Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Add the USS Mount Whitney to the the list of deployed United States Navy ship’s in the 2023 Israel Hamas war article section of United States deployed military assets

USS Mount Whitney to the 2023 Israel Hamas war article

Latest comment: 3 hours ago On 18 October 2023, Mount Whitney deployed from Gaeta with the Commander 6th fleet, Vice Adm. Thomas Ishee, and his staff, onboard "in support of U.S. operations" in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in waters off the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This added to new deployments by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) aircraft carrier strike group and USS Bataan (LHD-5), USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) and USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) carrying the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, joining the USS Gerald R. Ford 96.60.168.239 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I will state that I climbed to the summit of Mount Whitney on September 11, 2009, so I pay attention when this ship is mentioned. It is a flagship with a senior admiral on board who commands a fleet. Other than that, though, it is not a major combat asset. Aircraft carrier battle groups contain many ships of many types, but the actual aircaft carriers are by far the most important and formidable components. At this time, the giant aircraft carriers USS Gerald R. Ford and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower are the ships that should be mentioned. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

In Section: Reactions → United Nations - add: "See also: United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/L.25" Don Stroud (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Input regarding an edit

Hey, I'd appreciate some input on this edit I've got a couple of ideas here:

a) I think it's best to keep the leadership and tunnels sections separate because the sources talk about them in different situations.

b) We should definitely mention Deif's connection to the terrorist acts in 1996, as per the provided source.

Infinity Knight (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting the leadership and tunnels sections definitely makes sense. Alaexis_¿question? 11:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a background section. Everything should be highly summarized. Detailed material on Hamas leaders or their strategies should be either located on their biographies or on the page for Hamas itself, of course. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The page, as has been noted elsewhere, including by the OP here, is overlength. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Breaking up the sections doesn't make the article longer; it just makes the content easier to follow and understand. As for (b), the 1996 incidents appear to be unique and part of the background. Sources mention this link, so it could be a good idea to include it. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Daragmeh note

BilledMammal, any reason why we should include the Israeli claim and not the Hamas claim on cause of death in the note? I tried to avoid all that by just clarifying he did not die in action, but if youre going to add the Israeli claim of a heart attack the claim that he was tortured and assassinated should likewise be included. nableezy - 03:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

He died in Israeli custody; given that they are in a position to know how he died their claims about how he died are relevant.

I'm also not sure the statement "killed in action" is appropriate; he wasn't killed in action, he died in custody regardless of the circumstances of his death. I'm also not sure he belongs in the infobox; there are many Hamas officials at his level, why are we including this one? As far as I can tell, he has no special relevance to the ongoing war such as being closely involved in the October 7 attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing Daragmeh entirely, as the sources don't make him out to be important in this conflict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s a bunch of unsourced opinion, and the idea that the Israeli government is a beacon of truth is likewise unsourced opinion. If you want to include the Israeli claim then the Hamas one should be too. If you want to remove it sure. If you want to remove him entirely sure. But just, and this has been a repeat theme here, only including Israeli claims as though they are the paragon of accuracy and ignoring Hamas ones as though everything they have ever said is a lie is non-neutral. nableezy - 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

add this if relevant or important in context of the article- Khaled mashal addresses a pro-palestine rally

As many countries held protests and rallies for palestine but no rally were directly addressed by any hamas leader, this may be one of a kind.i dont know if a leader and former hamas chief Khaled Mashal is still important or relevant but he directly participated virtually in a rally organised in Kerala's Malappuram. In a video, the Hamas leader Khaled Mashal could be seen addressing the people.He was invited by youth wing of Jamaat-e-Islami.Visuals from the event shows banners with slogans like “Uproot Bulldozer Hindutva & Apartheid Zionism”.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/hamas-leader-khaled-mashal-kerala-rally-virtual-speech-malappuram-solidarity-youth-movement-2454776-2023-10-28

https://thecommunemag.com/uproot-hindutva-terror-outfit-hamas-founder-khaled-mashal-addresses-kerala-youth-wing-of-jamaat-e-islami-hind/

https://india.postsen.com/News/amp/1228026

(google for more sources) Mindhack diva (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's interesting but only marginally relevant to this page. It would be appropriate to add to the Khaled Mashal article, though. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

its so funny that pro palestine/hamas rallies in india almost always drag hinduism/hindutva into an unrelated and far away conflict .lol..but its in kerela.so ya.someone who is initiated can understant. Mindhack diva (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Decapitation

Yet another reference to decapitation has just been added, during discussion. There are now 18 references to decapitation/beheading despite the fact that the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine, said "We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can't definitely say it was from beheadings." Frankly, as this is a trope, the article appears to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

??? the article appears to border on Islamophobia This is such a bizarre accusation. There is no disputing that Hamas murdered civilian Israelis, including children, in cold blood during the initial attack. There is ample proof of this, such as the graphic photos of bodies recently released by The Media Line. Does it ultimately matter whether they were decapitated or not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not matter at all how they were killed. That's my point. Why use the term eighteen (18) times, even when the head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine says this cannot be determined, if the manner of death does not ultimately matter, as you say? That's why gratuitously using a trope like beheaded eighteen (18) times makes the article appear to border on Islamophobia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Using ctrl + f, I found that variants of "decapitate" and "beheading" are used briefly in the 10 October subsection and then again (extensively) in its dedicated subsection under the "Media coverage" section. One could argue that the subsection on decapitations is given UNDUE weight (and the page is already massively too long as it is), but I don't see this topic being given pervasive coverage throughout the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used at all since it cannot be determined according to Israel's own expert. It is a highly contentious term due to its actual use by ISIS in the past and the connection some people make between Muslims and beheadings. It fails WP:V and has no purpose other than to inflame. We certainly have plenty of other text about atrocities that are verifiable. There is much to document about this war that is verifiable and important without dwelling on a trope. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia does beheadings as part of its capital punishment regime. ISIS is known for making beheading videos, not just beheading specifically. As far as I am aware, Hamas has never produced an ISIS style beheading video. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Right. So why are we trying to connect Hamas to beheadings? Indeed, using the terms 18 times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Just like everything else in this article, the topic is included because it has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources. You seem to be hung up on the number of times the word "beheading" or "decapitation" is mentioned instead of focusing on the context of what's been written. Whether the subsection on beheadings is too long or given UNDUE weight is one thing, but to accuse editors of Islamophobia for arguing for some inclusion of the topic is not helpful. Many independent observers doubt Hamas's narrative of the al-Ahli Hospital incident, but we still mention it in this article because it was given significant media attention. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have condensed the subsection in question. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

