral as possible we can't be using original research I believe whats happening in Gaza is as bad as what happened in Dresden and Tokyo in WW2 but again these are just my opinions and doesn't mean that we can move the article because of said opinion. Black roses124 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    But this is an ongoing war in the future if most non biased articles use the term Israel-Gaza war I would most definitely be in favor of moving the article. My opinions is everyone take their opinion on how ethical the war is and everyone just just look at what most non biased articles are calling it. Black roses124 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    Also when it comes to Al Jazeera I also support Palestine but a news agency needs to be independent you can be publicly funded and still be independent but Al Jazeera is not an example of that. They have clear position on this conflict their twitter account posts anti Semitic memes, they make videos minimizing the holocaust, they accuse YouTubers of working for Israel etc. One only needs to look at Al Jazeera controversies and criticism to see they are not independent and are not non biased. Black roses124 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and kashmiri. Country-organization doesn't make sense. CNN has also used "Israel-Gaza war". Outside of exact matches a lot of RS simply mention "war in Gaza". I would definitely prefer something like "Gaza War (2023-2024)" (we already have the precedent of Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War) since that is were the main action/destruction is taking place. That also saves us the headache of having to name the key players in the title. Similar articles are Vietnam War, Korean War, Malvinas War, Iraq War, etc. But the proposed title is still an improvement. - Ïvana (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with you Gaza war seems the most sensible but again we need RS. Black roses124 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per my and others' comments on past move requests. The Israel-Hamas framing is an NPOV and an accuracy concern and that outweighs the prevalence of its use in RS, especially since RS are moving toward an Israel-Gaza framing as is the nature of the war with parties other than Hamas taking an increasingly prominent role in the fighting and strategic calculus. Unbandito (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME would be the WP:NPOV move. "Israel-Gaza" and "Israel-Hamas" could both be argued are POV framings. However, the nominator is WP:CHERRYPICKING in favor of one of these POVs here. The "Israel-Hamas" framing actually appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, including in some of the RS nom cites. All/both POVs gripe about what they perceive as media bias. So let's stick to policy.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Just to point out that a few of your citations for how outlets also use "Israel-Hamas war", are older articles than those cited by the nominator, so it seems that RS are changing over time from "Israel-Hamas war" to "Israel-Gaza war". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Of those outlets, I spot-checked three and all three also use "the war in Gaza". The term is easy to find in Reuters The Guardian and The Conversation . Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the terms are often used interchangeably, hence the rejection of nom's assertion that there's a WP:COMMONNAME. Point still stands about the overall coverage titling. Longhornsg (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Google trends shows Israel Hamas War is more commonly searched for, despite it being obvious that this war isn’t just against Hamas Kowal2701 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
    It also shows Gaza war is more commonly searched than Israel Hamas war. nableezy - 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Israel-Gaza war. Both Israel-Hamas and Israel-Gaza are commonly used, but recently there has been a trend towards using Israel-Gaza. Israel-Gaza war is more accurate because the war is not just Hamas anymore. I oppose Gaza war (2023-present) because the name of the war should include Israel, per WP:NATURAL, Israel-Gaza war makes more sense than Gaza War. Mast303 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Israel–Gaza war, which is a bit hard to make sense out of considering that Gaza is an Israeli-occupied territory; it's also less widespread than the alternatives. However, I would support Gaza war (2023-present) (I think dates are preferable due to the relative recency of the other "Gaza wars"). This (or "war in Gaza") seem to be much more widespread than Israel–Hamas war based on Google trends, it's also more accurate considering that only a minority of Palestinian casualties are Hamas fighters. WikiFouf (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support After almost an year has passed, the amount of people dead on the Palestinian side who were a part of Hamas is a minuscule amount of the population. I would still prefer Gaza War (2023-present) but the proposed title is appropriate. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • • Oppose An online encyclopedia does not get to name the war. Although personally I think it's plausibly a war waged on the Palestinian people primarily with Hamas merely as collateral damage, that is irrelevant because WP:COMMONNAME applies as supported by Google trends and many media outlets. 'Israel-Gaza war' does not make more sense as there is already Gaza–Israel conflict which this is a subset of anyways and the terms are too similar. Another point is that its simply too late to change it, its been ongoing for months and when people hear or read 'Israel–Hamas war' they know its about this one, 'Israel-Gaza war' is more ambiguous & 'Gaza War' even more so. 'Gaza war (2023-present)' is no better than 'Israel Hamas war (2023-present)' because you are dropping Israel from the label for no reason at all. Colloquially people don't even say 'Gaza war', if they drop Israel & just say Gaza then they say 'Gaza genocide' Drocj (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the proposed title is ambiguous and can refer to several other conflicts which involve Israel and the territory of Gaza (which is why it redirects to Gaza–Israel conflict). Sources appear split on both Israel–Hamas war and Israel–Gaza war, so we cannot explicitly refer to WP:common name. Other editors provide longer alternatives which include date disambiguation; the problem with this is that many of these proposed longer titles fail at both mention in reliable sources as well as concision, which is best explained as The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. The use of Hamas in the title accurately describes the scope of the article as they, alongside Israel, are the main belligerents of the war. While the current title blurs the involvement of other militant groups fighting alongside Hamas, the ambiguous Israel–Gaza war provides no mention of clashes in the West Bank nor confrontations in other territories. Renaming this page to a date-disambiguated title would also require some form of parenthetical disambiguation, whereas Misplaced Pages prefers the use of natural disambiguation if possible.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Strong Support for Gaza War (2023 - present) followed by Israel-Gaza war. As pointed out by Kashmiri, wars are between states or between organizations. Since Palestine has now been internationally recognized by the UN as a sovereign state, it's even more relevant that we avoid the incorrect framing of this being about Hamas.
Internet search trends in the last 7 months also clearly shows Gaza War as the most common name and Gaza War + Israel-Gaza war (without the "-" character as helpfully suggested by @PhotogenicScientist) easily outstripping Israel-Hamas War. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Strong Support Israel-hamas war erases the role of other significant factions within the Palestinian Joint Operations room. That is, the PFLP, DFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees and various Fatah aligned militants. We at wikipedia should be careful to account for these things which may otherwise be swept under the rug.
Gaza war on the other hand allows us to also implicitly include the other parts of the P-JOR. Genabab (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Strong Support There are many other factions in the war other than Hamas, including but not limited to, PFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Lions' Den, etc. It isn't just Hamas who is fighting Israel in Gaza. Haskko (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recognition of the State of Palestine  have recognised the State of Palestine  have not recognised the State of Palestine
Common use in English is a very skewed POV, anything supported by "common use" in English language sources is going to have a United States / UK / Canada / India (BJP) / etc. bias, so anything in common use in English has a systematic bias wrt this war. Searching war and Hamas حرب حماس gets me European media in Arabic, and half of them still call it the Gaza war even in those search results. Searching all three gets me The war between Hamas and Israel الحرب بين حماس وإسرائيل France24 , The war between Israel and Hamas الحرب بين إسرائيل وحماس Germany's DW , UK, USA, etc. despite the search being in Arabic. As far as I can tell, the current title is exclusively used by media from the minority of countries who refuse to recognize the State of Palestine. FourPi (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This is en.wiki - of course we're biased toward English here. What's the issue with that, exactly? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I already explained that above. I'm disputing the claim that "common name" its unbiased. Because, as you say, of course we're biased, we're biased towards points of view in the English speaking world. Too many people seem to think that "reliable sources in English say" = global consensus. It very much doesn't. FourPi (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, English-Language sources are the scope here. If it helps, it’s a great annoyance for me in other cases, where the German phrasing is significantly different from the English ones. FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't explain very clearly? My point was not that Arabic translation counts as WP:COMMONNAME. I was using that to show that common name in English has a severe WP:POV problem. Common name used in English skews severally pro-Israel / anti-Palestine But we can use translated names to pick which English common name reflects an unbiased view of the war. FourPi (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, but that is not what the policy says. In the same way, I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel, particularly considering that arguably all 3 have a non-insignificant bias for one of the factions of the conflict. For example, the alleged commonname Gaza Genocide is arguably a NPOV violation against Israel, as there was no consensus that there was a genocide. Nevertheless, the move was (as of now) done. That term has almost no use in German and Hebrew (afaik).FortunateSons (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel
But you did actually cite hebrew and german-language sources in the move request of gaza genocide article to oppose the move in your large table. Stephan rostie (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, because they can be used as an argument that it isn’t a genocide, but not as an argument that it isn’t called a genocide. In the same way, one could use Arabic sources to say that „X % of fighting is against groups other than Hamas“, but can’t be used to show that the name „Israel-Hamas war“ is improper, because non-English sources can be used for facts/claims but not for names. Im with you on the policy being less-than-intuitiv, tho FortunateSons (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons You are still missing the point. My point is NOT that Arabic can be used to determine common name. I probably explained it badly, but my point is that common name in English has a bias towards one side of the conflict. So we shouldn't use common name for this page. I'm not trying to find common name, I'm trying to show that common name is an inappropriate metric to use to name this page.
We should use a descriptive name instead. Or I honestly would support War of Iron Swords, it's attributable and too figurative to be inaccurate. FourPi (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense, sorry, I assumed it was used as an argument against a specific common name. The issue is that no one can agree on a descriptive title, because no one seems to agree on the scope or aims of the war. I’m hesitant to support a title attributable to the parties, because we would have to decide which, but it’s definitely an interesting suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I was mildly surprised I couldn't find it called a genocide in Hebrew, even B'Telem is being a bit timid on it, but I'm not sure how clearly it translates (I've not tried Local Call yet).
I actually think the official Israeli name "War of Iron Swords" would be a lot better than either of the common name options being debated, I would strongly support that as a name. It's attributable, and it's not pretending to give any substantive information about who or where, so it's not misleading. FourPi (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, outside the English-speaking world, there is a wide variance in the frequency of use. FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, and copying my comment from the last time we had this discussion.The claim that Israel-Hamas War is a common name is bogus, if it were the common name you wouldnt see the Washington Post, The Guardian and so on all use Israel-Gaza war as the name of the conflict. As before, Gaza is what has been systematically bombed, Gaza's universities have been destroyed, Gaza's hospitals have been destroyed, Gaza's residents have been displaced and starved. This name is and has always been an attempt to push an Israeli POV that it is a war on Hamas. Gaza is what has had its water, electricity, and food cut off, Gaza and Gazans are what have been targeted throughout this campaign. Misplaced Pages is effectively pushing Israeli propaganda with this title, and it is non-neutral. Since this is a descriptive title, and not like people are falsely claiming the common name, it is required to abide by Misplaced Pages:NCENPOV: use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. The POV implications here are that Hamas is what is being attacked here, and that is and always has been POV-driven BS. None of these are common names, which requires an overwhelming majority of sources using a single name. They are all descriptive titles, and as a result we need a NPOV one. Not one that parrots the Israeli POV that this is a war against Hamas, despite all of Gaza being in ruin. nableezy - 05:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    The strongest and clearest presentation of what should be the most important argument in this discussion. NPOV must override COMMONNAME in cases when they are opposed, or else Misplaced Pages can become overrun by systemic bias. Unbandito (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Both “Israel-Hamas” and “Israel-Gaza”/“Gaza war” are all used by reliable sources, however contrary to the beginning of the war which “israel-Hamas” was a somewhat acceptable term back then, the term by now doesn’t make much sense in the current circumstances anymore and reflect nothing than a political agenda (e.g US can declare war on putin or CCP for political agenda but that doesn’t mean that the war in reality/objectively is against russia/china). as by now there are full siege on Gaza not “full siege on Hamas”, a Gaza famine not “Hamas famine”, bombing of Gaza that destroyed or damaged 70% of entire Gaza’s building not “70% of hamas buildings”, and a Gaza genocide that most scholars believe israel has/is committing against all Gaza not a “Hamas genocide”. All now make very little sense to label as “Israel-Hamas conflict” anymore contrary to the beginning of the war. Adding to this older legit arguments that the Palestinian resistance factions fighting in Gaza are not just Hamas but range from the secular marxist as PFLP to salafist islamist as PIJ who are all fighting in one Palestinian front, that Hamas is the political party that rules Gaza government (which itself doesn’t mean every government employee “is hamas”) so it would be like calling it “Likud-Hamas war”, and that “Gaza war”/“israel-Gaza war” would be in correspondence with earlier existing articles (e.g 2009 Gaza war, 2014 Gaza war, 2019 Gaza war, Gaza–Israel conflict, etc). All combined leave very little sense to keep using the current title, especially by now.
Stephan rostie (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@웬디러비: WP:!VOTE - Ïvana (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Longhornsg. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My opinion concurs with @Longhornsg's reasoning and examples, though given that there are a number of sources that also suggest Israel Gaza instead of Israel Hamas, I'd suggest including both in the lead if possible. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nothing has changed since the last time, so what makes the nominator think there will be a consensus this time? The sources call it the Israel-Hamas War (see Longhornsg's comment), and there have been numerous move requests on this page, none of which have succeeded. Jdcomix (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support It is instructive to look back at the 2014 Gaza war (How Does Israel's Last Invasion of Gaza Compare to Now?. Of course we have an article, Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, for the current version and it seems to me that one of the useful things that could be done here is to merge the so-called "Israel-Hamas war" into that, since that title more properly represents the situation than this Israeli POV driven article title does, which purports to say that this is about Hamas, only about Hamas and that Hamas started it, which of course is ideological bullpoo.
In 2014, the "Gaza war" was the same thing, just check the list of belligerents. Israel invaded and said that the aim was to destroy tunnels and stop rockets (sound familiar?). "Gazan civilian casualty estimates range between 70 percent by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65 percent by the United Nations' (UN) Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part on Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36 percent by Israeli officials.(sound familiar?) Israel's "100-eyes-for-an eye spiral of violence" (sound familiar?).
OK, "only" a month and a half and no hostages so that's different but what a f'in waste of time, cos we were right back there again in 2021 and now once more in 2023/24, same adversaries, same Netanyahu, plus la change. This time around, blow Gaza to bits, destroy its hospitals, its schools, mosques, literally trash the place and kill 1 in 50 of the population, while still trying to claim it's all about Hamas. If Israel cannot completely do for Hamas (a likely outcome), then Israel can just colonially occupy and settle the place like they already illegally do in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
The very least we might do is acknowledge that Gaza is a target. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Apparently, it's "not done" to acknowledge that Gaza is a target. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as delineated by Longhornsg in his comprehensive missive above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
    If it's a commonname (we bold those) why isn't it bolded in the lead? Hint: Because its a descriptive title and not a commonname. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
    If it were the common name, you wouldnt see The Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC for example using something else. A common name is a single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic. That is not the case here, this is a descriptive title, not a common name. nableezy - 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Israel wages a war on the Palestinian people, not just Hamas. Most wars are labelled by the countries. Calling this the "Israel-Hamas war" is an Israeli POV and not suitable for Misplaced Pages. When this article was created, some probably thought it would be a short operation against Hamas. I doubt anyone can honestly hold that view anymore. The neutral name is the one proposed in this RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The war is between Israel and Hamas, not Israel and Gaza. Sources are quite clear on that point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    It is not true that the war is just against Hamas. It is also against the rest of the joint operations room (pflp, dflp, pij, etc…) Genabab (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Per Longhornsg, whose evidence makes clear that "Israel–Hamas war" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the war beginning on Oct. 7, 2023. While I can understand the desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, I.M.O. that argument doesn't somehow make "Israel-Hamas" not the war's COMMONNAME and therefore the best article title. DecafPotato (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The war was a response to an attack from Hamas. Gaza is just a region. Nashhinton (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If a move is to happen, move to Gaza War (2023–present). I think it's borderline impossible to argue whether "Israel–Hamas war" or "Israel–Gaza war" is the COMMONNAME, and both titles present NPOV problems: if it's "Israel–Hamas war", the implication is Israel versus terrorists; if it's "Israel–Gaza war", the implication is Israel versus civilians. Previous wars between Israel and Hamas are referred to on Misplaced Pages as Gaza Wars (Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War) and using the location gets around the NPOV issues. I know some will note that the war isn't limited to Gaza, but neither were the 2008–2009 and 2014 wars, and this conflict is overwhelmingly unfolding in Gaza. JOEBRO 22:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza war with or without the dates per Joe and my previous votes for that title in prior RMs. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza War or Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and Levivich.Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza War (2023–present). I already explained why in my previous comment above (I actually proposed 2023–2024 but 2023–present is obviously the best choice). - Ïvana (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    I would also support Gaza war or Gaza War (2023-present) as my second and third options respectively after Israel-Gaza war. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza War (2023–present) or the proposed title. Gaza war alone may also be appropriate, as the subject appears to have seized the primary topic space, but that may be a separate discussion – though a search for "Gaza war" on Google already directs to the topic. The current title is, by contrast, grossly inaccurate. Hamas is far from the only participant on the Palestinian side, with the PIJ, PFLP, Al-Aqsa Brigades and many more also participating. This non-geographical title also violates the basic tenets of WP:NCWWW, not even stating where the conflict is principally occurring. It is exceptionally odd to not be referring to Gaza at this point in the title, as the whole of Gaza is involved, and even the peripheral conflicts revolve around Gaza: the Houthis and Hezbollah have made a cessation of hostilities contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza. The war has involved the bombing of Gaza and the invasion of Gaza, while the Gaza Strip famine and Gaza genocide pages are corollary events. There are several names for this event, but most incorporate the name "Gaza", including Israel-Gaza war, Gaza war, war in Gaza, and war on Gaza. By contrast, "Israel-Hamas war" – merely one example in an archipelago of names – is the lone exception to the rule. It is far from the common name (and the suggestions to the contrary are rather risible), and it is now diminishing in prevalence. With the likes of the BBC, Guardian and WP now defaulting to Israel-Gaza war, there is little cause for further confusion on this. The current title is one with poor accuracy, lessening applicability, and its usage now pales in comparison (per Nableezy) to the wider discussion of a "Gaza war". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Gaza war with or without dates, also support above Israel-Gaza war. Per the nominator and kashmiri, the current title is misleading as I said in previous discussion. This conflict involves not just Hamas but all Palestinian resistance movements in Gaza. The broader involvement of groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demonstrates that the title "Israel–Gaza war" more accurately reflects the scope of the conflict. Additionally, the existing title suggests a conflict solely between Israel and a single organization, while in reality, it is a war that affects the entire region of Gaza and its inhabitants. Reliable sources (RS) have increasingly used the term "Israel-Gaza war," aligning with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE guidelines. Notable examples include The Guardian, The Washington Post, BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera etc. — Ainty Painty (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: this is not a war only on Gaza's ruling political party, it is a war on Gaza. Nobody is arguing that only Hamas members have been targeted. Multiple sources have used Israel-Gaza war, or simply Gaza war. None of the fighting has occurred in Israel, so Gaza war seems appropriate. 20WattSphere (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The OP says this should be brought in line with the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza war but the big difference here is that this war was started by Hamas and it is who the war is against and thus needs to be recognized as such. There is no war here against Gaza. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hamas was the "main antagonist" for Israel (as it were), in all of these conflicts (as the governing body of the strip), so all of these were just as much "Israel-Hamas wars" based on the same shakey premise that is being maintained for the current title. Nothing fundamental has changed between these conflicts, so there is no obvious reason to switch for this conflict to an inconsistent and simultaneously imprecise and ambiguous descriptive title. The fuller truth is that the current title fails on numerous other levels as well, as elucidated by many editors further up this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly! So it would be much more precise, accurate and correct to rename all of them to Israel-Hamas wars and then differentiate them by the year, etc.
    What is Gaza? There is no war with Gaza. Israel left Gaza on its own accord. To say there's a war with Gaza is a complete misnomer.
    Thank you for agreeing with me. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    “Of its own accord” is quite a euphemistic way of saying “putting it under full siege, controlling all aspects of its population including heir registry, resources, borders, water, and airspace, while continuing to commit crimes against its nationals int he West Bank, forcing them to live under occupation, settler pogroms, deprivation of rights, and administrative detention” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Well said. If anyone lives under occupation, it's the people of Gaza under the occupation of Hamas. Can other religions be practiced freely there? Can people be openly homosexual? Israel is liberating Gaza from the rule of Hamas. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Christianity also has a small presence in Gaza Strip per sources. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Israel is doing a mighty fine job "liberating Gaza," flattening it to the ground. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    I also said "based on the same shakey premise", but those past events are not named that for good reason – and there's every reason to be consistent here. Since you're ignoring every single serious point being made here, however, it seems you have little interest in properly engaging with the naming discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    No not at all. My vote isn't disqualified just because you don't like it. Sorry to inform you, but this isn't Iskypedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    It’s disqualified because you’re wrong. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    MaskedSinger, Misplaced Pages is not a vote. !Votes (read as: not-vote) are weighted by the quality of the arguments presented, not by the numbers alone. And I would argue "There is no war with Gaza." is absolutely not a valid argument. Your !vote isn't worthy of being counted because it made no effort to even allude to Misplaced Pages procedures, and instead was based entirely on the mind-boggling assertion that Gaza isn't even under attack. I can't imagine any closer determining that such a !vote holds any weight.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    If that's your preferred approach, why not name it the Likud-Hamas war, then? 20WattSphere (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: An extremely regretful oppose, but Israel–Gaza war should refer to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip rather than the entirety of the war from 2023/10/07 to the present-day. This is what seems to be the most neutral reception from what I do see anyway. Josethewikier (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2023 Gaza War or something similar, with the year (either "2023 to present" or "2023"): best reflects the accuracy and truthfulness of this very war. Josethewikier (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Josethewikier: Why would there be two separate "named war" titles for different, overlapping periods of the same conflict? It's the same war, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hamas is the political party that has been causing problems for Israel, rather than Gazans. Naming the article with "Gaza" incorrectly places the fault of the initial attack of 10/07 on "Gaza" rather than the accurate Hamas. Israel remains the way it does because the country/state voted Likud in; Hamas should be seen differently from "Gaza" as Gazans did not elect Hamas in in the last 18 years, and none of the war crimes are the fault of Gazans and/or Gaza. Josethewikier (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hamas attacks did not happen 'in a vacuum', Guterres says
    ""It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation," Guterres said." Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    I could say the same for the Israeli people, they were just luckier that its allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help even from its closest of allies. Point is that this remains a war between Israel and Hamas, just that the victims are predominantly Gazan civilians caught between yet another Israeli invasion and much crossfire from both sides (though mostly Israeli). This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents. Josethewikier (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help What Palestinian government? There was no Palestinian government in 1948 or 1967. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    you're correct, and I never meant that. Compare Israel vs Palestine in the last 30 years or so, and their governments; anyway that is not relevant. If someone convinces me that a change in the title benefits the truth-telling of the atrocities the residents of Gaza face and have faced in the last 317 days specifically, I will retract my opposition. Josethewikier (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Well, calling it "Israel-Hamas" war suggests it's a war between Israel and Hamas. Calling it "Gaza war" suggests it's a war in Gaza. Which of the two do you consider more accurate? Levivich (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    I do apologise this is turning into an argument. I sincerely request for convincing factors and not rhetorical questions. Asking me questions do not guide me towards the truth. Josethewikier (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Accuracy is a convincing factor. Which of the titles (current or proposed) is more accurate is not a rhetorical question. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Also I'd disagree with had nothing at all to do with Gaza. They lived on the border of Gaza. This does NOT mean that what happened to them was in any way justified, but they were targeted because they lived on the border of Gaza, which is something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents.
    if the above is inaccurate, please point any and all errors out; else, do not misquote me. Josethewikier (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    The 1,100 victims is who I'm talking about; they lived on the border of Gaza, that's not "nothing at all to do with Gaza," it's something to do with Gaza. They got attacked because they were next to Gaza. And the attack came from Gaza. That's all something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    You are correct and I do apologise for the above statement. It's definitely not as straightforward as that, but I do get your point and agree with much of it. Josethewikier (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current title is ok, although various titles are found in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support the proposed title (second choice) orGaza War or equally Gaza War (2023–present) (first choice) or another title that names Gaza. By now the main reason the war is notable is the mass casualties and destruction, not the underlying motives or the names of the belligerents. These details can go in the text of the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Recent comments have persuaded me that "Israel-Gaza war" could make it appear that Gaza is a belligerent. I'm not against "Israel-Gaza war" but I don't think it's an improvement either. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    To make things clearer for the closer: I do not support a move to "Israel-Gaza war" at this time as it could appear POV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current title is ok. Between media outlets, the title of this war vary. But the majority still say "Israel-Hamas". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose because the title is fine and WP:COMMONNAME. We don't need to keep having these discussions about changing the article's name. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It doesn't seem like anything has changed since last time; Israel-Hamas War remains the WP:COMMONNAME per Longhornsg. — xDanielx /C\ 16:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that the BBC has moved to Israel-Gaza, who is one of the most accurate mainstream sources in the en-world, im my opinion. I think a lot of the mainstream US-based media is still using Israel-Hamas, but given the US support for the war, they are probably less reliable as sources in this topic area. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    I live outside the US and I have most often heard it called "Israel's war on Gaza". I'm not sure I've actually heard the current title outside of Misplaced Pages. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Well in Australia ABC have used "Israel-Hamas war" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-10/six-months-of-war-destroys-gaza-strip/103684830 Black roses124 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    A quick search of the ABC website reveals:
    • Israel-Gaza war - 53 pages of results
    • Israel-Hamas war - 7 pages of results
    So looks like ABC are leaning heavily to the side of Israel-Gaza war. 20WattSphere (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Again as other editors have stated multiple news agencies of many different nations use both. I don’t disagree with you, I just disagree with the characterization that the United States uses “Israel-Hamas” and the rest of the world exclusively uses “Israel-Gaza” and Misplaced Pages is perpetuating American narrative it’s just not the case I don’t believe there’s any non biased news agency that has not used both. I don’t like Israel-Hamas or Israel-Gaza these are both POVs I believe Gaza war is the most sensible but even though I personally like Gaza war the issue is compared to Israel-Hamas, the Gaza war is barely being used a small minority just from a neutral perspective a majority of the coverage on this conflict is Israel-Hamas I’m not saying I agree with it but that is the COMMON NAME. Black roses124 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but it sounds plausible that US media are more likely to use "Israel-Hamas war" than the average global outlet. For example, many of the outlets listed above as using "Israel-Hamas war" are American. This could lead to US readers considering "Israel-Hamas war" to be the COMMON NAME, while global audiences do not. 20WattSphere (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    I agree definitely Anerican media is extremely likely to push that narrative due to the country’s strategic relationship with Israel. Extremely similar to how Al Jazeera will always push a pro Palestine narrative due to them being owned by Qatar when another conflict arises which it definitely will we all know which media will say what. I’m not really in a disagreement with you if this gets moved to Gaza war I’m all for it, that is the most neutral way to frame this war Gaza war is no POV but right now I don’t think there’s any consensus for our opinion. This situation is too controversial once this war ends I’m hoping people can be more open minded and consider a different title and take their personal opinions on how ethical the war is aside and just try to make a article that is the most non biased and neutral. Black roses124 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is sufficient for the time being. By the end of the war (hopefully soon) we should then revisit the discussion.--Excel23 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Black roses124 (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title, "Israel–Hamas war," remains the WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by the majority of reliable sources, including in Eastern Europe, where I read the news. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Israel and Hamas have been at war for 30 plus years. This conflict is Israel using "Hamas" as a pretext to destroy Gaza. Kire1975 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Kire1975 WP:opinion Alexysun (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Alexysun WP:BLUDGEON Abo Yemen✉ 08:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    Three comments. Don't go throwing around WPs that you don't understand. Alexysun (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Alexysun, Everyone on the talk page basically gives their own “opinion” on whether to support or oppose a move, so your reply to @Kire1975 was unnecessary to begin with. StarkReport (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    Oh no i do understand what that WP means and three comments were enough for that policy to be mentioned to me on previous rms, and that should apply to you, The Right Honourable, Sir, Chairman, General of the Armies, General of the Army, General of the Air Force, Admiral of the Fleet, Generalfeldmarschall, Reichsmarschall, Großadmiral, Alexysun Abo Yemen✉ 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah strike that out strike that out. That's right. Alexysun (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    ??? Abo Yemen✉ 06:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
    You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same. Kire1975 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The new title will finally correct the gross inaccuracies of the current title; Hamas is not the only organization fighting Israel in this war, not by a long shot. Furthermore, as the post notes, the majority of sources have moved from using the inherently biased "Israel-Hamas war" to "Israel-Gaza war." RealKnockout (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hamas is by far the most important military fighting Israel. Names of wars usually aren't perfect, see e.g. Franco-Prussian War (many German states participated), the Hundred Years' War (not 100 years), etc. We still use them since they're WP:COMMONNAMEs. — xDanielx /C\ 05:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    @XDanielx Good point. @RealKnockout And also keep in mind that there's action in Lebanon and the West Bank and the assassination in Iran, so the name Israel-Gaza war would be misleading too. Alexysun (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Slightly oppose - Proposed title is better than the current title, but still inaccurate. Previous "Gaza War" pages (disambiguation link) are about wars that were only in Gaza? Whereas the page, 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis says "Palestine" and not "Gaza", despite the majority of the casualties being in the Gaza Strip. FourPi (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    I also support the opinion of FourPi. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Seems pretty straightforward that Israel-Gaza war is the term to use here, first because it is not merely a military conflict between Hamas and Israel but also other Palestinian factions, and second and more important because the entirety of the Gazan population and area has been subjected to the war.
As noted by others, the change also follows WP:COMMONTERM and WP:NAMECHANGES guidelines to accurately reflect how it is generally referred to now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Since "Israel–Hamas War" is not the common name, the alternatives used in RS are at least viable options for the title. "Gaza War" or one of the variations on that is best for a few reasons: (1) it is consistent with the titles of previous armed conflicts between Hamas in Gaza and Israel, conflicts which RS identify as forming a continuous pattern; (2) it reflects the highly localized nature of the warfare; and (3) it represents a neutral middle ground between "Israel–Hamas War" and "Israel–Gaza War." ByVarying | talk 03:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support: it is daylight clear this is not simply a war on Hamas, but a broader war on Gaza (or Palestinians in general, including the natives of West Bank and Golan Heights). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Move to Gaza war As the source analyses above have demonstrated, neither "Israel-Hamas war" nor "Israel-Gaza war" are clear commonames, so that is not my main point of concern. Instead, the problem with the title is that many other groups besides Hamas have taken part in the conflict in Gaza, so the title is innacurate. However, "Israel-Gaza war" is sub-optimal, as it may seem to imply that Gaza is actually a combatant. Instead, we should title "Gaza war", which accurately reflects the scope of the article. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the source analysis above, Israel-Hamas is the commonname and arguably also the optimal descriptive title, naming the two primary combatant groups. There is no overwhelming use of any other name.
Of the titles that include Gaza, Gaza War (in whichever variety) is probably optimal. While it doesn’t geographically include the area in which the Casus belli occurred (which was in the Gaza Envelope, but not within Gaza proper), it does solve the consistency issue: Gaza is a territory, that may or may not (depending on where the editor lives) be part of the State of Palestine, but it’s not a State. Making a title State vs. Territory is less consistent than “entity controlling combatants on side one vs. entity controlling the majority of combatants on side two”, which we have now. Nevertheless, the exclusion of Oct. 7 makes Gaza war a significantly worse title than the current one, by excluding both areas of combat (thereby being worse as a descriptive title), and lacking the necessary common use. Due to the significant combat outside of Gaza, consistency with the other Gaza wars would be undesirable because of their diverging nature.
There is no consensus among RS that the primary target of the war is all Palestinian people, and as such, there can’t be a title based on that premise without deviating from the WP:PAGS. Therefore, Israel-Hamas is the title that is most consistent with the way other pages are titled, such as War against the Islamic State also being States vs. non-state actor. FortunateSons (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
But I can't really think of a title that's both concise and fully describes the scope. Benpiano800 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Hezbollah and Houthis say they are fighting in order to help the Gazans. Havradim leaf a message 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose "a lot has changed since then and RS have converged to use this name"; what an incredibly slanted way to re-open this discussion. Again. For the 10th time in the past year.
RS have not "converged" on that name for the conflict, as plenty high-quality RS still use "Israel-Hamas war" or its variants:
Moreover, despite the opener's claim, nothing has really changed regarding RS usage since the last RFC in May, and the one before that in January - the same sources that are using the term "Israel-Gaza War" now (BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, Al Jazeera...) are the same sources being cited as using the term now. Consensus can change, but there are no "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" being raised here.
RS publications aside, "Israel Hamas war" continues to lead "Israel Gaza war" in English searche interest worldwide by a fair margin, as it has since the beginning of the conflict. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the terms people are searching for, "Gaza war" is more common than "Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel-Gaza war" and its share has been growing for the past few months. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, which shows Gaza war to be the most searched for thing in the majority of the world, including universally across Europe and the Middle East, and prevalently across South Africa, compared to quite a bit of Southeast Asia, but otherwise largely just the US, India, a few countries in central Africa for the current term. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The past 90 days shows the recent trend better. Gaza war is globally prevalent in that period. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
It is simpler, graphically accurate, and easier on the brain. (Indeed, I'd expect many to be searching purely on "Gaza" because that's what this war is all about. I checked, and for the sake of interest, yes, Gaza eclipses the other terms: ) GeoffreyA (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • oppose : For the 1000th time, no. Per above. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Per the sources OP has given, Israel-Gaza war is very common. I've always believed that the current name is a one-sided term which serves only to mask the w:Gaza genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. It is an ideological term and ignores all realities on the ground and is only used by supporters of Israel to frame the war as something that it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. "Gaza War", with or without dates, is my first choice; I also support Israel–Gaza War. I support moving the page away from Israel–Hamas war to one of those two other titles. If the term Israel–Hamas War is not cleanly used overwhelmingly more than other names (and it isn't, as numerous reliable sources using terms like Gaza war and Israel–Gaza war go to show), then it isn't a common name, and per WP:NCENPOV, we should use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Israel–Hamas war is a POV name that characterizes the war as exclusively happening between the nation-state of Israel and the Hamas organization. As that is not a consensus interpretation in academic secondary literature, with a considerable literature holding the war is against persons in Gaza beyond the Hamas organization, it is a POV interpretation and name and should be avoided for the article name. Gaza war neutrally describes the primary geographic field of the war. That very reputable reliable sources also use the term Gaza war is a reassurance about the suitability of the term. Comments that assert Israel–Hamas War is the common name have not convinced me, sometimes for the evidence (age of cited articles or to the language used therein, irrespective of titles or tags), sometimes for inattention to Gaza war as an alternative and not just Israel–Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - On every news site I look at, the top story about the war is in the West Bank. The current title is bad, but Gaza is even less accurate. Common name is the wrong strategy for this page, we need an accurate descriptive title. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    Or possibly something attributable, like the IDF operation name, it takes a side, but it's clearly attributable, so it is less misleading than a title that looks factual and neutral but isn't. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    Aside from the obvious POV issues and weak recognisability of codenames, it's established bad practice to use them, per WP:CODENAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment At a quick glance I am not seeing consensus for the change. However, why not added "Gaza War 2023-2024" as a secondary name like how the Iraq War also has the "Second Gulf War"? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: I support moving the title to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" (first preference) and if not, "Israel-Gaza war". There are several armed factions in Gaza fighting the Israeli occupation forces. Current title is biased as well as inaccurate. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly, Hamas isn't the only group involved in this war, and in fact this is the common name for many conflicts. We already have similar names for the 2008 gaza war, 2014 gaza war, and the 2012 war. This is my own opinion RossoSPC (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge in Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip This article is a Frankenstein of «Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip» and «Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war» (which itself should be called «Spillover of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip»).
Something that infuriates me about this article is that it treats Israel as if it was a battlefield in a state comparable to Gaza's, when that is far from the case. Life standards in Israel are pretty much unscathed; contrast that with the systemic destruction of Gazan society, and you will see why I have such strong feeling about this narrative given by the article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree it's a problem that it makes it seem as though both Israel and Hamas are equally at war with one another. There's a reason why Russian invasion of Ukraine is called Russian invasion of Ukraine, not the Russia-Ukraine War. And even then, Ukraine actually is fighting back on Russian soil, but it's still obvious that one side is invading the other. The same is obviously true here. This is another reason why I rank "Gaza War" above "Israel-Gaza" war, but I like your suggestion to emphasize the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as the main page about the subject.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    Russo-Ukrainian War is a separate article that deals with events beyond the act of invasion. JasonMacker (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    The Russo-Ukrainian War comprises three primary conflicts: the annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and the 2022 escalation; while the so-called «Israel–Hamas war» comprises one primary conflict: the invasion of Gaza.
    So, while having an article on the Russo-Ukrainian War is not redundant to having one on the 2022-present invasion specifically, having one in an «Israel–Hamas war» is redundant to having one on the invasion of Gaza. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    It is not redundant in the case of this war though. You want the war in Ukraine as an example? Okay. Say, in an alternate version of history, after the Revolution of Dignity, in a fit of frenzied nationalism, Ukraine attacked Kursk, Belgorod, and Rostov, massacring thousands of Russian civilians and taking hundreds hostage. The Russians then easily pushed the Ukrainians back, and invaded. That would add a fourth phase to the war: the initial Ukrainian attack, i.e. October 7.
    The October 7 attacks are an integral part of this war, which comprises two primary phases, not one. By your logic, this war began on October 27, when Israel unilaterally invaded Gaza. That isn't true. This war has two parts on the Gaza front: the October 7 attacks and the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. They are both separate stages of the same confict. 🐔 Chicdat   10:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    And both yet another phase of the IP conflict in general, the point is that this war did not "start" on October 7 or 27 (of 2023), the Gaza Wars have been going on for a while now, same enemies, Hamas and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    The October 7 attacks are more comparable to 9/11 and its relationship to the war in Afghanistan. 9/11 isn't considered a part of the war, instead, it is usually described as the final straw in a longstanding conflict waiting to happen.
    So, the October 7 attacks, although being what caused the invasion of Gaza, isn't really a part of the war itself, in the same way 9/11 isn't a part of the war in Afghanistan. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    No, the October 7 attacks were clearly part of the war. Hamas invaded Israel and attempted to capture three considerably-sized cities; no such thing happened in 9/11. In no way is that anything but a war. 🐔 Chicdat   10:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and Coffeeandcrumbs. मल्ल (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza War as a first preference as "the war in Gaza" is what I most commonly hear this war described as, both from the media and from politicians, and it avoids the above bickering over whether to call it the Israel-Hamas war or the Israel-Gaza war. Very easy to argue it's the common name. I also still support the proposed title (Israel-Gaza war), as it makes more sense for both halves of the title to be polities/locations, but I suspect that proposal is less likely to get a consensus. I will be pasting this !vote in both subsections because Makeandtoss requested "Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well?"  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am unconvinced that the current title is no longer the common name per many prior arguments. However, even were that to be the case, it would establish that there's no longer consensus for WP:COMMONNAME (it certainly has not established that the proposed title has consensus). If that is the case, "non-neutral but common names" under WP:NPOVNAME would be impossible (no accepted common name, neutral or otherwise) and thus WP:NDESC would take over: the Israeli declaration of war specifies Hamas as the target of the war - one of the few explicit declarations of war since 1945 and thus easier than most conflicts to objectively describe. The current title is accurately descriptive of that. That there are other groups involved (whose level of involvement is certainly different) does not change the fact that it is a declared war by Israel against Hamas specifically, and changing its description on the basis of whether one thinks the involvement of other parties is significant enough is ultimately a subjective judgment call, not a basis for a title. (Edit to add: this also provides a very convenient example of natural disambiguation in consideration of WP:NATDIS, in the way that iterations and variations of "Gaza war" do not.) Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    How is the Israeli declaration of war in any way NPOV? It’s the definition of POV Kowal2701 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    +1 – the logic that "one side asserted a POV, so we should adopt that POV" is a prototypical NPOV violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    My argument isn't underpinned by anything Israel puts out being neutral, and I certainly don't see it as neutral. (Though as a point of order: you did read WP:NPOVNAME, right? That in the absence of a neutral common name, a non-neutral common name can be used? Neutrality isn't the highest-order priority of Misplaced Pages titles.) The article describes a war, an official state of armed conflict, traditionally established by a formal declaration of war, and more commonly nowadays by a statement referring to "a state of war existing". As it so happens, this one is one of the rare few to have a formal declaration to define the state of war. Other conflicts which do not have official states of war, and do not have concrete statements to refer back to, are titled as conflicts, not wars, (e.g. Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)) unless WP:COMMON overrides that (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War which until very recently had neither declaration nor "existence of a state etc."). This is a factual statement of who the official state of war is between; should other belligerents (such as Hamas or Hezbollah) issue similar statements, then by nature the Israeli declaration no longer adequately describes the official state of war. But until that happens (if it happens), Israel and Hamas remain the only parties you can point at and confidently say there is a formal state of war between. I don't rate the Israeli declaration for supposed "neutrality", I rate it for being descriptive of a legal and political interaction between two entities. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Benjitheijneb. The current title describes the conflict in the best way. "Gaza war" and all of it's alternates do not. Swordman97 20:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per Longhornsg . Additionally, in the month since these arguments were set down, this editor observes that the same mainstream media outlets (i.e., TNYT etc) continue to employ "Israel-Hamas War". "Israel–Hamas War is the most accurate description, is the most commonly used name. " Additionally, "Gaza War" is ambiguous, not commonly in use, and does not describe the war as well. Drsruli (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support; as per the rationales listed above. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and WP:CONSISTENT. Avoids any POV considerations. Havradim leaf a message 14:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per above. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 02:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) per OP's sources. The only flaw in either of these names is that they are, if anything, too limited - Israel has been attacking the West Bank, and ramped up attacks on Lebanon and Yemen since the last time I participated in this discussion. However, either Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) are at least far more accurate than Israel-Hamas War, an increasingly confusing name which doesn't even cover all of the parties involved in Gaza itself. Albert Mond (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support any title with the word Gaza in it (Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) or even Gaza war etc), per many RS presented above.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Why hasn't this been closed yet? Can someone make a request at WP:CR? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Move to Middle East war (2023–present). Now that Israel has launched a ground invasion of Lebanon, the scope of the war is broad enough that I think it needs a more general title. The Houthis in Yemen had already been involved but now the scope of the war is broader. Chessrat 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on Google Trends data which suggests the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. Awesome Aasim 17:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Here's the trends data for the last 8 months. Gaza war is almost always more frequently searched for instead of Israel-Hamas, and also has spikes when particularly gruesome atrocities are committed by Israel. It's almost as if the world doesn't think that all of Gaza is Hamas. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Can we take a look at the full picture? The only spikes I see are those related to past conflicts. Only since the beginning of this year has the title "Gaza war" actually overtook "Israel-Hamas war". Also "Gaza war" is too vague as there are many wars in Gaza, the last one being 2014 it seems. Awesome Aasim 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    This war is the WP:PT above the other Gaza wars, having lasted ten times longer and caused at least fifteen times more deaths than all other wars in Gaza combined - so your vagueness argument is moot. I do agree with your point about the views, though, it is intriguing how new the spike for Gaza war is. 🐔 Chicdat   18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Please don't make things up without evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Note: I moved my comment and the thread attached to it to the correct section. Awesome Aasim 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Common ground