First, I am not "hung up". I am making an argument based upon Wikipedia policies. Secondly, I accused no one of Islamophobia. Please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. The media gave claims along the lines of someone said someone else said they observed something with which they do not have forensic knowledge. The al-Ahil inclusion makes it clear that it was false. This is an encyclopedia, not The Enquirer. Using the trope wordings of beheadings and decapitation violates WP:NPOV and WP:V, particularly with repetition so severe it pushes an unconfirmed narrative for no reason that I have seen stated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to identify what you're suggesting be done. Removal of the discussion entirely? Removal of certain parts of it? Reducing the amount of times the words "decapitation" and "beheading" appear? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal. There is no question atrocities occurred. So we document those atrocities which pass WP:V. Wikipedia is much easier if one just follows the policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you can keep the mentions of beheading as long as it's clear that no evidence was ever presented that proved that they ever happened, even according to the IDF. Ashvio (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Stated in that manner in two sentences without its own sections fits within Wikipedia policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it Islamophobic to say "We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can't definitely say it was from beheadings." I don't understand why it would be Islamophobic to say that people who's bodies were found headless may have been beheaded? Homerethegreat (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

exactly.i am also surprised as well as shocked that no one is even questioning this bizzare accusation. decapitation is linked with capital punishment in islam(see: Beheading in Islam) and hamas is sunni islamist group (as also mentioned in their main page), how does mentioning about decapitation done by hamas counts as islamophobia? and why would anyone ask for complete removal of even mentioning it when its claimed by many and in some cases even confirmed?? or maybe the editor is implying that mentioning this will cause phobia of islam?? or maybe editor dosent consider hamas islamic so dont want beheading to be associated with them??? in any case the request is absolutely bizzare and i am absolutely shocked many are even entertaining it. what kind of world/society are we moving into?? Things should be reported as they are not how someone would like them to be. Mindhack diva (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You have made my point for me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is unconfirmed, why is the words repeated again and again and again? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support removing most of the content from that section and merging it with the discussion under the 10 October subheading. The two things I think worth preserving: that the allegation was repeated by President Biden, and the assessment by the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The whole "Unconfirmed reports of sexual violence, decapitation, and torture" section needs significant work, in fact. There is a mix of substantiated and unsubstantiated information on alleged abuse and torture of Israeli civilians from the initial assault. The unverified information should be greatly reduced in scope and be clear that the information is unverified. (It should also have something notable about it to justify its inclusion.) The substantiated claims, meanwhile, deserve to go under a subsection that does not treat them as unverified. They could be put under the broader "War crimes" section or put in their own section. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The key is somewhat in the title here, i.e. "unconfirmed reports" - if the material is so unsubstantiated that it warrants the the title of "unconfirmed", it rathers begs the question of why we are recycling it in an encyclopedic project, which is supposed to be WP:NOTNEWS and reflect properly substantiated information. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've performed an initial trim of various quotes with no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not enthusiastic about the current state. However, the section is already flagged for multiple issues, as discussed in this section. These improvements can be addressed later. I'd consider trimming it further though; I'm unsure if we need more than two or three sentences on this topic. We might contemplate entirely eliminating the wiki voice, such as "unconfirmed," and instead attribute all the summarized sources. Maintaining equilibrium among sources is also a matter of concern. I would mention also the locations from which reports originated according to available sources, i.e. Kfar Aza and Be'eri.

For the record, the following references were removed. We can choose to reinstate them if we decide to restore balance:

Infinity Knight (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Infinity Knight (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday the Israeli government showed journalists video from various sources, which confirms pretty much all the claims made. [1], [2], [3] thats CNN, the BBC and the Guardian. I'm left wondering why content is being removed rather than additional cites being added to support it. WCM_email 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read most of the accounts of this meeting from non-Israeli sources. None of them mention decapitation as included part of the 42 minute video or supplementary images. We already knew that Hamas murdered civilians including children in cold blood, so I don't really see the conference as being particularly revelatory in the way some have. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Really?

“ Still images showed a decapitated soldier, charred human remains, including those of young children, and several Islamic State flags, the Times of Israel reported. “When we say Hamas is Isis, it’s not a branding effort,” R Adm Daniel Hagari told reporters after the screening. [4] ”

“ In another clip, a militant stands over a man who appears to have been shot in the gut and hacks at him multiple times with a garden hoe. [5] ”

The BBC also described the same incident.

“ Another sequence showed one Hamas gunman shooting the apparently dead bodies of civilians inside a kibbutz in a celebratory manner, and an attempt to decapitate someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.[6] ”

“ Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations of seven Hamas terrorists who were captured following the Palestinian terror group’s October 7 onslaught, in which they admitted they had been ordered to carry out atrocities against Israeli civilians.

In one video released by the Israel Defense Forces, a person whose face is blurred said that gunmen were given instructions to kill everyone they saw, including beheading victims and cutting off their legs.

“The plan was to go from home to home, from room to room, to throw grenades and kill everyone, including women and children,” he said. “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs.” [7]

”

“ The government screened approximately 43 minutes of distressing content, including scenes of murder, torture, and decapitation from the southern Israel assault. [8] ”

WCM_email 08:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough about the garden hoe, the source I read at stated that they "hacked at" them, which was not specific. The Times of Israel quote from the interrogation of an alleged gunman is not really verifiable, and this part of the video was largely ignored by non Israeli sources, suggesting that they didn't put much weight on it compared to the video footage.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In what way does it fail verification? WCM_email 09:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That these videos exist, is obviously verifiable. My point is there's no proof that the person making the statement is actually a member of Hamas (they may very well be, but the government provided no verification), or what was being said was not at the direction of the Israel government under duress. Note how the Times of Israel uses "apparent interrogations" and "a person". If it was going to be included it would need to be phrased with the same cautionary language that the ToI uses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A quotation from a video of a suspect saying “Hamas ordered us to crush their heads and cut them off, [and] to cut their legs” should easily meet the standard of being confirmed to have been done on Hamas's behalf. 98.151.160.96 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Graeme Wood reported that the video footage retrieved from the body cameras of Hamas militants displayed several victims "in the beginning of the footage they are alive, by the end they're dead. Sometimes, in fact frequently, after their death their bodies are still being desecrated." Infinity Knight (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight@Wee Curry Monster@BilledMammal@CapnJackSp@Veggies@Hemiauchenia please see to it that confirmed decapitation,rape,immolation,use of child soldiers,human shields etc are added to the war crime section considering every minute detail about israel commiting war crimes is there. this double standard should stop. Mindhack diva (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Can the "historical context" section be merged with the "background" section?

Both sections address the lead-ups to the war, and other essential information about the background. Additionally, would it better to at least move the "historical context" section to the front of the "events" section? HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

at least move the "historical context" section to the front of the "events" section? That seems logical while we think about whether a merge would be good or not (there is some discussion about that up the page) Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

hamas atackers speaks

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/sj9aj5qgt#autoplay — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A source with English subtitles of the videos: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-interrogation-video-hamas-fighters-confirm-terror-groups-hideout-under-gaza-hospital/ Thisissparta12345 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating language: The term "Hamas-run"

The inclusion of the words "Hamas-run" when discussing the Gaza Health Ministry, especially in the context recording the number of civilian casualties, adds unnecessary skepticism as to the accuracy of the death count.

According to the Washington Post, "In previous wars, the ministry's counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny". This information is corroborated by a statement from Michael Ryan, the executive director of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Health Emergencies Program, in which he is quoted as saying, "The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-by-minute basis, but they largely reflect the level of death and injury". The United Nations, international non-governmental organizations, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank all consider the Gaza Health Ministry "[to have] long-made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions".

Owing to these statements, the addition of the phrase "Hamas-run" adds unnecessary skepticism to numbers that are otherwise generally accepted to be objective by most neutral parties. The immediate removal of this phrase is imperative to maintaining the objectivity of this Wikipedia article, and it should be noted *explicitly* when dissenting claims are made by non-neutral parties (i.e. Israel or the United States).

I understand there's an implicit level of risk when using a source tied to a particular government, but the frequency of the phrase "Hamas-run" adds unnecessary scrutiny when our main objective is simply to encourage readers to take into account the potential risk of bias.

To the editors contributing to this page, I highly recommend that you take the time to consider the language you use, especially when it can potentially benefit one talking point or another. When discussing such a divisive issue, it is imperative to remain as objective as possible.

My source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/26/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll/45dcc3fe-742f-11ee-936d-7a16ee667359_story.html Stockrbonk (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Any skepticism here is with the reader, as the "Hamas-run" is fairly neutral and a statement of fact. Distinguishing from Israli-run or UN pr Palestinian. But there would be no need to repeat it every time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not neutral. Hamas is a political party. Would you be fine calling Israeli hospitals "Likud-run"? They are publicly funded. It's clearly an NPOV thing to discredit the death toll. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:1926:28F7:6430:2024 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree totally, to attribute figures to either the Gaza Health Ministry or Israeli Ministry of Whatever is fair and neutral, since even with the best will in the world, death and casualty figures are prone to various inaccuracies. Adding "Hamas-run" is a fairly blatant and crude attempt to discredit the figures - which, as the original poster says - have generally been proved to be reasonably accurate in the past. Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett There isn't anything wrong with the term "Hamas-run", at least not in essence- the problem comes when we associate it with an objective fact. We know fairly certainly that the Gaza Health Ministry's official death count can be relied upon, so what does the ministry's being run by Hamas have to do with anything?

This Wikipedia article didn't invent "Hamas-run", American media corporations did, and they've been increasingly promoting pro-Israeli talking points. Since it has such a negative connotation, we implicitly favor one side over the other whenever the term is used. In this context, "Hamas-run" isn't a neutral term. Stockrbonk (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

if the article is termed as "israel-hamas war" and not "israel-gaza war", we have to meantion everything explicitly that is controlled exclusively by hamas. 'hamas-run' should be used here for gaza health ministry or change the article to israel-gaza war. Mindhack diva (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What does "run by Hamas" mean? These are civil servants that preceded Hamas government control. They are considered reliable or not reliable. Of course all figures are subject to doubt. It will be quite a long time before the fog is lifted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed in an RFC up the page, can comment there if permitted.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Add one Uruguayan national to the list of hostages kidnapped by Hamas.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized the Uruguayan nationality of Shany Goren Horovitz, the 29-year-old Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas, after confirming that she is the granddaughter of Uruguayans, ministry sources confirmed to El Observador

Other sources in Spanish: Semanario Hebreo Jai, Telenoche, CNN, Infobae and La Diaria.