Do supporters of the Israel-Gaza war support the Gaza war (with or without dates); and vice versa? Also do opposers of the Israel-Gaza war title support Gaza war (with or without dates)? I think answering these two questions will help reach better consensus for one of the three proposed options. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

From skimming through the Oppose !votes, most of the arguments are based on the fact that the war is against Hamas and not a war against Gaza. Which while I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars, given Hamas governs Gaza; Longhornsg raises a very valid point, somewhat unintentionally here. Both "Israel–Hamas war" and "Israel–Gaza war" are arguably POV-framing titles, an argument being reiterated as an oppose vote ironically. The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs. Without getting into semantics of where Gaza starts and Hamas ends, there is seemingly no moving forward between that current stale mate.
The only hope is that the current Oppose !votes are more accepting over a title that describes a war in Gaza, as opposed to against Gaza. The fact that arguments against moving to a POV title in order to remain at a POV title would ideally be acknowledged by all here at a minimum. Likewise with supporting one POV title over another. We are clearly never going to find common ground in this matter otherwise.
The only realistic issue with the title "Gaza War" would be based on October 7 context, which could simply be moved to part of the Background section, given everything after this has been based in Gaza, not elsewhere. I'm also excluding "Other confrontations" from this, as per description of the section itself, these confrontations are disconnected (geographically at least) from the war in the Gaza strip, and only included in the article for context. Apologies for the long-winded reply, but based on the opening question, I think some further analysis was very much due here.
CNC (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor: "The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs." The war is actually not against Hamas, but against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and etc; all of which are based in Gaza. So I do not think there is a POV here. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I actually agree with this and argued it before, hence my point prior to this "I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars", but the CN counter-argument is that it doesn't matter as Hamas is considered the primary target. There are two POV-based CNs by default, as they are literally opposing viewpoints – whether intentional or not, or whether one is more accurate than the other or not – which is why I believe Gaza war is the only correct NPOV title here. You only need to skim through the RM to see that this is the issue imo: supporters believe the proposed title is the accurate CN, Opposers believe the current title is the accurate CN. CNC (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Mast303 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I think you !voted twice? Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
This one is under the Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Common ground subsection where folks supporting the move in the main section clarify if they also support a move to Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Silly me, apologies. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Israel-Gaza war with dates would be even better ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ 15:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

'October 17' section

Since this material has been challenged: How does anyone else feel about the reliability of this article from ArtNet. Personally, I think that an "online resource for the international art market, and the destination to buy, sell, and research art online" isn't a great source for news or analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Besides, the investigation it's being cited to describe is already covered by The New Yorker.