The Uruguayan government asked the Israeli government, through the Uruguayan embassy in Israel, to make every effort to secure the release of the 29-year-old woman. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Shortening article

After another editor added the template pointing out the article length, I wanted to write down some suggestions along with an area for other editors to add ideas and mark down when they are done.

• Israeli response probably doesn't need to be a day-by-day account.
• Humanitarian situation could get trimmed down to a few paragraphs and get a separate article
• Reactions likely deserve their own article. Maybe trim it down to Israel, Palestine (combine Gaza and West Bank), Middle East, and International.

Feel free to add on and strikethrough anything that is completed; I will do what I can but I'm not the fastest editor of all time. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think "background" and "historical context" should be merged and condensed. A very large amount of page text concerns events from before 7 October. Some is certainly appropriate, but I think we have too much. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree; I also think the tunnel subsection doesn't belong. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 01:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

So, where should we put the tunnel information? Is there a better spot for it? Infinity Knight (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

houthi involvement

since houthi already targeted isreal with rockets which was confirmed by the us and isreal and today the egyptian military said that investigations into the two drones that fell in Nuweiba and in Taba yesterday showed that they were heading from the south of the Red Sea to the north. so i think we should put Houthi movement in the infobox and put (minor involvement) أحمد توفيق (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ongoing RfC — Please see the ongoing Request for Comments (RfC) related to this topic, i.e. adding Houthi in the infobox. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreign and dual-national casualties

An example of a compact view of the table from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. The table in the English Wikipedia takes up a lot of space. Ucraniano2 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oct. 27 UNGA Iraq Vote

Under the Negotiations and diplomacy's Ceasefire/In support section, it says "The resolution received 120 votes in favor and 45 abstentions; 14 countries voted no."

This was initially correct; however, Iraq has since changed its vote from abstention to 'in favor'.

From a Reuters article: "Iraq later changed its vote to yes from an abstention after complaining of a technical difficulty, so the final tally was 121 votes in favor and 44 abstentions." 2001:569:588B:9A00:1939:57F2:FA10:50ED (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Error in Infobox

7,703 killed Including: 3,595 children and 1,863 women Ucraniano2 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) https://palinfo.com/news/2023/10/28/857641/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucraniano2 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz shows that Israel government has been lying about death toll from October 7th.

• Confirmed death toll is 900 not 1400.
• Half are Israeli soldiers.
• No "beheaded babies"

• Israeli forces were responsible for several of their own civilian deaths

https://new.thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-on-7th-october

someone add this to the article Chafique (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The source here is not Haaretz, but a website called The Cradle that has a marginal public profile (e.g., no Wiki article). I think such assertions laid out above would qualify as extraordinary claims, and this article does not qualify as extraordinary evidence. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think he meant that haarez was who made the claim, a direct quote from the article

“Now, detailed statistics on the casualties released by the Israeli daily Haaretz paint a starkly different picture. As of 23 October, the news outlet has released information on 683 Israelis killed during the Hamas-led offensive, including their names and locations of their deaths on 7 October.” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sharmine Narwani appears a credible expert in the field. But, as Jprg1966 says, The Cradle is an unknown. The data that can be traced to Haaretz would likely be useable with Haaretz as the source. Of course beheded babies is in the article (with qualification) which is an extraordinary claim with poor foundation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The linked source is "The Cradle", not Haaretz. They link to all sorts of sources, including an unreliable one and one mislabeled one. There's no link to the alleged Haaretz article. On October 26 Haaretz said the number of victims was at least 1,300. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It would not surprise me in the slightest were Israel spinning the story to suit their narrative, however we need to flesh this out with more sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

a very shady website.Its not uncommon for hamas supporters to come up with these made up stories. Mindhack diva (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you calling the authors of this piece something? nableezy - 14:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

nope.i just said its not uncommon for hamas(a designated terrorist organisation by many countries) supporters to come up with made up stories. its a more neutral wording than the person above me who accused an entire nation of spinning stories to suit their narrative. Mindhack diva (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much all countries spin stories to suit there own narrative. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

then its a battle of narrative.may the side with better values,beliefs,principles and 'evidence' win :) Mindhack diva (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Implying Israel hadn’t spun stories to suit their narrative in this war… The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Cradle was referring to an earlier Hebrew version of this list of October 19, which has 902 names cleared for publication (of 1300). One would have to go through the list descriptions and count those described as soldiers or police. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Because of a personal attachment to Kfar Aza, I examined the 902 list for the victims there, where initial reports had over 100, and after two weeks, 52 were 'confirmed' dead. The Haaretz listing of the 902 has one name doubled. The result is that as of today, 41 are known to have been killed, 29 civilians in the strict sense, and 12 associated with security or some military role. 'Confirmed' if it has any sense, must refer to 11 separate body bags carrying out the remains of other victims, whose identity must be ascertained later forensically by DNA sampling. That a number of civilians were killed by cross or friendly fire when the IDF and special forces blew up units where hostages were held is probable,-one eyewitness spoke of that- but wouldn't affect substantially an assessment of Hamas/Islamic Jihad violence. There is also a huge problem with the other round figures of, 1,000 and/or is it 2,500 (i.e. round figures) Hamas militants killed or operative in Israel, an early figure that undergoes no change. Some of those were almost certainly youths jumping at the chance to escape from Gaza. These things will only come out after the war, so it is useless speculating on them unless we get strong independent reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If any researcher were curious about this, they should check that list for people at Be'eri where the toll was much higher, and see what proportions emerge. That is, of course, ireelevant to our work on wiki, as WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF shares proof of main Hamas base built under Largest Gaza hospital(Shifa) but Hamas denies it

Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari claimed in a briefing for international reporters that Hamas’s main base of operations is under Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.“When medical facilities are used for terror purposes, they are liable to lose their protection from attack in accordance with international law,” Hagari warned.