Also, I don't think we should copy wholesale information from the article on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. That article is better suited for detailed coverage of this event; this article should mention it in summary in the context of the broader war. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Keeping the New Yorker source and leaving out the ArtNet is fine, but what is your argument for removing Forensic Architecture's February investigation? In your removal summary, you said it was a "primary source", and can't be used as RS without a secondary back-up. So I added the NY piece as a secondary back up of it, and you still removed the FA investigation summary from the page.
Not only is it directly referenced by the NY piece, but the FA investigation itself is a RS secondary source, not a primary source, per WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.
Also, it's fine to leave out direct needlessly excessive information from the main al-Ahli page, but you removed a paragraph that contains important relevant NPOV information backed by RS that, combined with the FA paragraph, has the same length as the other side of the argument, and you have presented no reason for why that should not be included here.
It should be, and I will re-add a shortened version of it, with altered language, to again ensure NPOV and match both perspectives from the main al-Ahli page. If you disagree regarding its inclusion, seek consensus before removing it, and the same goes for the FA source. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
You are leaving only material that supports one contested view and completely expunging the other investigations that challenge that view. That is a straightforward NPOV violation. FA is also a secondary source, not a primary one, and their findings have been covered widely in other reliable sources. nableezy - 16:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Surprise surprise, an editor with no involvement in the talk page is tag teaming with a 1RR violation to push a disputed pov as though it were uncontested. I’m flabbergasted. nableezy - 17:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
To resolve the issue:
I do think @PhotogenicScientist is right that neither side should be over-represented, but both should be included to represent both sides of the topic, ensuring NPOV.
So I suggest adding just the following condensed paragraph:
Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims of a misfired Hamas rocket being responsible for the blast.The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture on October 20 disputing Israel's account that the blast was caused by a rocket from Gaza, concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel. In its February 2024 investigation, Forensic Architecture concluded that the IDF’s claim that it was a Palestinian rocket that struck al-Ahli hospital was false, and had been erroneously repeated by news outlets, adding that while what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign in its aftermath and that it "has yet to provide any conclusive visual evidence to support the claim that the source of the deadly blast at al-Ahli hospital was a Hamas or PIJ rocket."
Hopefully this resolves the issue. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey, new secondary sources to look at. Neat.
  • BBC: Cites FA for the claim that the blast came from an artillery shell, not a rocket. Article corrected in January to reflect that FA retracted this claim, and said the projectile was probably a rocket.
  • NYT: I found no mention of FA in the cited source; furthermore, I couldn't find any relevant mention of FA from NYT in the past 2 years.
  • Bloomberg: Only a brief mention of the FA report as a counterweight to claims of rocket from Gaza. No significant coverage, and no dedicated reporting on the findings.
  • El Pais: Finally, a weighty mention of the FA report. Though, this publication clearly doesn't have the weight of reputation as the other 3 sources for English reporting. May or may not be worth including. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not one considers the FA analysis a primary source seems like an open question to me at the moment. If FA is considered WP:SCHOLARSHIP as an organization, publications making novel assertions based on observations (i.e. research papers) are considered primary sources; publications that review other publications and draw conclusions (i.e review/overview papers) are considered secondary sources. And if it's considered a WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." But, their publication does seem to meet the hallmarks described in WP:SECONDARY.
I've seen firsthand evaluations and investigations of events get removed by others citing WP:PRIMARY all over the topic areas of AP2 and PIA - but I'm no longer quite so confident that doing so is correct...
In any case, this source can stand next the the New Yorker one. I'd put it in myself, but it seems my citation to the New Yorker was already nuked by SPECIFICO, and it seems I've used my one revert for the day... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not an open question, and FA was found to be worth citing at the child article in an RFC. Only presenting one side of a contested viewpoint when the other side is a widely covered significant view is a NPOV violation. nableezy - 00:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
their findings have been covered widely in other reliable sources This was not the case in the article when I removed them initially. And I'm open to restoring the citation after double-checking the New Yorker article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
You again, as with the New Yorker source, failed to properly read the NYT source. It says explicitly: Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel. You just need an account to read the full live updates. It is also mentioned again here.
The BBC source does have a correction on the FA reference, but the correction matches exactly what I wrote, namely that it was a rocket (instead of artillery shell), and the direction it came from: On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.
So yes, it should be included, as it matches exactly what is said in the text, only the specific date of October 20 in my suggested text should be removed as it references multiple FA analyses.
For Bloomberg you again made up an entirely arbitrary standard of "it has to be a weighty reference with dedicated coverage". That's not Wiki standard for a RS that matches the description of the text. Bloomberg referenced it, and that is matched exactly by the source. Whether you think it was sufficiently referenced and analyzed is wholly irrelevant.
Channel 4 and El Pais are both RS. Your subjective interpretations of the latter's "weight of interpretation" is again wholly irrelevant. Both should be included.
FA is definitionally a secondary source per WP:SECONDARY, and it is in any case backed up by multiple other RS secondary sources.
So I suggest the text will be as follows then, with the associated sources:
Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims of a misfired Hamas rocket being responsible for the blast.The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País referenced Forensic Architecture disputing Israel's account that the blast was caused by a rocket from Gaza, concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel. In its February 2024 investigation, Forensic Architecture concluded that the IDF’s claim that it was a Palestinian rocket that struck al-Ahli hospital was false, and had been erroneously repeated by news outlets, adding that while what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign in its aftermath and that it "has yet to provide any conclusive visual evidence to support the claim that the source of the deadly blast at al-Ahli hospital was a Hamas or PIJ rocket."
Will that be fine with you, or is there any specific thing you insist on having altered that violates Wiki rules?
Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
NYT: failed to properly read and "not having subscription access" are two rather different things, I think. Material behind a paywall cannot be verified easily. You're right that the source isn't disqualified based on this - but I and many others will not be able to verify the citation.
BBC: Personally, I still find this an inappropriate citation for the sentence as proposed. At time of publishing, the BBC accepted the FA report as a source for the information "the blast was more likely from an artillery shell than a rocket." The only mentions BBC makes of the strike "likely being from a rocket, in a direction other than that specified by the IDF" is in the correction notes, where they note FA's new position. When your only citation is to a correction/retraction note, that's pretty thin sauce.
Bloomberg: I could've sworn there was a policy somewhere about not taking a small snippet out of a large article as proof of a claim... and I believe I was thinking of WP:SIGCOV which mentions not using citations for "trivial mentions." But that's in regards to notability, and a test for whether a topic deserves its own article, and so isn't so applicable here. Bloomberg is a fine citation.
And El Pais remains a weak, if acceptable, RS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
NYT is notoriously difficult to access if you don't have an account. Archives don't always work. Btw, you were wrong in your assertion that NYT hasn't mentioned FA in years. The correct Google search shows this is not true.
I think your interpretation of the BBC article is wrong. The proposed sentence reads: The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture on October 20 disputing Israel's account that the blast was caused by a rocket from Gaza, concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel (strike added by me, I think we can leave that out). It just says that a) there was no conclusive proof the blast was caused by a rocket and b) it came from Israel (as far as I'm aware, "missile" is pretty vague/neutral, but we could also use something like "source of the blast" or similar). BBC only cited the report, it didn't accept it as indisputable truth. This is just a standard secondary source. Regarding The only mentions BBC makes of the strike "likely being from a rocket, in a direction other than that specified by the IDF" is in the correction notes we're not using BBC or FA to assert the projectile definitely was, or wasn't, a rocket so that's irrelevant. The direction is mentioned in the article. The correction as reported by the BBC also seems wrong. FA never said that what caused the explosion was "probably a rocket"; they issued a correction regarding a picture of an impact in Ukraine saying that the image was most likely showing an impact from a rocket, instead of an artillery shell like they had previously suggested. They still maintained at that point in time, and reinforced it in their February report, both that the source of the hospital explosion was uncertain and that the direction showed it came from Israel. Which is what the proposed paragraph says. So, in short, I don't think the BBC article is being misrepresented.
I have no comments regarding Blomberg and El País - both are RS. - Ïvana (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ïvana Regarding NYT, this is why I said any relevant mention - they've not cited FA in any published articles on this conflict. I was trying to find a more concrete citation for this claim than an archive link (which, by the way, I still have not been able to verify - the archive links to their live blog are a mess of html, and any mention of FA is not easily findable).
Regarding the BBC, I see they do attribute the whole claim to FA in the initial publication, including the direction from where the strike came.
Also, how can you justify this sentence by saying a) there was no conclusive proof the blast was caused by a rocket when the sentence as proposed says concluding instead that it was the result of a missile...? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The search I shared showed how FA were mentioned a couple of times since the war started (they were also mentioned before that); and like you said, NYT live blogs are a mess and archives are usually not good, so they were probably referenced more times than that. I don't have a paid subscription so I wouldn't know. It is also not a requirement for NYT to do that, they just need to report on what FA said regarding this specific event, which is exactly what they did and why we use them.
I don't see the contradiction in the two highlighted sentences. there was no conclusive proof the blast was caused by a rocket talks about the source of the blast while concluding instead that it was the result of a missile fired from the direction of Israel (full sentence) addresses the direction from which the source of the blast originated. The term missile should be neutral (I'm not an expert) but if it causes confusion it could be revised. - Ïvana (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
And yet, it still says concluding instead that it was the result of a missile. The two options here being artillery shell (asserted exclusively by FA to come from Israel) or rocket/missile. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I have said multiple times (this one is the third and hopefully the last) that we don't need to use the term "missile". NYT says Forensic Architecture disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel.. According to Google artillery shells, rockets, and missiles are all types of projectiles, differing mainly in their propulsion and guidance systems. Rocket and missile are not synonymous but they do share some characteristics, same with artillery shell. And that discussion is irrelevant. The focus should be that FA does not know the cause of the explosion but was able to identify its origin. That's what we need to report. I already made a suggestion on how to word that sentence ("source of the blast" instead of missile, we could also use projectile or munition like NYT). If you don't like any of these you can go ahead and propose something else. - Ïvana (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
A missile is an airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight aided usually by a propellant, jet engine or rocket motor... Historically, 'missile' referred to any projectile that is thrown, shot or propelled towards a target... Today, there is little if any practical difference between what is called a missile or a rocket. Also, per the BBC, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and said they had been wrong to say the projectile was an artillery shell, instead conceding it was probably a rocket. So, yes, FA does believe the cause of the explosion was a rocket.
"Projectile" would be woefully vague, considering FA's initial assertion as to the type of projectile (artillery shell) was incorrect, and it now seems everyone agrees on the more specific term "rocket" or "missile." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I already explained almost a week ago why the BBC's framing seems off so I'm not gonna repeat myself. The latest FA report from February concludes that a) they don't know what caused the explosion and b) the source came from Israel. I'm not sure why you're focusing on whether something is or isn't a missile when we don't have to use that term. Raskolnikov.Rev likely suggested it because they thought it was neutral. For the average person these terms don't carry much meaning. NYT uses "munition" so we could consider that as well. It would be helpful if you could suggest an alternative term instead of focusing on why "missile" is inappropriate, especially since I'm not insisting on its use. - Ïvana (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Look, either BBC is a reliable source for comment on this event, or they aren't. If we don't think they're giving an accurate summation of FA's report, then they're not a good citation to use.
And I've articulated other concerns about this proposed paragraph elsewhere in this section, if you're interested in pursuing further changes. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The latest FA report concludes that a) they don't know what caused the explosion and b) the source came from Israel. Which is what should be reflected in the article. You've been arguing about what is or isn't a missile for days when I frankly don't care. We can use another word. The conclusions of the FA report remain the same. - Ïvana (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like you think we shouldn't cite the BBC, then. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Not sure where you got that from. Seems like you are hell-bent on derailing the conversation and at this point I don't feel like entertaining that anymore. If you have a problem with the term being used, propose something else. The conclusions of the report haven't changed for the past week since we started discussing this. - Ïvana (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
PhotogenicScientist, since you are the one who challenged and removed the initial addition, leading to the current compromise per my prior reply that you agree with and has consensus, can you add it to the page?
That would be appreciated. We can also avoid any further 1RR violation issues as the matter has been resolved. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
current compromise per my prior reply that you agree with and has consensus is a strange thing to say, considering I've so far only opined on the quality of the 4 citations to the 2nd sentence in the proposed paragraph.
The Channel 4 mention is a fine start - but I have some concerns of WP:DUE by putting this citation up against the likes of CNN, The Guardian, and Al Jazeera reporting findings from intelligence officials from the US, UK, Canada, and France. A single sentence mention seems fine for now.
The rest of the paragraph is unnecessary. Forensic Architecture is entitled to their conclusion, and when reliably sourced we can include it. But we shouldn't give them coverage on the order of 3-4 sentences when we have the findings of the 4 government agencies I mentioned above condensed into 1 sentence. That's pretty obviously unbalanced. And any more detail in this article isn't needed, since we have the dedicated article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The section as it stands now is not neutral. It is leaning heavily on one side by mentioning in detail multiple reports and sources of the controversy at some length. The other side is left to one sentence and source despite the availability of multiple very credible reliable sources. And citing the findings of intelligence officials from countries aligned with one side of the conflict as having greater weight is dubious. Stacking references to them is the same that was done with Forensic Architecture's analyses that you objected to.
The other side of the controversy should  be represented in summary to the same extent to ensure neutrality. The paragraph proposed by @Raskolnikov.Rev accomplishes this. Tashmetu (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE, as ever, is relevant. Governmental intelligence agencies have more weight than independent, largely-unknown investigative bodies like Forensic Architecture. Al Jazeera is a more reputable source of news than Channel 4. We represent all sources in WP:DUE proportion to their prominence. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
FA is not in any way "largely-unknown". nableezy - 18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
In your opinion, perhaps. I had never heard of them before this report. The point remains that they are in all likelihood less-reputable than any of the governmental intelligence agencies cited here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
That you have not heard of them does not mean they are either unknown or "in all likelihood less-reputable than any of the governmental intelligence agencies". Quoting myself from a prior discussion, Their report on Israeli usage of white phosphorous, commissioned by Yesh Gvul, was cited by Human Rights Watch. Architect Magazine reported on their presenting findings related to that report to a UN panel in 2012. They reported with Amnesty International on Israeli attacks on Rafah in 2014. They have expertise not just in the wider field, but in reporting on Gaza and Israel. They are absolutely not unknown, and they absolutely are reputable. That may be an opinion, but it isnt mine, it is the view of things like the Peabody Awards. nableezy - 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't question their status as a reliable source, nor did I say they were not reputable. But you can't seriously disagree that they have less reputation than the United States Department of Defense, which has existed in some form since 1789 as is arguably the foremost intelligence agency on the planet, or other national intelligence agencies.
That comparison being why I brought WP:FALSEBALANCE to begin with.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely I can, Israel’s foremost ally and backer claiming something isn’t anywhere near as reputable as an actual third party uninvolved source. nableezy - 21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Alas, perceived bias from a source doesn't detract from their reputability; and sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Unless you'd go so far as to assert that the US DoD categorically publishes falsehoods about the Israel-Palestine conflict, in a way that damages their credibility on the subject matter. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
No, a political establishment is not a reliable source for facts, they are only reliable for their own views. What they release for public consumption is not anything other than what the US Department of Defense says at that time. It is absolutely wild to me that anybody would claim that an encyclopedia would take a government's view as anything other than that government's view. nableezy - 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The US Department of Defense gives unlimited resources to Israel and consistently refrains from holding them accountable for civilian casualties, including those involving American citizens, stating that they will allow Israel to investigate itself. Their stance should be reflected but it is a political one rather than an objective assessment. An uninvolved third party does carry more credibility. - Ïvana (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
a political establishment is not a reliable source for facts That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with there. Does it mean the CDC can't be trusted to report on the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption? Since governmental = unreliable?
they are only reliable for their own views As is FA reliable for their own. And The New Yorker is reliable enough to cite FA on their views. But these views must all be balanced and presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in sources." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The CDC is a scientific organization, not a political one. A nation's miltary's propaganda produced for public consumption is not that. I dont really find this discussion to have much of a point, but FA is an independent reliable source and it is widely cited and such it should be included here. nableezy - 15:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
To say that the CDC is purely about science and insulated from politics despite being a government-led entity, but that the DoD is subject to politics and can't be trusted for intelligence because they're a government-led entity is a heck of a double standard. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
If you’d like to peruse the various RSN threads on government sources feel free. You will find that they are consistently treated as reliable only for their opinions not statements of fact. nableezy - 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Made the changes as per the consensus.
@PhotogenicScientist, it has been a wild ride going through the conversation chain. Here's a summary of your actions so we're on the same page:
  1. You argued that Forensic Architecture is a primary source and, despite the content also being covered by reliable secondary sources, removed the content unilaterally
  2. You did not read the sources cited and claimed the sources said the opposite of what they actually said. You did this on multiple occasions and despite multiple corrections by other editors.
  3. Conjured up rules about weight of reference that do not exist (maybe you meant WP:DUE but that policy sure as hell isn't what you were trying to make it say)
  4. Appointed yourself a gatekeeper despite an RS paywalled source backing up the content, violating WP:PAYWALL. You said I and many others will not be able to verify the citation.
  5. Went on a nitpicky tangent about rocket/missle/artillery shell
  6. Argued (incorrectly) that Forensic Architecture is largely unknown even though that is not relevant given appropriate coverage in secondary sources + FA being an RS secondary source itself
  7. Incorrectly cited WP:FALSEBALANCE (I guess this can't be helped if you can't do the bare amount of research to understand why Forensic Architecture is not fringe)
  8. Suggested actively violating WP:DUE by ranking governmental intelligence agencies (best known for being the perpetrators of disinformation campaigns) ahead of RS news outlets and investigative journalists
I'm really glad I came across this thread, since it gave me a great opportunity to practice my WP:GOODFAITH skills. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me as UNDUE and RECENTISM to go into greater detail and conclusion about the scores of horrors on the top level page about a war. What's D7E for journalism and periodicals, especially with incomplete facts, is not necessarily NPOV for an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be an argument for removing the topic entirely, not for presenting only one of two significant views. nableezy - 02:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The adjusted condensed paragraph I suggested as a compromise does not "go into greater detail", it succinctly summarizes the other side of the case in the same amount as the paragraph that was already on the page by itself, in violation of NPOV as it did not contain this side. The main page does. Also, the editor who made the original revert agrees with the inclusion of that, though there is still some disagreement on one particular reference.
So it does not violate UNDUE at all, and RECENTISM is clearly also not violated as the page is filled with recent updates much less significant than this topic which as the RS show received substantive and extensive coverage. At best your argument is one for removing all reference to the event entirely, which makes no sense in a section devoted specifically to a chronological overview of significant events as determined by RS coverage. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Recentism is not cured by addition of more recentism. This is a widespread problem on Misplaced Pages. Have a look, e.g. at Taylor Swift. SPECIFICO talk 10:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The al-Ahli bombing clearly does not meet Misplaced Pages:Recentism, it has its own page devoted to it with substantive and extensive RS coverage spanning many months. And if it did meet that standard, that entire section has to be removed, not only the added RS NPOV part. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that you're flailing because you helped a 1RR violator restore their reverts for whatever bizarre reason and are now grasping at straws to justify it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
No, UNDUE is cured by reducing the WEIGHT, not necessarily eliminating mention of a notable event. SPECIFICO talk 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem with this content. The Forensic Architecture analysis now has the same weight as all other investigations mentioned in the previous paragraph (Human Rights Watch, CNN, multiple intelligence services). This clearly violates WP:DUE. Alaexis¿question? 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis I agreed with your assessment of the section at the time of the diff; now we have users @Ïvana and @Raskolnikov.Rev even further down-weighting the upper section, about assessments that conclude the missile is Palestinian in origin . I find this especially surprising, considering the article on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion more evenly summarizes the event, noting that on the side of "errant rocket from Gaza" we have the likes of Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and Human Rights Watch, and the intelligence agencies of United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada; and on the side of "possibly not from Gaza/from Israel" we have Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Channel 4 News, and Forensic Architecture.
The weight of sources analyzing this event is staggeringly on the side of "rocket from Gaza", yet the current version of this article doesn't reflect that in the slightest. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Nice try pretending it's just two editors who disagreed with you and agreed with the current consensus, when it's actually the majority of editors and you are on the minority side that lost because you bizarrely believe that Intel agencies from the West are inherently unbiased and more trustworthy, and highly reputable and credible sources like Forensic Architecture are meaningless and should not even be mentioned.
Consensus has been established as of now that both sides have to be equally represented in this section because both have highly credible RS on their side. If you add more references to pad your side that lost consensus, by detailing the entire names of the intel and defense agencies and adding references to other media outlets, you're trying to revert the paragraph to where it was before consensus was established to ensure NPOV.
That is a violation of consensus, and you have to stop doing it. You already violated 1RR once over this section, and you keep pushing it over and over again. I now agree with nabeelzy that you should be brought to arbitration for your 1RR violation because it is getting absurd now.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Please stop removing references. I agree with @Raskolnikov.Rev, @Ïvana, @Nableezy, @CoolAndUniqueUsername and others. @Alaexis and @PhotogenicScientist if you disagree with the existing consensus, rather than unilaterally removing agreed-upon content from articles, please follow WP:CCC and seek a new consensus.
That said, "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive," and since Forensic Architecture is a RS, including their conclusions is essential for maintaining NPOV, especially given what you say about there being a lack of consensus in other RS. We have overwhelming agreement on FA's use here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree that disruptive edits on this section by those who lost consensus has to stop. If you want to make a contentious edit going against established consensus, you need to discuss it in talk first and gain consensus for it.
Having said that, I looked at the edit by @Alaexis and they make a good point that it unnecessarily repeated the FA investigation twice, so I merged them and it's fine now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
If you're going to enter a discussion a month late, please check up on what's going on currently. It's as easy as reading my comment after the outdent - I'm not removing any references, just objecting to the removal of wikilinks and further down-weighting of reliable sources opposed to the POV being promoted. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I was referencing Alaexis' edit, please read more carefully. :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Terribly sorry, I must've been confused by your @me ping. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Stop maliciously re-litigating this section @PhotogenicScientist. You again re-added more padded sources after consensus was already established that we wouldn't cite separately all the RS that cited the FA and instead put them in the footnotes. We're not going to do the entire El Pais, NYT, BBC discussion again because you keep insisting on violating consensus.
Stop making malicious edits without consensus in talk. This is now the third time you have been warned to stop doing this. You will be brought to an arbitration case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
What's the substantive issue with closely mirroring the lead of the article on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, in talking about why the sources of the blast is contested?
And the difference between citing (El Pais/NYT/BBC/Bloomberg) for the FA investigation, and citing Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal is that all these RS conducted their own independent investigations, all of which are linked to in the Intelligencer article. The FA investigation is 1 source that those 4 sources reference; the other sources amount to 5 investigations. Should we not WP:BALANCE the weight of reliable sourcing? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We are not going to relitigate a discussion on which there is already consensus. If you insist on adding the other sources to pad it with the excuse that it's in the lede of the other article (which incidentally does not reference the intel and defense agencies by name, so by that logic your previous desperate attempt at padding it by adding those was unwarranted), then per established consensus that you lost because no one bought your increasingly absurd arguments that FA is a primary source, not reliable, and BBC, El Pais, Bloomberg and others citing them is actually irrelevant, those references will have to be re-added to the page. And they will be.
I know you think you're being very clever by desperately trying to find ways to pad the side you believe is superior to the other to violate NPOV, but that's not going to happen. You lost consensus, and that will be reflected on the page.
I will also proceed with my arbitration case against you for violating 1RR and malicious editing in violation of consensus and NPOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
There has been no discussion here, and thus no consensus, on the inclusion of the Intelligencer article, and the investigations it references. There was also no consensus per discussion to down-weight the upper section of this paragraph. If you don't want to discuss these things, nobody is going to force you to participate. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We have consensus established on the inclusion of the Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, which was decided to be put in the footnote instead to avoid NPOV issues on the other side. However, that consensus will be implemented now that you decided to pad a side of the controversy that you believe is inherently superior because Western intel and defense agencies can never be wrong and are inherently superior in whatever they claim.
If you want to challenge its inclusion again after a long discussion in which you failed to obtain consensus on it with increasingly absurd argumentation, be my guest, though I will add to my arbitration case against you, per "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive" as mentioned by @Smallangryplanet. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We have consensus established on the inclusion of the Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, which was decided to be put in the footnote instead to avoid NPOV issues on the other side. You're right, we've got some rough consensus here on that. Which is why I am not challenging its inclusion, despite your assertion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm ok with PhotogenicScientist's latest addition. Paraphrasing the lead of the main page also resolves the issue of how to include the intelligence agencies, since the lead is also using a condensed version instead of spelling everything out (btw, I might be nitpicking, but both the lead and the source use UK instead of British, so I'll update the mention here to match that). I think the only thing left to do is to re-add the outlets that Raskolnikov.Rev mentioned since we already had established consensus for that.
This was a long discussion and I think everyone made concessions along the way, so the end result should be satisfactory for all involved. I think we can consider this resolved. - Ïvana (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks good. Thanks @PhotogenicScientist and everyone else! Alaexis¿question? 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ïvana I appreciate the support for the compromise. The section as it now looks is certainly better than it's looked in a while.
My only remaining comment is that I think the presentation of material sourced to FA was better in this revision of the article. The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País aren't biased sources as far as I'm concerned, so attributing our article text to them inline seems unnecessary; typically, we'll just write something closer to what's in this linked version of the article - that FA reports something, cited to those 4 RS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I want to establish for the record that @PhotogenicScientist said here that they would not remove this because they acknowledged it was established through consensus:
You're right, we've got some rough consensus here on that. Which is why I am not challenging its inclusion, despite your assertion.
And still they moved ahead with removing consensus content from the main page. This will be included in my report about their repeated pattern of disruptive behavior. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, come on.... references to these sources wasn't removed at all. In my edit, we still include Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, in a bundled citation which you yourself agreed to when you said we had decided to be put in the footnote instead. What is your deal with that now? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I want to also establish for the record that @PhotogenicScientist quotes people out of context to make it appear they said something they did not say to maliciously edit pages in violation of consensus and NPOV.
This is what I said, as everyone can read:
We have consensus established on the inclusion of the Bloomberg, El Pais, BBC, and other references to the FA analysis on the page, which was decided to be put in the footnote instead to avoid NPOV issues on the other side. However, that consensus will be implemented now that you decided to pad a side of the controversy that you believe is inherently superior because Western intel and defense agencies can never be wrong and are inherently superior in whatever they claim.
Incidentally, the same in-page references are on the main Al-Ahli page, long-established, which is where I originally got the text from to put in my draft proposal that also became consensus here.
They then agreed with this, and vowed not to remove in-page citations established through consensus: You're right, we've got some rough consensus here on that. Which is why I am not challenging its inclusion, despite your assertion.
And suddenly they have switched to "actually it's still on the page! It's just in the citation so technically still on the page!"
Again, all of this will be put in my report about their repeated pattern of disruptive editing in clear violation of Wiki rules. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The publications must not be recited in the article text. That would be OR. The sources need to be cited as inline references. We are not referencing a tertiary source that lists those other sources. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

No part of that is true. nableezy - 15:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with nableezy, I'm genuinely not seeing how naming the publications would be OR. We are mirroring the main article, which presents the sources in a similar way, so why wouldn't we do the same? Consensus was established for that approach and I see no reason to deviate from it. - Ïvana (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ïvana although the argument to OR is pretty thin... I mentioned above that this type of in-text attribution to reliable sources isn't usually done. The typical way to use a source for information is to summarize the information they report on, then add a citation to the source. In-text attribution to unbiased, reliable sources just isn't how we tend to write articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
For a related example, take the sentence "Several sources considered that an errant rocket from Gaza was the likeliest explanation a week after the incident based on the evidence gathered in investigations conducted by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal", cited to Intelligencer. This one article actually does mention each of those sources by name, and provides links to their reports in their article. As a way of summarizing Intelligencer's article, each source's investigation gets a mention.
Another way of doing it would be to have sentences for each source, summarizing their articles, citing their articles. Yet another way to do it would be to try and combine it into one sentence where each article is linked immediately after mentioning the news agency the report came from. But typically, and especially in contentious articles, we don't like to say things like "Several sources say..." or "Most sources say..." or "A minority of sources say..." in wikivoice; it's always best to find a secondary source that makes that sort of quantitative/qualitative claim themselves. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The attribution is taken from the main article, where it has been presented for nearly a year, reflecting a long-standing, established consensus. We are simply mirroring the main article. The importance of the attribution lies in the fact that, for highly contentious topics as this one, merely mentioning FA might give the impression that it lacks sufficient weight or qualifications. In past discussions, some users (and at this point I don't remember names so apologies if it sounds shady, not my intention) have claimed that FA is either a primary source, not relevant enough, failing NPOV, etc etc. These arguments are undermined when we highlight that multiple RS, some not included here like Al Jazeera, consider it credible enough for their articles. This eliminates any doubts about its inclusion. If we leave it as a standalone mention I know it will be removed, because it already happened before. Being quoted by reliable sources gives FA weight, and making that explicit removes future challenges to its validity. - Ïvana (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed on the second half of what you said - I myself removed FA when it was the only citation for their claim, but its mention in multiple RS makes it much less prone to questioning.
However, citations to these RS are sufficient. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF has been allowed in that article body for a while isn't a great reason to replicate that here. I think it was done wrongly over there, for the exact reason I've given here. In any case, the lead of that article doesn't make the same mistake, and the lead serves as a useful summary of article content. Which is exactly what we should be doing here, on the main page for the war at large. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree but at this point it is impossible to move forward without everyone making another compromise. We could remove the in-text attributions from the FA line, but I think the last sentence you added should be trimmed/improved. "Several sources" sounds vague, and we do not need to name every single publication, even if the cited source does. We can limit that to a couple. After all, what matters are the conclusions of the investigations, and that is already being mentioned. The resulting paragraph would look balanced, which was the main concern, while still keeping the same core material. So I propose something like this:
The cause of the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital is contested. In the days after the blast, US, Canadian, French and UK defense and intelligence services concluded it was caused by an errant Palestinian rocket. Investigations conducted one week after the incident by various media outlets, including the Associated Press and CNN, stated that, based on available evidence at the time, an errant rocket from Gaza was the likeliest explanation. In late November, an analysis by Human Rights Watch indicated the evidence pointed to a misfired Palestinian rocket as the cause, but stated that further investigation was required. Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims of a misfired Hamas rocket being responsible for the blast. Forensic Architecture's investigation disputed Israel's account, concluding instead that the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel. In April 2024 The New Yorker, citing investigations from Earshot and Forensic Architecture, highlighted doubts about a Palestinian rocket involvement and noted the IDF's role in fostering uncertainty through misinformation.
Thoughts? - Ïvana (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Was just in the middle of typing a reply when you added this...The discussion upthread got a little bit away from me so apologies if I'm off-base, but I'm not sure how this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, other than loosely because we're mirroring the main article - the important part is the reflecting a long-standing, established consensus bit. It's not just that FA is used there, full stop, it's that there is an established consensus that it ought to be...one that is implicitly shared by all the RS that also cite FA. I think @Ïvana's suggestion here works, and could help prevent us from circling around this argument forever and am in favour of it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
No, we can't just say it's contested. It is not widely contested. In WP terms, it's FRINGE. We also cannot say multiple sources covered FA unless we can cite a tertiary source that stated it. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, no part of that is true. nableezy - 18:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Your argument effectively renders a prohibition on in-text attribution which is, in fact, often mandatory. You do not require a tertiary source to provide in-text attribution when citing a secondary source or sources directly. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Disagree with the proposed compromise. We have established consensus for the inclusion of the citations both on the main page as well as here. Either the entire in-page reference to the various media outlets is removed and moved to the footnote for both sides, or both stay. That's the only way to ensure NPOV, again per established consensus.
I should add that there are more RS casting doubt on the Israeli account on the main page that are not cited here but very well could be if the other side decided to pad it as well, like the investigation by Al Jazeera. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
@Smallangryplanet @Ïvana @Raskolnikov.Rev Long-standing, established consesnsus would be great to mirror here - except the post being quoted refers to a single sentence in the body of an article on a previously-current event that only saw a meaningful level of editing for ~2 weeks. But lo and behold - there's already been a discussion about how that source should be presented in the lead. @XDanielx noted there exactly what I did here - that in-text attribution of unbiased sources is incredibly atypical. And the result of that discussion was that the lead does not attribute simple mentions of the FA report in-text, instead leaving them as citations.
The lead of this article provides a useful summary of the event, which is exactly what we should be doing here in this section in the article on the war. And we have prior consensus through discussion on how this FA report should be summarized. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@PhotogenicScientist The lead very literally does attribute the FA report in text: Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive". Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
And what the lead does not do is start that sentence off with "The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture...", which is exactly what is being discussed here - the in-text attribution of reporting to those 4 sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I just want to make it known for the record that @PhotogenicScientist does not care about what the lede on the main page says, as they went ahead with adding additions to the section here paddings the details of the intelligence agencies even though that is not on the other page's lede.
So this is merely a grasping at straws attempt to keep the padded references to the various media outlets that back what they believe to be the only legitimate side of the controversy because Western intelligence agencies are imbued with superior reliability and honesty to any other RS.
The facts are that categories here are not merely reflections of ledes from main pages, as we can see from the other categories that link to main pages and contain information not only from the ledes but also the bodies of those pages.
Moreover, as @PhotogenicScientist admitted, consensus has been established here regarding this particular section (more recent than the brief discussion on the other page) to include the RS references to the FA report in-line. However, I and others were willing to leave that out as a compromise, before they decided to violate established NPOV consensus by padding the other side of the controversy, first with the aforementioned intelligence agencies, and when that failed to gain any traction, with the media outlets.
And as pointed out by @Nableezy and others, the arguments brought forward for this have been absurd on their face. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Thomson, Alex (18 October 2023). "Who was behind the Gaza hospital blast – visual investigation". Channel 4. Archived from the original on 18 October 2023. Retrieved 18 October 2023. Israel claims the Islamic Jihad failed missile was fired from here, a cemetery very close to the hospital, but look again at the video of the event, the trajectory of the missile doesn't line up with that location... Confusingly the Israeli presentation also says the missile was fired from a location down on the southwest, it can't be both.
  2. "Hamas says it has released two American hostages being held in Gaza". Archived from the original on 20 October 2023. Retrieved 20 October 2023 – via YouTube.
  3. The New York Times (23 October 2023). "Israel War Live Updates: Hamas Releases 2 More Hostages as Gaza Death Toll Rises". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 23 October 2023.
  4. "Israel Latest: Gaza Air Strikes to Intensify Before 'Next Stage'". Bloomberg. Bloomberg. 21 October 2023. Archived from the original on 21 October 2023. Retrieved 23 October 2023.
  5. Gutiérrez, Óscar (24 October 2023). "A reconstruction of the Al Ahli hospital massacre in Gaza that set the Islamic world on fire". El País. Archived from the original on 24 October 2023.
  6. Horton, Jake; Cheetham, Joshua; Sardarizadeh, Shayan (26 October 2023). "Gaza hospital blast: What does new analysis tell us?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 26 October 2023.
  7. "Israeli disinformation: Al-Ahli Hospital". Forensic Architecture. 15 February 2024. Retrieved 12 April 2024.
  8. Félix, Doreen St (2024-07-15). "How Lawrence Abu Hamdan Hears the World". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 2024-09-11.

"It is the deadliest war for Palestinians in the history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."

Since the article makes clear that 10/7 is included, then also "It is the deadliest war for Israelis in the history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Drsruli (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That was one day; the article covers almost a year's worth of war. So it is misleading to call it the deadliest war for Israelis. GeoffreyA (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
That one day was still part of the war. And add a few hundred soldiers killed in the war since, larger than any other IDF operation in the Palestinian territories. RM (Be my friend) 00:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
On the latest addition to the lead: as I said before, it is misleading to put these two "deadliest for each" on the same footing. Here, we have almost a year, and there, one day. How can these two be equivalent, as the reading implies? If it must be added, it ought to be qualified temporally. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Drsruli and Reenem above. If we're gonna use specifics and mention Palestinians we're supposed to mention Israelis too. Otherwise, we should use "the deadliest war in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and that's it. PeleYoetz (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not the deadliest war for Israelis. More Israelis died in the 1948 war (6,000) than in this one (<2,000). Levivich (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Still deadliest in "the Palestinian-Israeli" conflict in the strictest sense of the term. The 1948 war was not with these people, arguably not part of this conflict. Drsruli (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to double check the sources, but I'm pretty sure that the 1948 Palestine war involved Israelis and Palestinians and is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Levivich (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The Israeli deaths were not at the hands of Palestinian Arabs, in the 1948 war. That war was fought between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, primarily. That's why I say, that it's distinct from the Palestine-Israeli conflict as direct conflict between those two entities. Phrasing it as "Palestine-Israel" conflict, leaves the possibility to limit it to more recent events. If we call it "Arab-Israeli" conflict, though, then you would be correct. Drsruli (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
You're confusing the 1948 Palestine war (the one that started in November 1947) with the 1948 Arab–Israeli War (the one that started in May 1948). They both involved Palestinians. It's funny you say "The Israeli deaths were not at the hands of Palestinian Arabs," because Palestinian Arab deaths were at the hands of Israelis, which is one of the ways in which both wars involved Palestinians. (Nobody calls it the "Palestine-Israeli conflict," by the way. It's the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict".) Points for originality, though. I hear a lot of crazy arguments, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that Palestinians were not involved in the 1948 war. That's a new one. (And you don't have to take my word for it that the 1947-1949 war was the deadliest for Israel, just ask the Israeli government.) Levivich (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't confusing the two events. They may even be considered as two stages of one war. Even as such, they aren't considered primary combatants (as a party) in that war (or those wars). I looked it up on wikipedia's pages for those events. The phrase about who was fighting, is copied directly from the lead paragraph on both pages. Drsruli (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's articles about these events are pretty unreliable, but the lead of 1948 Palestine war says The 1948 Palestine war was fought in the territory of what had been, at the start of the war, British-ruled Mandatory Palestine. During the war, the British withdrew from Palestine, Zionist forces conquered territory and established the State of Israel, and over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled. It was the first war of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the broader Arab–Israeli conflict. And you are saying this says the war doesn't involve Palestinians and isn't part of the I-P conflict? Look, nobody is going to agree that the 1948 war wasn't part of the I-P conflict or that it wasn't the deadliest war for Israelis in the I-P conflict. Levivich (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
They were involved, but not as "belligerents", political entities declared war fighting each other, etc. The fighting nation-states were the countries that I listed. And the vast majority of Israeli casualties, were at the hands of these. The sources of the day refer to this as "Arab-Israeli" conflict, as I suggested. Drsruli (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Not only the 1948 war, but also the Yom Kippur War that had almost twice the number of fatalities, and the War of Attrition is also higher. It's factually false to say it is the deadliest war for Israelis in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Yom Kippur War - You're right, although not if we focus on civilian deaths.
War of Attrition - Probably not. Debatable.