Hamas uses Al-Shifa with its 1,500 beds and 4,000 staff members, as well as other strategic and sensitive areas - other hospitals, mosques, UNRWA centers, and more - as shields for its underground tunnel network, Hagari explained. Moreover, he added, in Al-Shifa specifically, Hamas runs parts of its command and control center in different departments, carrying out rocket attacks against Israel and other terror activities. “Hamas also has an entrance to its terror tunnels from inside hospital wards,” he said. “From different places inside the hospital, you can enter underground tunnels.

sources:https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-army-spokesman-hamas-military-base-is-under-shifa-hospital/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamass-main-operations-base-is-under-shifa-hospital-in-gaza-city-says-idf/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-hamas-hiding-tunnels-operations-centres-gaza-hospital-2023-10-27/

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-770484

However,Hamas rejects Israeli claim over installations under al-Shifa hospital

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/27/hamas-rejects-israeli-claim-over-installations-under-al-shifa-hospital Mindhack diva (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that fits better in the Al-Shifa Hospital article. Oshaboy2 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not even high enough above sea level to have that.

There is no "proof" shared. The Israeli government has provided no real evidence of the existence of said tunnels; a 3D video made in Cinema 4D doesn't count. NOKO444 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Asem Abu Rakaba

Add Asem Abu Rakaba in commanders and leaders section who was air chief of Hamas killed by IDF on last night in an airstrike. [[9]] Kkb091 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I redirected that article here because it probably doesn't meet WP:GNG. VR _talk 10:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the sources, like this one from The Week India, do delve into some detailed discussions. So, where in the article is this individual mentioned? Infinity Knight (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Small map edit

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

​I would have done this myself, but the galaxy brains at Commons have decided to implement overwrite restrictions for all non-autopatrolled users starting now. Ecrusized, could you handle this one for us? It looks like the IDF has made an incursion down the Gaza beach and raised the Israeli flag somewhere in northern Gaza [10]. -- Veggies (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Split

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

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

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

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

Biden unfrezed 6 billion dollars assets to Iran

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

— source

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

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

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

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

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

Abbas

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

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

USA as a belligerent

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

---

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

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

Agree. The US appears to have become an active participant, putting boots on the ground beyond merely the marshalling of troops in the region, and in addition to its other forms of material and operational support. There are reports of US special forces in Gaza,[11][12] and Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction. (Biden's administration even moronically posted about it, directly breaching its military's operational secrecy.[13][14][15]) While it was already wavering before, the country appears to have crossed the lined into active participation and could now be reasonably construed as a belligerent. Even if it only has delta teams operationally supporting and on standby, that is an extraordinary degree of support. This is in addition to the earlier story of a US naval destroyed shooting down cruise missiles inbound for Israel. That makes it multi-faceted support. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casualties removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC on Deif connection to Jaffa Road bus bombings

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was inappropriate for an RFC, no real prior discussion and the opener has been tban'ed in any case. If any editor wishes to add the information as part of the normal editing process, that is of course, possible, without the need for this RFC.

---

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

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

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

References

Inclusion of Deif connection to Jaffa Road bus bombings Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion of smaller armed groups

There many more Palestinian armed groups which have confirmed their participation in the war, including for now the Popular Resistance Committees (Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades), and the Palestinian Mujahideen movement.[16][17] There is also the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' brigades which i don't know why, but it was removed. It also appears that PFLP-GC is participating with whatever assets they have outside Syria, and so is As-Sa'iqa, with both participating in a meeting with other factions in Beirut, and declaring general mobilization.[18] And finally, on a side note, PFLP, DFLP, and maybe PIJ should be abbreviated, no idea why they are fully written out with an abbreviation at the end, wikipedia generally abbreviates long names of organizations like these, especially when, like in the cases of PFLP and DFLP, the abbrevation is used more than the full name. Whatever748 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Summarizing table

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

2023 Gaza War

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

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

I oppose to such tables in general:

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

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

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

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

Preamble

Please add general information about the victims to the preamble:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New articles

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

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

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

There's also the draft article:

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

Looks to be resolved. Riposte97 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk page indefinitely EC protected

Per the consensus here, I have indefinitely protected this talk page so it can only be edited by users who are logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Endorse. This is not a common move on Wikipedia, but it is justified given the current situation. We can re-evaluate as needed. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas vs. Gaza in the article body

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

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

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

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

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

Well problem with that is the US military in Vietnam burned down villages, killed civilians, and burned children with Napalm.[19] Do we call the US military terrorists? We just follow reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering Israel is mainly waging its war by blowing up civilians in Gaza, using “Gaza” would be more accurate The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear that Israeli actions are now against Gaza and not just Hamas, destruction of property, killing of civilians, siege, starvation, entering the territory, etc etc. So use of Gaza instead of Hamas where appropriate would seem correct.Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, and here the NYTimes refers to the "Conflict in Israel and Gaza". We can't change the name of the war until RS do. But if the cite for any body text uses both terms Hamas and Gaza, I agree we should use Gazans when appropriate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hunting for Jews in Russia

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

I'm surprised this hasn't been included in the article. I've added some information, courtesy of our 2023 wave of antisemitism in the North Caucasus article. If others wish to condense this information please do as I know it's taking up a lot of space at the moment, but this seems like a notable event worth mentioning. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Broken citations

Working on a larger edit, but I noticed that there a couple broken citations. Anyone have a moment to spare to investigate? They're sources #20 and #159. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

1590 palestinians abducted by the settlers since oct 7

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

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

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

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

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

Stories are all getting mixed up here, these issues (detained in Israel/WB and so on) are all available in standard sources, including AJ English. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is certainly reliable, and the idea we can only use English sources is directly refuted by policy. nableezy - 22:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm saying if we can't read English sources how can we use them? This is an obstacle that can be resolved by enough editors with enough knowledge of Arabic to verify the content (Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people says WP:RSUEQ, implying non-English sources' machine translations should not be trusted in contenious articles at all), but that's only the first of multiple problems.