However, I still think that it's unbalanced to equivocate Arabs specifically in Gaza and the West Bank killed by Israelis, and to equate this to Israelis who are killed by Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians. Not really comparing apples to apples directly. This is the deadliest war for Israelis at the hands of Palestinians. What if I added a statement "This is also the deadliest war for Israelis in the Israel-Hamas conflict"? Drsruli (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

How many RS say that? Levivich (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
We have consensus established that it is not merely a war between Israel and Hamas, but Israel and Gaza and by extension Palestinians more generally (it also involves the West Bank for example), which is what the sentence in question is explicitly referring to. So reducing it to only Hamas and the current war so that we can add a false equivalence that is moreover historically inaccurate makes no sense, particularly when the Israeli casualties are prominently displayed in the lede and infobox already.
It is also not reflective of the clear discrepancy in the respective casualty figures which is what justifies its inclusion in the first place, alongside of course the fact that it is accurate.
It should be kept as is. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
In my frank opinion, the current sentence is some whitewashing BS, "deadliest war for Palestinians" makes it sound like they're suffering from some disease or natural disaster, it's a very euphemistic way to say "Israel has killed more Palestinians this year than ever before." No offense meant to whomever wrote it, it's how the RS phrase it, too, I just think it could be written more directly. Levivich (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
That's a good point and I tend to agree. Do you know of any RS that uses that phrasing? If so I would support a proposal to change it to that, but otherwise we should stick to the one already up as it reflects the phrasing of the RS currently used. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, no, I don't know of any sources that use the phrasing I prefer, but I do know of sources that use the phrasing in the article that I don't prefer, so that settles that. Although it's possible the sources are out there, I haven't seen them all of course. Levivich (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

17,000 militants killed

Why is it mentioned twice in the infobox and and in footnotes that 17,000 militants have been killed? And which editor has exclusively chosen this piece of info from footnotes to be shown on main infobox, why not rest and why the editor has not mentioned other estimates on militants' death toll given by US intelligence and Euromed?

Also the claim of 17,000 figure is disputed.

Hu741f4 (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you objecting to footnote "L", which explicitly states "Per Israel:" before that figure?
We have plenty of citations to both Israeli and Palestinian officials, often attributed, throughout this article. That's the reality of fog of war - you often don't get any better reports than from those on the front lines. Biased/skewed/manipulated though they may possibly be. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Somebody had pulled out the 17,000 militant death toll figure given by the Israeli military, from the footnote, and put that on main infobox without mentioning other estimates. I reverted that but I fear the editor may undo my edit. Hu741f4 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I did; it is explained in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox. Gabi S. (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The 17,000 figure is entirely fabricated by Israel. This has nothing to do with "fog of war" and "bias", the number is randomly made up and no evidence at all has been provided for it (unlike for the Ministry of Health figures).
Many RS have reported this, and it should be reflected whenever the figure is cited by for example adding "media have reported that no evidence has been provided for this figure".
The fighting has also killed 329 Israeli soldiers. The Israeli military claims that over 17,000 Hamas fighters are among those killed in Gaza but has not provided evidence. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
On April 30th, when the death toll according to GHM was 34,622, the evidence they provided for the count was the full identifies of 22,961 of the dead. Associated Press independently assessed this evidence, and still reported the death toll as 34,622 "according to the Gaza Health Ministry."
In August, Reuters reported on the death toll as 40,000 according to "Palestinian health authorities." In the report, they cite Israel as estimating the number of combatant deaths at 14,000, with the basis for that estimation being "a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed."
By August 15th, AP was reporting the death toll at 40,000, still attributing the figure to GHM. In the same report, AP notes that Israel claims 17,000 combatant deaths, "but has not provided evidence."
So, while the Gaza Health Ministry numbers seem more solid, being a tally compared to the IDF's estimates, it seems like RS still continue to attribute the death toll statistics from where they come, be it the Gaza health ministry or the IDF. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Because the other source has no evidence for it as RS explicitly note in its articles. If Russia claims they killed 200,000 Ukrainian troops but RS say that they have provided no evidence for it, that is not merely cited with the addition of "per Russia".
Your personal subjective belief that Israel is somehow reliable and its claims should be cited even when RS say they have provided no evidence for it, is fortunately irrelevant. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
We can include whatever is verifiable per RS. And I think RS' mention of militants killed, as attributed to Israel, is worth including. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and verified RS says explicitly: The fighting has also killed 329 Israeli soldiers. The Israeli military claims that over 17,000 Hamas fighters are among those killed in Gaza but has not provided evidence.[13
You have a habit of repeating the same thing over and over again as if you're saying something new. If you keep doing that, I'll just keep repeating the same thing as well. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Because you're repeatedly failing to understand that the barrier to entry for including information in our articles is not that the information is TRUE, but that it is VERIFIABLE. All we do here is "summarize content that some editor(s) believe should belong in the Misplaced Pages article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources."
Now, we can have a discussion on whether or not a verifiable piece of information is fit for inclusion. Which is kind of what we're doing now - you seem to think it's not worth including, and I do.
"Providing evidence" is a strange, arbitrary bar to set for an estimation of enemy casualties in a war. As I've already said, Israel didn't entirely fabricate this number from thin air - it's based on a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed. Some RS report that the figure is achieved "without evidence" because Israel doesn't provide them with those military reports; which, in my opinion, seems like an unreasonable request to make of a party at war - to release sensitive military intelligence. Which is why I support citing the number, per Israel, and perhaps with an explanation of where Israel bases this report on, if you're insisting we tack on "without evidence." But, the number, per Israel, with a citation, would be the most concise way to present the information imo. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that they did entirely fabricate the figure or deceived themselves if they did actually try and calculate it. Or Netanyahu just though it looked good. Or they just think any man of military age is a miilitant. With the assumption that civilian men are killed at the same rate as women and all other men killed are militants with no errors we get that about a fifth of those killed are militants using the GHM figures. Which 50,000 killed that comes to about 10,000, plus those killed in the October 7 attack though I think they are already included. Eleven or twelve thousand is a big distance away from seventeen thousand. Their figure is implausible to me. Why should their assertion of checks being made be any more believable than the figure they give? NadVolum (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
That reasoning ignores their claim to be targeting militants. The numbers are staggering enough without assuming that the deaths are a random sample of the population. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
With the assumption that civilian men are killed at the same rate as women is a very poor assumption to make. What data do you have that 1 in 5 men of militant age are Hezbollah? If Israel were killing men indiscriminate of being Hezbollah or not, would that ratio not be closer to 1 in 58 (50000 Hezbollah versus ~2.9 million men)? Or, if Israel is precisely killing Hezbollah with each strike, how do you assume that each Hezbollah militant is surrounded by 5 non-Hezbollah men? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The number of men and women are about equal. The assumption is that civilian men are killed at about the same rate as women because they are innocent bystanders. In actual fact they probably are killed at a greater rate than women but that would reduce the estimate of militants killed even further. There is no assumption that one in 5 men is Hezbollah! NadVolum (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
This looks like WP:OR. Plenty of RS have reported this figure with proper attribution (Al Arabiya, France24, The Washington Post). This is all that we need.
Once there are scholarly sources that assess the casualties we can remove the figures that turn out to be incorrect. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Citing the figure of 17,000 presents significant issues, as reliable sources indicate that there is no evidence to support it. Furthermore, there was no established consensus regarding this number when it was recently added to the infobox. Therefore, it should be removed until a consensus is reached. I advocate for its exclusion as a primary option, and if it is to be included, it should be clearly stated that reliable sources say no evidence has been provided for it. Lf8u2 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've no big objection to a range including it being given and the attributions given in the note. On its own though without the others it is so doubtful, in fact extraordinary, it really does need attribution inline where it is. NadVolum (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Gabi S.: In your edit, you stated, "Added number of militants killed, per talk page on the main article." However, there was no prior discussion or consensus on this change. Decisions like this should be made collaboratively, not unilaterally. Consensus should be achieved preemptively, not retroactively. It clearly hasn't been reached yet, judging by the two discussions currently ongoing with more than half a dozen editors, most of whom object to this inclusion in its current form. For this reason, I've restored the infobox to its original version without this contentious estimate from Israel while we decide how to proceed.
I don't see the value in highlighting a specific estimate when it's already mentioned in the notes. There's no solid evidence to support these numbers, and given the IDF's track record, they are likely inaccurate. If we highlight one estimate, we open the door to including every estimate from governments, agencies, journalists, etc. Where do we draw the line? The 17k figure is already noted, so I don't see a compelling reason to emphasize it. This is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that lacks sufficient backing. - Ïvana (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that! Hu741f4 (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ïvana, only now I saw this discussion. (There is a similar discussion in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox).
First of all, the claim that the IDF "has not provided evidence" is incorrect. Their estimate is based on intelligence, interrogations and examination of satellite photographs. This is quoted in some sources, for example and . Obviously you don't expect the IDF to publish intelligence reports, interrogation transcripts or military satellite photographs, but some war reports (that I mentioned in the parallel discussion) support the reliability of these estimates.
Additionally, the 17,000 estimate is not extraordinary. In December 2023 the IDF estimate of militants killed was 8,000. At that time, Reuters reported that a Hamas official had admitted 6,000 fighters had been killed in Gaza. To this figure you should add 1,600 armed militants that were killed inside Israel on the bloody October 7 massacre, and you can see that the IDF estimate makes sense. Since Hamas somehow acknowledged the IDF estimate, it cannot be labeled "extraordinary".
In May 2024 the estimate was 14,000 and currently 17,000. This is important information that should be part of the main infobox. It may appear twice (in the footnotes as well) as is done with other data which is also duplicated in this template. Gabi S. (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Those citations repeated the Israeli figures with attribution but did not in any way say or imply they were reliable, whereas they both said the Gaza Health Authority figures had been checked by others and were attested as reliable by outside bodies. Israel saying things about its own figures without evidence is not evidence. It is very likely there are a lot of injured or badly traumatised militants though so I certainly would not count the number of active militants as total militants minus killed militants, I'd find 17,000 militants or even more out of action for all reasons entirely believable but it is just not a credible figure for the number killed as I explained above. NadVolum (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not mixing things up; the Gaza Health Authority figures belong to a different discussion. Your calculations are original research and wrong. You didn't find any RS with significanty different figures. Moreover, you keep saying that the IDF figures were not attested by outside bodies, while I gave above an example of Hamas officials acknowledging those figures. Gabi S. (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@NadVolum is correct, the sources you cited do not verify the Israeli figures, they merely mention that that is what they have claimed. We have RS, including the same RS you cited, like the BBC saying that the figures cannot be verified:
BBC Verify has repeatedly asked the IDF for the detail of its methodology for counting Hamas fighter deaths but they have not responded.
And this is the norm: This month, Israel’s military told the BBC that more than 15,000 terrorists had been killed during the war. International journalists, including the BBC, are blocked by Israel from entering Gaza independently, so are unable to verify figures from either side.
And alongside that we have many RS that explicitly say Israel has provided no evidence for the 17,000 or any of the previous figures. That's a fact that you have not disputed. Instead you have gone on a bizarre WP:SYNTH argumentation line about how the IDF obviously can't reveal its hidden secret methods that violates what is explicitly stated in RS, namely again that no evidence has been provided for these figures.
Not only should it not be cited in the infobox, this should also be clarified where it is currently cited in the notes, with an addition of something like: "No evidence has been provided for IDF estimates of Hamas militants killed per the AP/media sources." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
That figure of 6000 said to be from Hamas was in February about when Israel claimed 10,000. And there's no reason to suppose Hamas would exclude the ones killed inside Israel from the figure. It might have excluded other militant groups but that would not get the figure up to 10,000. I included all militants in my estimate.. NadVolum (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
At that time Israel claimed 8,000, not 10,000. And your assumption that Hamas took into account the militants killed inside Israel needs verification. Gabi S. (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
In February IDF says 12,000 Hamas fighters killed in Gaza war, double the terror group’s claim. NadVolum (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @NadVolum@Raskolnikov.Rev @Ïvana and especially @Lf8u2. Furthermore, I checked both of your sources- and . None of your sources say anything about this 17,000 figure. Therefore, reports from the BBC, the Guardian, APN, ABC, and others, stating that Israel has not provided any evidence for the claim of a 17,000 figure, are reliable Hu741f4 (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
This reminds me of the Mohammed Deif situation, where his page had to be protected because editors were constantly asserting he's dead as a matter of fact, despite Israel not providing any proof. Obviously rules differ for BLPs, but this article's infobox still includes a note next to his name stating that the IDF's claim has not been confirmed by independent sources. A reliable source reporting on an unverified claim does not make that claim true unless the source conducts its own independent analysis. In this case, the RS provided are merely relaying what the IDF has said, specifically that a certain number of casualties are militants. And some are explicitly saying how the IDF has not provided any evidence. The source cited in the infobox is an Israeli think tank led by IDF soldiers, which quotes the IDF but offers no independent verification. The claim should remain in the notes where it currently is, but with a clarification similar to Deif's, making it clear that the numbers have not been corroborated. - Ïvana (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ïvana Yes! This is exactly what I did few days ago. I put a footnote clarifying that IDF hasn't provided any evidence for this claim, but my edit was reverted by Gabi.S https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Israel–Hamas_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1246577960 Hu741f4 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
But do you have a source claiming different numbers? "Cannot be verified" does not mean it's incorrect. Gabi S. (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with them, not us. While unverified does not mean incorrect, including their claims without noting their unverified status can create the misleading impression that they are true. They might be true, or they might not; without verification, we cannot assert their accuracy. Their claims should be presented since they are a key part of this conflict, but we need to clarify that no independent investigation has confirmed them (as multiple RS have noted), just as we are doing with Deif's living status. - Ïvana (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
And don't you think that this figure, attributed, should be included in the "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox? (Not only as a remote footnote.)
Regarding the burden of proof, I've shown above the the December 2023 IDF estimate was acknowledged by a Hamas official, and later IDF estimates correspond to independent US estimates. Gabi S. (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
No! It shouldn't be there. It should be in the footnotes like rest of the figures. Neither of your sources say anything about this August figure which is contested. Hu741f4 (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You showed neither of those things. The possible Hamas figure was from February and much lower than the IDF figure from December and you made the unwarranted assumtion that it did not include the number killed in Israel. As for February IDF says 12,000 Hamas fighters killed in Gaza war, double the terror group’s claim I'm not sure how on earth you get a correspondence with the rather confused US report which is interpreted to say 6,000-12,000 in June - if that is what you mean as you didn't refer to any US report that I can see. NadVolum (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't think an unverified claim that multiple RS identify as such should be highlighted. It's fine for it to stay where it is, and a note should be added stating that it hasn't been corroborated, same as it was done with Deif. NadVolum already explained why your assertion about the veracity of the estimates is wrong. - Ïvana (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it's an important figure. The "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox is skewed without it. The Israel section describes how many civilians were killed, and how many security forces were killed, separately, while the Gaza Strip section shows just the number of people killed, with the reader not knowing how much of them were armed militants. Actually, omitting the number of militants killed distorts the reality, hinting that only civilians were killed in Gaza. That's quite far from NPOV. Gabi S. (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
"...distorts the reality, hinting that only civilians were killed in Gaza."
No, It doesn't!
The Palestines' section says "41,698+ killed" not "41,698+ civillians killed". It is the other way round- Mentioning "17,000 militants" distorts reality, because all RS say that Israel hasn't provided any evidence for this claim. So this will give a false impression and perception to readers. Hence, you are drawing false equivalence. If the number of militants killed has to be added because Israel's section shows so, then by that same token the number of civilians should also be shown in Palestine's section. However, this isn't the case.
Hu741f4 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Just because lots of people would like to know doesn't mean we should present the Israeli figure in Wiki voice and not show other estimates. We don't have reasonable estimates in reliable sources - and as it goes "You can't always get what you want". Misplaced Pages tries to be a free reliable encyclopaedia - see the introduction to WP:POLICY. NadVolum (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Israel's section does mention both civilians and security forces, and the source for both of these claims is Israel. We're not quoting Hamas to say how many IDF soldiers were killed. So if you think adding an estimate is necessary, then following the same logic of relying on primary sources, we should highlight whatever Hamas reported (so around 6,000 as of February per NadVolum - I honestly haven't checked if there's a more recent estimate). And I still think we need to add the note to the 17k figure. You can argue that they are using intelligence data and they cannot disclose that etc etc, the end result is the same - it is an unverified claim and has been reported as such, so we should reflect what RS say. - Ïvana (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@Lf8u2 Reuters has an article, which they just updated yesterday. It says that "Israel periodically gives estimates of how many Hamas fighters it believes have been killed," that the most recent estimate is "17,000-18,000," and that the estimation is based on "a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed."
IMO the phrasing "without evidence" strongly suggests that a claim is untrustworthy. If a claim is in doubt, but is being reported by RS, one way to deal with this is to make obvious this is an assertion or claim by Israel. A better way to phrase this would be that "17,000-18,000" is an estimate, per Israel. There has been no independent verification of this number, since Israel hasn't released the military intelligence on which it's basing its assessment; but it's one of few estimates for militant casualties we have, and it's reliably sourced, so it's worth including. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Also @Ïvana above agrees that, if properly attributed, adding an estimate is necessary. Gabi S. (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
You should take account of what else they say as well. Besides the figure being as big as all adult men killed extrapolated to include those under the rubble so they're saying there were no civilian men killed, there is also the business of how many militants were there anyway - one would expect at least as many or more out of action due to being wounded as killed and then there're would also be ones suffering from shell shock or deserting - so who is currently being fought? If the figure is put in it on its own it needs to be very carefully marked as not in Wiki voice and from Israel without any evidence like the reliable sources say. NadVolum (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
You keep saying "Wiki voice" but there's no such thing. The figure should simply be part of the "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox, attributed to the IDF. It's important data. Gabi S. (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
It means following WP:WIKIVOICE. It is not right to state stuff that is obviously seriously contested as if it is a fact. NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Alaexis above - this is unnecessary OR. All your considerations regarding the veracity of the claim can be neatly summed up with "per Israel." Any person familiar with conflict, particularly this conflict, will know what to make of an estimate coming from one of the belligerents. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@PhotogenicScientist @Gabi S. This is not pertinent, as it merely repeats Israeli assertions regarding the origin of their figure without providing verification. An article from the Associated Press published today again emphasizes that Israel has not substantiated its claim:  The Israeli military says it has killed over 17,000 militants, without providing evidence.
Furthermore, the aforementioned Reuters article references a letter published in The Lancet, indicating that the death toll in Gaza may be several times higher than official estimates and could exceed 186,000. However, I have not seen you advocate for incorporating this into the infobox and assume both of you would oppose it. This violates WP:Cherrypicking. Lf8u2 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The Lancet reference was not peer reviewed and I've identified some flaws in it. It's a separate discussion. Regarding the number of militants killed - you can't expect the IDF to publish intelligence reports, interrogation transcripts or military satellite photographs to support these figures, but they seem reasonable. Gabi S. (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree that Lancet letter has problems. But if you're able to identify problems with that letter what is stopping you from identifying any problem in the very straightforward and much much shorter arguments I've said to support that the Israeli claim is WP:EXTRAORDINARY? Or do you just not care that they are a load of codswallop? NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Your calculation in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox#Number of militants killed is original research and flawed (I replied there), and even as such it is not far from the IDF estimate. Interesting, in Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox you agreed that the IDF estimate should be included in the infobox, has something changed? Is there any reason to omit this figure? Gabi S. (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Original research applies to what we write. On talk pages it is the basis for WP:EXTRAORDINARY and why we have RfC's on noticeboards like RSN for instance. The arguments given there are all original research. We are allowed to take stories like only two civilians or even less is killed per militant with a pinch of salt when we also have for instance today's . And no you provided no argument at the template talk except that it was original research and that Israel said it had researched the figures, and provided figures you said showed it was reasonable but got the dates and numbers wrong. Yes I agreed to the figure provided it was clear Misplaced Pages disassociated itself from the figure and it was inline attributed to Israel like the papers have done. I was going to make sure the link pointed to one saying Israel provided no evidence but someeone else removed it from the top line and just left it in the notes. NadVolum (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't get it. Do you think that having this figure in the remote footnotes is enough? Yes or no? Gabi S. (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes the remote footnote is fine by me. I try to cater for other peoples wishes but you just seem to be going on and on about how reliable it is and arguing against any qualification, and it just isn't. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Still there are no other estimates that claim otherwise. Gabi S. (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
There absolutely are, NadVolum has showed multiple times how Hamas estimates not only exist but are drastically different from whatever the IDF says. I'm not sure what the point of this line of argument is. Let's suppose you're right and we only have the 17k figure. Does that change the fact that it is not verified, as multiple RS regularly note? No. Again, if you wanna have estimates, we can use the Hamas one since they are a primary source, so we would have IDF casualties attributed to the IDF, and Hamas casualties attributed to Hamas. You still haven't said anything regarding that suggestion. - Ïvana (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be better to give a range, attributed to sources. The most recent number of Hamas casualties attributed to Hamas is from April , which says 6,000 (per Hamas), and the most recent estimate from IDF is 17,000-18,000 (per IDF) (source, updated in October 1).
Both numbers are not verified, so attributing the figures to their proper sources makes clear who claims what. Gabi S. (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ïvana, please comment on the suggestion above. Thanks, Gabi S. (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of combining multiple estimates by different sources at different points in time. Makes no sense. My position is still the same: add a note to the Israeli estimates saying the numbers are unverified, as RS regularly note. I don't think having an estimate of militant deaths in the visible infobox is necessary, but if multiple people feel that it is, then we should use the Hamas one since we're going by primary sources. - Ïvana (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Qualification is fine. I think it's important data and must be included in the casualties section of the infobox, one way or another. Gabi S. (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, Cherrypicking is an essay, not a policy or guideline, so any "violation" is not particularly relevant. Second, you're misinterpreting the purpose of cherrypicking - I see no mention of any Lancet letter or figure of 186,000 as a qualifier of the Israeli figure; citing Reuters for this single figure is not "misrepresenting" anything about their article. We're not forced to cite or summarize an entire article when using a source, and this is vanishingly uncommon in practice.
Moreover, I see no mention of a Lancet letter or the figure of 186,000 anywhere in the Reuters article... so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the Lancet letter did serve a useful purpose even if a bit flawed. Currently there are somewhere around ninety or a hundred thousand excess deaths overall and it could have been far worse if food deliveries had continued being stopped. But yes it has very little to do with this topic that I can see. NadVolum (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gabi S.: I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent what I say. I don't think highlighting an estimate is necessary at all, but if YOU feel it is, then we should add the losses that Hamas claims, since they are a primary source and we are already using that logic with the Israel section. I haven't seen your opinion about that approach.
@PhotogenicScientist: Are we supposed to moderate our language to make Israel look good? If RS frequently say that the estimate has not been verified, then we should do the same. It doesn't matter if it gives the impression that the claim is untrustworthy (which, by all means, it is). You and Gabi have argued how Israel is not pulling those numbers out of thin air (to put it mildly), yet that is also an assumption we are expected to accept blindly. You can argue that the numbers "seem reasonable" (by whom? based on what?) or that they are based on top-secret intelligence etc etc - this does not change the fact that, as I've said a couple of times already, this is an extraordinary claim that needs to be validated separately. They can claim anything they want, and we need to report it, but there's no reason to not mention how the numbers are not verified. Especially considering that this is frequently and explicitly mentioned in RS, it is not OR or SYNTH on our part. Here are a couple of examples, only from the last couple of weeks:
Alright, I still don't think this number is that surprising, considering the total death toll is more than twice that, and when it was ~34,000, ~14,000 of these were fighting-age men. But, I can't deny this is a apparently important claim covered by multiple RS, and the multitude of RS presented here point out the lack of supplied evidence. I suppose we can too. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Well I'm sure the women and children and elderly would love to know how the civilian men manage to lead such charmed lives avoiding being killed. If they could do it too there wouldn't be all this fuss about civilian deaths. But yes that would be fine by me thanks. NadVolum (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
There's a simple explanation. Israel attacks are intended to kill armed militants, based on intelligence. Armed militants are mostly males. Some times the attacked target is a semi-military compound, with only a few civilians around, and sometimes they are surrounded by civilians ("human shield"). The outcome is that most of the civilians killed are not adult men. Gabi S. (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The militants surround themselves with civilians but ensure there are no males among the civilians, and the Israeli attacks are always well aimed, is that your marvellous theory? NadVolum (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
More or less yes, regardless of your phrasing. Most Israeli attacks are aimed at specific targets, and human shields tend to have a higher percentage of women and children than non-combatant adult males. Gabi S. (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Please see Use of human shields by Hamas, there's no evidence of it from past conflicts. There have been cases of both sides coercing members the other side to act as human shields but that is not a major cause of death. Also there were a couple of cases early on where people from a tower block went onto the roof in the hope Israel wouldn't blow it up after Israel delivered a warning. They don't do that now and they weren't protecting militants who were able to leave just as easily as any resident. Now the stories seem to be of shelters not admitting men if they are carrying weapons - so it doesn't sound like they want to be around Hamas! There simply is no evidence of Hamas coercing people in Gaza to act as a human shield and really I don't think it would be easy to stop such stories getting out. The only real use of the term is to describe the militants as being in areas where there are civilians around - and the damage from bombs is so extensive I really don't see how the gaps between are where all the civilian men are for some strange reason - I really think the women and children would have tweaked by now that their best bet was to stay near a civilian man. Do you have any evidence for your theory? NadVolum (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Please clarify. coercing members of the opposite side to act as human shields -- Are you referring to the Oct 7 hostages, or is this something else? SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes there were cases during that massacre where I think that would be an appropriate description. If Hamas used the hostages in Gaza as human shields there would be a bigger row about killing one than there is about killing a thousand Palestinians, but they don't. NadVolum (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources of information. Let's look to a reliable source for a definition of the practice: "a method of warfare prohibited by IHL where the presence of civilians or the movement of the civilian population, whether voluntary or involuntary, is used in order to shield military objectives from attack, or to shield, favor or impede military operations." Hamas' operating in and among civilian structures (extensively covered - here is but one example) is absolutely using the civillians therein, whether with their knowledge or without, as shields. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Can we please stay in topic and not delve into WP:NOTAFORUM territory? Whatever we personally think about the IDF or Hamas is not relevant to the main discussion. - Ïvana (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Ivana, please review our talk page guidsnce. That wasn't a FORUM post. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
How is the discussion about whether the IDF and/or Hamas are using human shields relevant to the question of including a note that the figure of militants killed, as provided by the IDF, is unverified? I'd love to hear your thoughts. - Ïvana (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
See the bit above about "Most Israeli attacks are aimed at specific targets, and human shields tend to have a higher percentage of women and children than non-combatant adult males." A very low percentage of civilian men compared to civilian women in human shields could be an explanation the figure of 17,000 militants killed. There is no evidence or reason for such a supposition that I know of especially when there is no evidence of a voluntary or coerced shield but simply that Hamas operate in urban areas. NadVolum (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/04/israel-human-shields-hypocrisy/ GeoffreyA (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Intercept opinions are mostly quite porous. Please find some solid reporting we can consider. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
On the Israeli side, I find:
GeoffreyA (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly alleging that the enemy is doing something that one is doing far worse oneself is called Psychological projection. It's incredibly common. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, that statement of your concern is too broad to be instrumental in advancing any resolution. Each time that a specific response has been raised, it's become clear that your more general issue has not been resolved. We need to work from a complete and specific statement of the objective. I disagree that this long thread has been orderly or productive, so I was hoping for a definitive agenda from you. Obviously, we cannot resolve the disparity between the views of the world's wealthy, powerful establishment and those of the less entitled human majority. So the mere observation that Hamas and Israel are treated differently in most RS, as defined, is not our problem. It's actually to our obligation to follow that, agnostically. SPECIFICO talk 10:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I think maybe you've added that to the wrong discussion? NadVolum (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it was a reply to Makeandtoss in the Lede discussion and whether to split it. GeoffreyA (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Media bias regarding the war

This conflict is obviously a contentious issue. This proposed edit by Minden500 (talk) on the BBC article asserting "Anti-Israel bias and antisemitism" of the BBC is contentious in itself. I started a discussion on the BBC talk page but its probably more suited here as it seems undue to single out the BBC (one of the more reliable sources on the conflict) rather than the media as a whole. Should any (or all) media outlets be critiqued on this conflict? And how would we weigh it? There is always the issue of furthering the agenda of one side, and as I mentioned in the BBC talk page the proposed edit overlooks complaints from the other side that for the BBC, and western media, "Israeli life is deemed to be worth more than a Palestinian life". Given how contentious the conflict is in itself, should articles on media outlets (including the more reputable ones) also contain accusations from either side? Gabriella MNT (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s interesting because Haaretz cites this Telegraph report that accused the BBC of bias against Israel:
“The BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times during the height of the Israel-Hamas war, showing "a distinct pattern of bias against Israel," according to a new report published by The Telegraph on Saturday…
The data covers four months of the BBC's output across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media in the wake of Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel's southern border communities and the ensuing war in Gaza. Working with a team of about 20 lawyers and data scientists, the report uses artificial intelligence to analyze over nine million words of content. Researchers identified a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC's editorial guidelines, which included impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.
The report was commissioned by British-Israeli lawyer Trevor Aserson who has been investigating anti-Israel bias in the media since 2000. The majority of the work involved was undertaken pro bono by his law firm, although an Israeli businessman based in London contributed to expenses and paid for external lawyers to contribute, according to The Telegraph...
The BBC was heavily criticized at the beginning of the war for its refusal to define Hamas as a terrorist organization, which led to the release of an October 25 statement clarifying that it would describe Hamas "where possible" as an illegal terrorist organization according to the definition of the British government and others… The report also claimed that some journalists used by the BBC in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict have previously shown sympathy for Hamas and even celebrated its acts of terror. BBC Arabic contributor Mayssaa Abdul Khalek is said to have called for "death to Israel" and defended a journalist who tweeted: "Sir Hitler, rise, there are a few people that need to be burned." “. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Recall that at the time, and, copying the response linked in the BBC talk page, the BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson commented, "We don't take sides. We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy. But the BBC gets particular attention, partly because we've got strong critics in politics and in the press, and partly because we're rightly held to an especially high standard. But part of keeping to that high standard is to be as objective as it's possible to be." The BBC will state "designated a terrorist organisation by the British government", rather than them state it. That has always been BBC policy regardless of what conflict it is. Nampa DC (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Here, Haaretz and JPost report accusations of the BBC having anti-Israel bias : “ BBC has received thousands of complaints about its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. Recently, former BBC director Dannie Cohen wrote a letter to The Telegraph that provided  instances in which BBC's coverage of the war contained “institutional bias” and "antisemitism." “ Wafflefrites (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of that report in The Telegraph is covered. Nampa DC (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

oh, wait. I misread your question. You want to remove @Minden500’s edit. In that case, it’s reasonable that the edit could be balanced with some from the opposing side or removed entirely
An example of a possible criticism from opposing side could be this case where The New Arab reports criticism of a BBC headline regarding a death during the conflict Wafflefrites (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_451#informational_report:_BBC_according_to_Telegraph Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
When an outlet, or individual, reports on the Gaza war fairly, stating facts, they tend to be accused of antisemitism or bias against Israel. But if anything, much of Western media was biased towards Israel, and The Intercept's analysis of coverage earlier this year was interesting. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The BBC is as factual as it gets—it's almost dull in that regard, which is what you want from news—and that report in The Telegraph does contain an interesting survey where 17% thought the BBC was biased towards Israel and 15% towards the Palestinians. Having a roughly equal amount of critics either side is a good sign of neutrality. Nampa DC (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Well the BBC does have its biases, but like all the highly reliable sources what it tends to do is simply leave out things it doesn't like. NadVolum (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox map update needed

The IDF has not been in the Khan Yunis area since 30 August 2024, the end of the Third Battle of Khan Yunis.