As for Al Jazeera, quopting Alaexis below me: Per WP:RSP, "Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." Wafa is a state-run agency in a territory with very little freedom of speech. And, as I said, which you have not addressed (instead only insisting with no backup that it is reliable), Al Jazeera is headquartered in Doha, Qatar, where there is little to no freedom of expression or of the press or of religion, plus it is directly owned by the Qatari government, an authoritarian regime that is a primary supporter of Hamas including through direct financing, to the extent that the current leader of Hamas resides in Doha amongst its high society. Even the BBC says Arabic Al Jazeera at least favours Qatari government positions and Islamist groups. There is no way that it can be considered a reliable source for Israel-Palestine issues. JM2023 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already covered in the Losses/Palestine/West Bank subsection. Per WP:RSP, "Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." Wafa is a state-run agency in a territory with very little freedom of speech. So once we discount the partisan terms ("abducted", "settlers" in the sense of Israeli security forces, rather than actual settlers), I don't see what new information is contained here. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

West Bank section

Is there a reason why that is not in the timeline? The sources are treating the violence in the West Bank as part of the same conflict. The strike on the mosque and the raids in to Jenin are being covered as part of this same conflict, why shouldnt it be in the same timeline? nableezy - 04:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source for Israel being pushed back?

Last night the map showed Israeli occupation reaching into the outskirts of Gaza City. Now it's back to the strip's border. This isn't elaborated on in the relevant section. Is it true that they've been pushed back? Genabab (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the ISW, IDF has withdrawn from the Salah al-Din road. Ecrusized (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

Editors should refrain from adding daily incidents. For example, Israel–Lebanon border could be summarized into "daily clashes have resulted in .... casualties.", instead of a daily life toll. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Summarize and split"

@Infinity Knight: Care to explain how you "summarized and split" this section? [20] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

My recommendation would be using descriptive edit summaries and actual summarization instead of wholesale removal of pretty much very important material namely the Israeli intelligence failure. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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

What is hyperspace? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I.e. to nowhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Re-added. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree this stuff is worth including, especially the subsection on the Israeli intelligence failure. For days now I've been planning to recreate such a section based on this great NYT article, being unaware of this discussion; we're currently citing that NYT article but not using it; IMO the subsection should be mostly rewritten based on it. DFlhb (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: This is not your first rather hasty, undiscussed removal - uploaded and sourced content is the work of the community, and you should not be casually binning valid content without adequate input. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: emphasize Israeli occupation of Gaza

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

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

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

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

Gaza has been considered occupied since 1967 despite the disengagement by the UN, the ICRC, and most human rights organizations. Feel like opinions of other organisations is downplaying that a bit. nableezy - 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I added the UN and several human rights groups consider it occupied, cited to the ICRC saying "The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land - at the exception of the border with Egypt). Even though Israel no longer maintains a permanent presence inside the Gaza Strip, it continues to be bound by certain obligations under the law of occupation that are commensurate with the degree to which it exercises control over it." and NBC News reporting "The U.N., various human rights groups and legal scholars, citing the blockade, consider Gaza to still be under military occupation by Israel." nableezy - 16:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Is it even a question? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza isnt as clear cut as the West Bank, there are scholarly sources disputing that it remains occupied. There are scholarly sources affirming it remains occupied. This is who says what territory imo, not statement of fact. nableezy - 21:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"While there is not international consensus that this amounts to an occupation, many experts consider it sufficient to meet the international law definition" including United Nations and its bodies, Human Rights Watch, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The majority of sources (latest one here) argue that Gaza is occupied (more specifically that its occupation did not end in 2005), one of the reasons being that Israel could enter at will, amply demonstrated currently. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Hezbollah carried out its first attack on day two of the war, they officially did so "in solidarity" with the Palestinians [21]. Moreover, if the clashes with Hezbollah are not part of this war, what then of Hamas attacks from Lebanon? Hamas operates in Lebanon in coordination with Hezbollah. I believe Hezbollah qualifies as a belligerent, but hitherto it has played a marginal role in the war and kept things below the threshold of escalation. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

"For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." [...] "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle." [22] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"These clashes have led to a rising death toll on both sides, sparking fears of a new war front" ... "Which leads to the second front: Israel against Iran and its other proxies. That is, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Islamist militias in Syria and Iraq and the Houthi militia in Yemen. All of them in recent days have launched drones and rockets toward Israel or at U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria." West Bank a possible 'THIRD front' for Israel

It's not about Hezbollah becoming a belligerent, but whether or not the clashes will cross a threshold of escalation. Hezbollah itself says that it initiated them as part of the war Hamas started. Hamas operatives are active on the Lebanese-Israeli front. It is absurd that editors have been able to censor this from the infobox.Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um hello, the actual graphic gives an area "Gaza Strip under Israeli control". Second, all of the Gaza Strip is under Israeli control per the UN. Third, there is zero sourcing for such a thing to be true right now. Fourth, it will be impossible to update, this sort of thing in which maps are drawn showing the extent of a belligerent holding territory or tactics used in a battle happen later when qualified sources analyze what happened, not by random people on the internet sleuthing together clues they find from different sources. The map is an OR violation, but we can discuss that in an RFC eventually. Right now there too many open on this page already imo, so I dont intend to press it much for now. nableezy - 19:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The map can be based entirely off the Critical Threats Project (the same project used to update the Ukraine map). The additional citations there are just a substitute to solidify its reliability. There shouldn't be a WP:SYNTH concern here. U.N. classification of Gaza Strip as an occupied territory is regarding Israels control over its border crossings, territorial water and airspace. U.N. does not regard Israel to be in control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas and other militant groups control the Gaza Strip, except in territorial waters, airspace and border crossings, since 2007,. Ecrusized (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not what "military occupation" means. It means having effective military control over a territory. But where exactly are the sources that say that this territory, and not the rest, is under Israeli control now? nableezy - 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As previously said, they are on the commons file summary section. Ecrusized (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont edit commons, this is Wikipedia. nableezy - 16:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, then you should assume good faith from the editors who edit the commons who are saying the map isn’t OR. With 2 clicks, you can see the sources yourself. You can click the image, click the “More Details” button and instantly see the sources in the map’s history. If you do not wish to click 2 buttons to see the sources being referenced, then you should just assume good faith for those who are willing. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You're confusing "OR" with "unsourced." Levivich (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. But, to be fair, I was also replying to the editor who did say it was an OR violation earlier in the discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I mean is, just because the map has a source cited, does not mean it's not OR. Just because a source is cited doesn't mean the source actually verifies the content. In this case, the sources cited do not verify the level of detail that's shown in the map. Call it what you want to call it: not-V, OR, SYNTH... the point is, there is no source that verifies the exact lines drawn on the map, and no source that verifies all the lines drawn on the map as of a certain date, and certainly not as of 'now', which is what the map suggests. We do not know whether the blue areas on the map actually are Current extent of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, as the top of this article currently says. Editors reading reports of troop sightings, and then depicting them on a map, and/or combining a bunch of maps made at different times, are engaging in OR -- or more specifically, editors who post such maps on Wikipeida, are engaging in OR. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2023

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

---

2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Hamas war – The majority of reliable sources call it Israel-Hamas war without the year. There is no need for the year if there has been no other war between Israel and Hamas. Interstellarity (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for six reasons:

1. Keeping the year in the title will help readers differentiate between this article, 2023 Israel–Hamas war, and other articles about conflicts between Israel and Hamas, like Gaza–Israel conflict, 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, Gaza War (2008–2009), March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes, March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, 2014 Gaza War, November 2018 Gaza–Israel clashes, November 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes, and 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, among others.
2. Readers won't know/remember whether this is the "Israel–Hamas" or "Israel–Gaza" or just "Gaza War," but they will remember the year.
3. This is especially true right now: having "2023" in the title is the absolute easiest way to communicate to the reader that this is the article about the conflict that's going on right now, and not a previous conflict.
4. This is also especially true when, in this topic area, conflicts are widely known by the year in which they happened: '48, '56, '67, '73, '82, '87, 2000, '06, '08, '14, and now, sadly, '23. Anyone familiar with the history of the I-P conflict will know what all those dates refer to. (For anyone not familiar with the history, "2023 Israel-Hamas war" is going to tell them a lot more than "Israel-Hamas war," per point 2 above.)
5. WP:NCWWW, and it's too soon to see if it 's a WP:NOYEAR situation.
6. The reason the majority of reliable sources call it Israel-Hamas war without the year is because the sources are news reports.

Levivich (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — Exact reasons mentions by Levivch. The year is necessary for the war title, given the various wars in this region involving Israel-Gaza/Hamas/Palestine. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. Israel and Hamas have been fighting for as long as I can remember. We need something to differentiate it, regardless of whether the prior conflicts were actually "wars". Year, Date titles are a WP convention, and not something we would expect to see with RS. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Not the only Israel-Hamas war. There were two other major wars in 2008 and 2014, not including countless other clashes. Ecrusized (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per the convincing reasons provided by Levivich.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Suggested renaming : 2023 Gaza War

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

---

This war is not between Israel and Hamas, but a much broader conflict involving fighting with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah (in Lebanon) and Houthi Militias (Yemen). Therefore, the name is a misnomer.

רמרום (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Majority RS are still going with Israel Hamas, minority with Israel Gaza, so current name ftb. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the history of "requested moves" at the top of this talk page for details on the existing name, which has been extensively discussed. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Unconfirmed or disputed reports?

Currently the hierarchy of sections in 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Unconfirmed_or_disputed_reports gives the impression there are no confirmed or undisputed reports. Can someone please clarify the situation. I think there's one hierarchical level too many. fgnievinski (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Houthi involvement

As a part of the "Axis of Resistance" they had fired drones and missiles at Israel. They should be added to the article and the beligerents section of the infobox along with the US as the attacks are very notable. reuters CNN New York Times Abo Yemen✉ 05:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Early close – Clearly no consensus to move the article. No need to prolong this and have an unproductive move notice on a high-profile article. Adding a one-month moratorium message to Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/FAQ so that it is more visible to editors. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Fuzheado | Talk 17:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Hamas-Israel war – Place the belligerents in alphabetical order within the title. Given the nature of the topic, this should be discussed first to see if I'm missing something. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please make sure anyone participating in this discussion is familiar with the history of "requested moves" listed at the top of this talk page. We have had extensive dialogue on this, and it would be helpful to avoid re-hashing the same issues over and over. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: @InvadingInvader, Red-tailed hawk, HAL333, Levivich, and BilledMammal: I have now added a new FAQ at the top of the page in an attempt to summarize the issues from previous requested moves. - Fuzheado | Talk 02:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Per WP:AND, It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. Seems reasonable to apply the standard alphabetization practice here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support alphabetical. Any other approach to sequence is ultimately subjective and prone to human bias. ~ HAL333 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because, as far as I can tell, literally nobody, like not a single RS, calls it the "Hamas-Israel war" (prove me wrong?). WP:COMMONNAME, and in particular the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY aspect of WP:AT, should trump a general arbitrary rule suggesting alphabetization. Alphabetization might be neutral, might be a good default fall-back as a general rule, but it's arbitrary, and in this case, confusing. Also, not for nothing, but this is the second "tweak" RM today. There will be a clear common name, eventually, and let's just be patient and wait a little while for the RS to settle on one, and then just have one more RM, instead of having five (I think this is the fifth) in the first three weeks of this article's existence. Levivich (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  If you'd like places calling it, they would include Reuters, RAND Corporation, Axios, New York Times, The Hill, CBC, etc. Literally nobody seems inconsistent with a basic google search. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Calls not called, as in present/ongoing/naming-their-section-about-it, not as in has-ever-used-it-before. So for example NYT's Oct 9 The Morning newsletter you linked to called it "Hamas-Israel," but NYT's section on the topic, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/31/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news, calls it "Israel-Hamas." Reuters, same, "Israel and Hamas at War." Axios same, "Israel-Hamas war." The RAND link you linked is a reprint of a blog post from The National Interest [23], not an RS. I just checked CBC, man they're all over the place, yes, "Hamas-Israel," but also "Israel-Hamas" [24] [25], "Israel vs. Hamas" [26] [27] and "Israel-Gaza" [28]. CBC doesn't seem to have a section about this topic, so I'm not sure what they "call" it (present/ongoing sense). Same with The Hill--I'll note they call it "Israel-Hamas" in the article, though "Hamas-Israel" in the headline.

  Nitpickery aside, yeah, RSes have written "Hamas-Israel" in the past, but does anybody call it that -- present, ongoing -- like as in the name of the topic they assign to it? (And not just an example in a story here or there.) Does any RS use "Hamas-Israel" consistently or predominantly, as the title for the topic? Even if some RS do, it seems undisputable that the vast majority of RS put "Israel" first (even those that call it "Israel-Gaza").

  For whatever reason, the common names are Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Israeli-Arab conflict, not the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Levivich (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  A quick inspection of the news sources you state (ie. all but RAND) show that they all use "Israel-Hamas War" as well in their publication. It may be that they use both forms, or that the usage shown below is more recent and their practices have changed:

  • The House is set to vote on a raft of legislation this week related to the Israel-Hamas war that could intensify longstanding Democratic divisions. - Axios, October 31, 2023.
  • An open letter reveals internal divisions over Israel-Hamas war... Where does the disagreement over the Israel-Hamas war leave the party and the government? Journalists Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star and Stuart Thomson of The Hub weigh in... - CBC, October 30, 2023.
  • ...more than three-quarters of respondents in the new poll said they’re somewhat or very concerned about the Israel-Hamas war leading to terrorist attacks in the U.S... - The Hill, October 30, 2023.
  • Israel-Hamas war in Gaza: What is the history of the conflict? - Reuters, October 30, 2023.
  • Israel-Hamas War - Israel Hits Dense Gaza Area, Killing Dozens; Says It Was Targeting Hamas - NY Times, October 31, 2023.

  Fuzheado | Talk 03:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I also support a moratorium. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Levivich. Also, Support one month moratorium on new page move requests, to be lifted early only if there is a significant change in the scope of the war such as if Hezbollah joins. Five requests in three weeks is excessive. BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There does not seem to be a reason to make the suggested change as I could not find a RS that has the title you are suggesting. I would be open to sources that support what you are suggesting to reconsider my vote but I could not find any. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose just leave the name alone please to make some stability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and a moratorium for new move requests for 14 days. Andre🚐 03:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support one month moratorium on new page move requests Abo Yemen✉ 05:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please, no. IMO WP:AND gets terribly misapplied. It's meant for descriptive titles (i.e. ones we made up out of thin air), and only for those where there is no reason to favour one order over the other. That's not the case when the term is used in sources, i.e. where the title isn't one we completely made up; and it's not the case when sources have a preference. WP:AND makes perfect sense for Israel-Russia relations. It makes no sense here at all. The same goes for arguments in previous discussion that it should be "Gaza-Israel" instead of "Israel-Gaza", when sources use the latter and not the former. This is just a misuse of WP:AND. DFlhb (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – The idea that this is a war between Israel and Hamas is objectively false and pushes a POV. Just yesterday Israel bombed the West Bank. For those that don't know, there are no Hamas targets in the West Bank. We are playing a part in Israel's media strategy. Both these titles also violate WP:CONSISTENT. "Israel–Gaza War" is now used by The Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, and The New York Times.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That NYT link is a letter to the editor. NYT calls it "Israel-Hamas," just look at their front page. Reuters calls it "Israel and Hamas war" as shown in links here. BBC and WaPo call it "Israel-Gaza," but they're in the minority on that (for now).

  Folks who want to talk about what RSes call it, need to not pick out individual examples, but instead look at the RS's front page, and their page dedicated to the topic, to see how they title the topic. Otherwise it's just cherry picking examples, and we can find examples of all the variants. This will come up again in the next (post-moratorium, likely) move request. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich and DFlhb. There needs to be a better argument than "alphabetical order" for this change. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. BBC refers to this war as the "Israel-Gaza war". The Guardian refers to this as the "Israel-Hamas war". AP refers to this as the "Israel-Hamas war". Reuters refers to this as the "Israel and Hamas at War." Also recommend closing this discussion, it seems like there's no chance for this proposal to pass. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Move to 2023 Arab-Israeli conflict

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

---

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

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

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

It is still refered to internationally as Israel-Hamas war, since these are the two main belligerents. I would not expand it since, then you may have to include the Americans too since they shot down Houthi rebel missiles toward Israel, American forces were attacked by Iranian proxies.[29][30]

Perhaps you'd like to name it? US+Israel vs Iranian Proxies? That would be most accurate but I don't think anybody says this. The international consensus in English Speaking world is Israel vs Hamas. We should leave it as it is. [31] [32] [33] [34] Homerethegreat (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

2023

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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