Sources:

Evaporation123 (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @User:Ecrusized by the way, who has I believe been responsible for the lead infobox map. Evaporation123 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Six times natural deaths

https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/News/2024-09/12/0074-palestinian-government-report-number-of-natural-deaths-in-gaza-increased-by-more-than-six-times-due-to%C2%A0-israeli-aggression is the Palestinian authority talking about natural deaths increasing by a factor of six. The natural death rate of 3.8 per 1000 is very low because it is a young population but I figure this means another 50,000 dead so far due to the war. Or am I interpreting what they say wrong? NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Why are we attributing Gaza figures to its health ministry in the lede, but not Israeli figures? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Between the lead and the infobox, there are a lot of figures. Could you be more specific about which figures you mean? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Sentence in lede: "the Gaza Health Ministry has stated more than 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed." There is no equivalent "the Israeli Health Ministry has stated." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Source for Israeli Health Ministry you wish to cite? SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I am advocating for the removal of both attributions as being redundant, not advocating for adding both. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
And I have twice asked whether the Israeli Health Ministry bit is fact in RS or is rather just a straw man that confuses the issue? SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's important that we cast doubt on numbers coming out of Gaza. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
See WP:5P, using reliable sources with a neutral point of view is what's important on Misplaced Pages. They say the numbers are about as good or better than one can hope for. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier has rejected the business of saying Hamas-run Gaza Health ministry. NadVolum (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I am in full agreement with you, as well as Makeandtoss's concern. I actually meant it in a satirical fashion, which, I admit, is out of place here. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Good point. Attribution should be provided for both to ensure NPOV. Something like "according to the Israeli government" with an appropriate RS will suffice for that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What content and what source says "Israeli Health Ministry"? SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That certainly is a point okay. I've no objection to citing the Gaza Health Ministry for figures in Gaza but I certainly feel there is something wrong with us cobbling together different figures from diverse sources for deaths in Israel with no authorative source. Has any reliable source remarked on this lack of information from Israel? NadVolum (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Some sources for death toll: . Levivich (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
OP does not appear to have specified, clarified, or amended their original question and locus of concern. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
It shouldn't be Health Ministry, it should be "officials", "government", or "Foreign Ministry" as they are cited as the source for the figure by RS:
Around 1,200 is the official number of victims of the October 7 massacre,” spokesperson Lior Haiat of Israel’s Foreign Ministry said on Friday in a written statement, according to the Reuters news agency.
On November 10, the foreign ministry published an "updated estimate", saying the number "murdered in cold blood" was around 1,200 people, without further details. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Do any sources dispute this number? SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if any source dispute it or not. RS attributes it to Israeli officials/Foreign Ministry, and since we attribute the Gaza figures to the Ministry of Health per RS, the same should be done with the Israeli figures per RS. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
We should follow RS. Mostly they attribute the figures coming from Gaza (sometimes adding Hamas-controlled) so that's what we should do. The Gaza figures have been challenged a lot, on the other hand I haven't seen anyone claiming that the Israeli own casualty figures are substantially wrong. Alaexis¿question? 10:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
5 minute Google search gives me this list:
  • BBC The Israeli military says
  • CNN according to Israeli authorities
  • Reuters Israel says
  • NPR according to Israeli officials
  • France24 the foreign ministry published without further details
  • AJ according to Israeli tallies
  • HRW According to Israeli authorities
  • UN According to Israeli authorities
  • Guardian according to Israeli tallies
  • CNN according to Israeli authorities
  • SCMP according to Israeli tallies
  • Reuters according to Israeli tallies
  • WP Israel estimates
  • UNRWA According to Israeli sources
  • CBS Israel's military said
  • ABC according to the Israel Defense Forces
  • ET according to Israeli tallies
  • HT according to Israeli tallies
  • AP according to Israeli authorities
  • NBC according to Israeli officials
  • NPR according to Israeli officials
  • JT according to Israeli tallies
  • FT according to Israeli officials
I stopped searching after this so there are likely way more results. We should follow RS, and they clearly attribute the figure to Israel, so there's no reason for us to not do the same. - Ïvana (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
What queries did you search? Google and Misplaced Pages are quite distinct publications. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah they obviously are. What point are you trying to make? I searched for "1,200"+"according to israeli". You could also search for "1,200"+"according to israel" which gives another set of results, including a report by Amnesty attributing the figures to Israel's ministry of health. The point is that RS regularly attribute the figure to Israel in one way or another, as I showed in my previous reply, so we should do the same. - Ïvana (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
That is a biased search query, i.e. a search for attribution rather than a search from which the relative frequncy of attribution could be counted. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
You requested sources that attribute the number to Israel, and I provided plenty of examples, including one citing the Israeli ministry of health, as you asked for—three times, no less. If you search for something broad like "1,200"+"october 7" you also get plenty of examples:
  • NPR a spokesperson from Israel's Foreign Ministry said
  • CNN Israeli authorities said
  • OCHA according to the Israeli authorities
  • ABC According to the Israeli prime minister's office
  • NPR Israel says
  • AP Israeli officials say
  • OHCHR According to Israeli sources
  • France24 the foreign ministry published
  • FT according to Israeli officials
  • Reuters Israel says
  • AJ Israeli officials say
  • Guardian according to Israeli figures
  • Reuters spokesperson Lior Haiat said
  • HRW According to Israeli authorities
  • WP Israel says
  • Guardian according to Israeli figures
  • NPR Israel says
  • NWM per Israeli authorities - Ïvana (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Seeing that your long lists uncovered only one single mention of Israeli Health Ministry, we can now safely answer OP's initial question, We do not mention it in parallel with Gaza Health Ministry because the sources don't. SPECIFICO talk 10:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
That's not the point of this discussion. The point here is that both casualty figures are attributed to an authority in RS, while on WP we are only attributing the Gaza casualty figures. This is a clear bias that does not reflect RS, as meticulously demonstrated by Ivana. We either add attribution to authorities for both sides, or we do for neither. I am in support of neither. What about you? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
So, trying to actually write out the details of the comparison that's being made:
  • From the lead: During this attack, 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals were killed
    • Sourced to Human Rights Watch
      • "1,195 people killed on October 7", no attribution as an Israeli claim
      • Number independently verified by Agence France-Presse
  • From the lead: Since the start of the Israeli invasion, over 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, more than half of them women and children.
    • Sourced to UN OCHA
      • Says "Figures that are yet-to-be verified by the UN are attributed to their source."
      • Has the figure "38,794 Palestinian fatalities", attributed to MoH Gaza
    • Sourced to The Guardian
      • Says "the death toll has passed 40,000, according to health authorities there"
    • Also sourced to The Guardian (again) (though shouldn't be, since this article doesn't support "over 40,000", nor "over half women and children")
So, just looking at the sources cited in the lead, the figure of ~1,200 Israelis killed on Oct 7 has been independently verified, and is being reported without attribution. The figure of 40,000+ Palestinians killed has not been independently verified, and is being reported with attribution. Is there a problem with this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The HRW article says that "Agence France-Presse cross-referenced numerous data sources to determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians." That x amount of people out of the total were civilians. From any list of names, one could determine whether x people, deceased or living, were civilians. So, I don't know if that amounts to independent verification of those killed on October 7. At any rate, the sentence is obscure. GeoffreyA (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
So where does HRW get their number of 1,195 people killed from? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Presumably, from AFP, who, analysing Israeli government databases, etc., determined the 815 number. The usual reading is something along the lines of, "The October 7 Hamas attack resulted in the deaths of 1,195 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli figures." GeoffreyA (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
In any case, leaving aside HRW and AFP, it is a good question where the 1,195 or 1,139 numbers are coming from, at the source, because it is confusing. I came across this Haaretz article, following the one linked in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel infobox. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for adding replies in this fashion, but I didn't want to edit them.
Regarding those killed in Gaza, there have been efforts at outside verification. Of course, it will take longer because of the massive scale of destruction, and doubtless, uncertainty will always remain. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
So, if we trust AFP (we do), we can report the number they do without having to attribute it inline. Israel may be one of the parties to the conflict, but this figure, while it seems to originate from Israeli reports, has been picked up, validated, and reported on by reliable sources.
If there's a reliable source doing the same for the figure of "more than 40,000 Palestinians killed," then we could do the same. But for now, since reliable sources continue to attribute it "per the Gaza MoH," so shall we. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
AFP is one source. As Ivana showed above, it is regularly attributed to Israel. Therefore, we should too. GeoffreyA (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not that deep. We don't have to do a "holistic source analysis" for every single sentence or figure in this article. We have a reliable source, that we can cite without attribution. Why should we not simply cite this source? (It's already the only one cited in the lead btw). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Besides, we should prefer more current sources, and HRW is from July. Many of Ivana's sources are older than that.
Also, plenty of the sources Ivana linked solely as examples of some form of "per Israel" phrasing in reference to the figure of "1,200+", which is understandable considering the imprecision of the figure, and the fact that it's an estimate. Now that we have a more accurate number in 1,195, we can cite exactly where that comes from. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
According to this HRW Q&A from July, the number of 1,195 comes from the Israeli government. If Gaza's numbers should be attributed to their source, shouldn't Israel's as well, to keep one standard for all? GeoffreyA (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
That's a false equivalence, and not how we treat information from reliable sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, information coming, originally, from the Israeli government doesn't need to be attributed, but information coming from Gaza's HM must? That certainly seems like a false inequivalence to me: we've got information coming from one source on both sides but one is being treated differently. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
a false inequivalence? The two aren't equivalent. Andre🚐 06:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
As noted above, when the "1,195, mostly civilians" phrase is used in sources, it is regularly attributed to "an AFP tally based on Israeli figures," or something to that effect. Should we not reflect that language? GeoffreyA (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like you're confused on the general polices of citation and reliable sources. In-text attribution of article material (such as the phrase "per Israel") is recommended for "biased statements of opinion," or when using "certain frequently discussed sources" - i.e. marginally reliable ones. This is again affirmed in WP:BIASED - biased sources may be cited, but in-text attribution may be best.
In this case, we have a reliable source (Human Rights Watch) reporting on numbers attributed to a reliable source (Agence France-Presse), not attributed to Israel. Since HRW and AFP are not obviously biased, and they're considered reliable publications, in our summary of the HRW article, we don't have to dig deep to "figure out" where exactly their numbers come from; we can take their word for it, summarize their webpage, and cite them on it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
For the record, HRW published a Q&A report on the same day as the article in question, stating that the 1,195 came from the Israeli government. While we can use one piece of information, we cannot ignore another.
"The Israeli government has reported the deaths of 1,195 people stemming from the assault on October 7, including the later deaths of hostages in Gaza. Agence France Presse (AFP), which analyzed numerous Israeli government databases tracking the number of people killed and researched the killings of foreigners, assessed that 815 of the 1,195 were civilians, including 79 foreign nationals. Among them were at least 282 women and 36 children." GeoffreyA (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Of course it did. Just like the information on 22,961 Palestinians killed in the war came from the GHM, but was independently verified by AP, so we can cite AP for that figure without attribution to GHM. In this case, the count of 1,195 Israelis killed on Oct 7 comes from the Israeli government, but was independently verified by AFP, and reported by HRW - so also, we can cite HRW for the figure without attribution to Israel. That's just how reliable, independent sourcing works. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
As I've said before, I disagree that the total of 1,195 was independently verified by AFP. All the sources say, both article and Q&A, is that 815 out of the Israeli-supplied 1,195 were identified as civilians. That x out of a total fall under a certain class. It says nothing, as far as I can see, about the verification of the whole. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
And as I've said before, that's clearly a misinterpretation of the HRW source, and an argument purely on semantics. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Here are the statements from the HRW sources:
(a) "Agence France-Presse cross-referenced numerous data sources to determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians."
(b) "The Israeli government has reported the deaths of 1,195 people stemming from the assault on October 7, including the later deaths of hostages in Gaza. Agence France Presse (AFP), which analyzed numerous Israeli government databases tracking the number of people killed and researched the killings of foreigners, assessed that 815 of the 1,195 were civilians, including 79 foreign nationals."
Under what reasoning do they mean that the 1,195 total was verified by AFP? GeoffreyA (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with PhotogenicScientist on this. Andre🚐 21:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I have no doubt the Israeli figures for their own citizens are accurate however they are published. However I have never seen anything much about all the Hamas and other militants who died in the October massacre, and they don't have relatives in Israel who'd raise a fuss about them! NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Andrevan: Relating to @PhotogenicScientist:'s initial comment, they have not represented the sources accurately.
The HRW article they cite in which they claim that these figures had been independently verified by AFP is misleading because the HRW makes no such claim; HRW states that "Agence France-Presse cross-referenced numerous data sources to determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians." AFP's tally here relates to the casualty breakdown, not the merits of the total casualty figure. This France24 report states: "The October 7 attack resulted in the deaths of 1,195 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli figures." Clearly, Israeli casualties, as a total, are still being attributed to their sources.
As for the UN OHCA report, it says that the figures are attributed to their source indeed, and this is done in the report through a small asterisk saying: "MoH Gaza". On WP, removing the text attribution for the Gaza casualty figures does not mean removing the in-line citation.
Clearly, the cases of the Israeli and Gazan casualties are attributed to their sources, and only the Gazan figures are given text attribution in the lede; this is a problem of bias that must be resolved. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
HRW reports, in their own editorial voice, that there were "1,195 people killed on October 7." We can cite HRW for that figure, especially considering they themselves attribute the information directly to AFP. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The full quote is: "Agence France-Presse cross-referenced numerous data sources to determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians." It's debatable whether the total is said in their own voice. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
No they don't, please quote the sentence fully: "Agence France-Presse cross-referenced numerous data sources to determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Also Washington Post's recent report does not attribute the 40k killed Palestinians to anyone: "The enclave is buried under the rubble from thousands of Israeli airstrikes and ground attacks, with more than 40,000 Palestinians killed and over a million without basic shelter and sustenance. " Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
And in August, Washington Post cited Gaza Health Ministry for the figure of 40,000+. So, what changed between now and then? I imagine more numbers are being verified as time goes on, and AP was able to verify 22,961 deaths from the count back in April. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
This is purely semantics. HRW pretty clearly trusts the number of 1,195 by their phrasing of the sentence. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Even if it did, I have just provided a Washington Post that did not cite the GHM. Nothing changed, attribution is redundant. It does not have to be there in every sentence. But here in this WP article we have a bias in that sentence that needs to be corrected. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm really not sure that source is reliable for this figure based on the context... the last time we heard this figure from the Washington Post, they were still attributing it to GHM. And this article is a sweeping examination of Biden's administration's efforts to dampen the war, and where it quotes figures (which are minimal), it uses simple, round numbers, and with minimal citations or attributions ("about 1,200 people dead and 250 taken hostage"; "deaths by then reportedly had reached 28,000"). The use of "40,000" in an article like this is more of a passing mention than a dedicated report. I'd prefer we stick to more specific, up-to-date news reports for an ongoing event like this. Though, looking back, retrospectives like this piece tend to be great sources to glean information from. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@PhotogenicScientist: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS relates to reliability, not to attribution, so this guideline is not relevant. In any case, the "up-to-date news reports for an ongoing event like this" are plentiful, and many RS are not using any attribution:
Clearly, the claim that the Israeli figures are not attributed by RS, while the Palestinian figures are, is false, as demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Considering it says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable, I'd have to say the guideline is in fact relevant.
And those sources don't all say what you think they say:
  • Al Jazeera: "Killed" linked to a main article, where they say "Gaza’s Ministry of Health says more than 41,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks..."
  • The National: Above your selective quotation, the article leads off with a "More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and the occupied West Bank since the start of Israel's war on the enclave... according to the latest death toll provided by Gaza health authorities."
  • Vox: Later in that same article, we find "Nearly 42,000 Gazans have been killed since October 7, according to data from the Gaza Ministry of Health."
  • The other two are refugee advocacy sources, that don't exactly have a vested interested in rigorously fact-checking report numbers, or citing where they come from; for their purposes, listing general numbers is all they need, and thus all they do.
PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss: Could you please start a new subsection with the current updated version of your concern. This long thread has been addressing multiple moving targets. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't think there is a need for a new subsection as the discussion has revolved on one main point: the bias in attributing Palestinian but not Israeli death tolls, which does not reflect RS. After RS have been highlighted above, the conclusion to this discussion can be reached fairly quickly. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals were killed

@Raskolnikov.Rev would you care to explain why you reverted the sourced number of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals killed on Oct 7 back to the older, less accurate number of 1,139? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Please take a good look at the edit history and summaries before running to make a talk page section. It was a mistaken revert of your needless padding of the already specified intel and defense agency names that moreover violates consensus established to ensure NPOV, which I quickly corrected. Feel free to delete this section now that's clarified. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I see that you're right - I was going through my contributions that you reverted, and that one didn't make much sense. Thanks for clarifying. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede 2

@Hu741f4: Seems like you have mistakenly reinserted disputed material to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes! It was by mistake. Thanks for reminding me. I have removed it Hu741f4 (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede 3

@Galamore: Re-inserting content that was removed, while not engaging in the article's talk page, is not constructive. Please self-revert and seek consensus for your disputed addition, per WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  1. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mideast-tensions-latest-gold-apollo-budapest-company-made-113798936
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/17/gaza-publishes-identities-of-34344-palestinians-killed-in-war-with-israel
  3. https://indianexpress.com/article/world/gaza-palestinians-killed-war-with-israel-9574759/
  4. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-latest-11-september-2024-9ba2cc21d3f1b308f98ff99b233768b7
Categories: