Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit request - Better use of the Lancet survey

Request:

1. Please change "38,153-186,000+ killed (including indirect deaths)" to "38,153+ killed".
2. Please change "186,000+ deaths 'attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.'" to "186,000+ expected indirect deaths in the coming months and years"

Reason:

The Lancet article doesn't say that currently 186,000+ Palestinian have been killed, but rather that the indirect deaths could amount to (using conservative estimate) that number. Specifically, the article states that "[a] conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death ... to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict". One paragraph before this, the article explains "[there] will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years".

Additionally, I don't have permission to open a topic in Talk:Israel–Hamas war, but can someone please edit the main article to reflect this change? Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Updating to

'Estimates of expected casualties:'Lancet Correspondence: 186,000+ deaths "attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.".

The word 'statistical' is unnecessary - as that is generally how estimates are generated. Makes clear the casualty number is expected - and clarifies the source of the estimate (an article in Correspondence, not a peer reviewed study). | MK17b | (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@MountainDew20 - Hi, I saw that you removed the "expected" regarding the Lancet Correspondence in this edit. As I explained here, the Lancet Correspondence is indeed an expected deaths (direct and in-direct) for the coming months and years. Could you please revert your edit or explain why it should remain?

Tagging @Mk17b as I'm a new user and Mk17b corrected the template to include "expected". Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC

@BilledMammal: Which RFC are you referring to? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This one, which found a consensus for a footnote with "Per Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", an attribution that was then stable in the article until a couple of weeks ago. BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Can you elaborate? The closing note says that "reliable sources provided attribution from both the Gaza Health Ministry and Israel," and not "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at the proposed text for Option 1. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not conclusive, Options 2 and 3 also have it, pretty sure people weren't that focused on the "Hamas-run" part, I was involved and I wasn't. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what your point is. There isn’t a consensus for a specifically proposed text because some - although not all - of the other options also included that text?

This doesn’t work that way. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It is now going to be addressed at the newer RFC so academic what either of us think at this point-. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A general RFC won’t overturn the specific one here - it’s not like we’re writing policy, and the general RFC will thus only provide a weak guidance that can easily be overturned specific articles. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The (new) RFC opener said "I'd rather do something than let this continue to be an issue across a pile of articles." Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And then, when opening it "This has been a recurring issue across many articles in the ARBPIA space, where NPOV concerns have been presented both in support and opposition to the Hamas-run label. Rather than dealing with establishing a local consensus each time this arises I am seeking a broader community consensus on using a qualifier with Gaza Health Ministry." So yea, that argument isn't going to fly. Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed 24 June That consensus covers endnote attribution to GHM and now the "Hamas run" part of that is subject of the new RFC at NPOVN (there having been several other inconclusive discussions since end 2023). Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC

I read through the discussion at that RfC and there was no consensus to include Hamas-run and the closers comment said nothing about it. The most recent discussion before Hamas-run was removed from here is Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_44#"Hamas-run". NadVolum (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request - Lancet Contribution citation

I couldn't figure out how to get the Wikipedia template wizard to work right for the infobox talk but this is an extended-confirmed-protected edit request. I would propose by consensus changing the written attribution for the Lancet contribution to change from "Lancet contribution" to "Khatib, McKee, and Yusuf" or "Khatib et al." or "Advocate Aurora Research Institute and Birzeit University" (the affilitations of the corresponding author). Looking at recent war casualty pages in Wikipedia, casualty estimates are always attributed to the source or authors and not the journal unless editors of the journal are on the paper (e.g. a PLoS bio study). See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War. The only exception to this rule I could find was citation of a "Lancet survey" in the Iraq war page, which I would argue is also a mistake but slightly better because published surveys are often pre-approved by the journal and at the very least heavily associated with the journal's name in a way that correspondences are not. Besides the relevance of precedence to changing the attribution, it is also the norm in modern science to cite authors and not journals because publication in a journal is a prerequisite sign of credibility/plausibility, but not representative of the source of a claim or its evidence. The current citation style ends up sounding more like a Twitter feed ("my journal that I can't read says this") and less like an encyclopedic source "Khatib et al from Birzeit university projected" ... [cite lancet correspondence]".

For the same box, the direct casualties from MoH should still be cited (circa 40,000); it is inappropriate to cite only total (direct+indirect) casualty estimates and not direct casualty numbers (see all the Wikipedia pages above which cite Body Count sources which are directly caused deaths), especially when the indirect estimate in Khatib et al. was obtained by multiplying the direct number by 4. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

More recent edits seem to have resolved this, and almost certainly fairer still now that this multiplication by 4 is removed from the box. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Israeli casualties drop

A couple of days ago there was a sudden drop in the casualty count. I assume that we've got a new, better source contradicting the ones we had before, or should we revert to the previous figure? Gorgedweller (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

THe UNOCHA recently changed what figures it would report for the conflict. The figures are still from the Gaza Health Ministry. The overall figure is still their total recorded deaths. However the breakdown now is of deaths where their identity is known. NadVolum (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

@EkoGraf: I think you have misunderstood the source. It relates solely to those who died on October 7:

determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians

BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, regarding this edit; demobilised reservists are always classified as civilians under international law, and in this case he was targeted as a civilian. It’s not appropriate to list him as a military casualty. BilledMammal (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The HRW report missrelayed AFP's reporting. As you can see from the AFP's tally at the end of May that I linked [1], they cited at the time 1,189 confirmed deaths, including - 796 civilians, 379 security forces members and 14 "civilian hostages". So they are including civilian hostages who were confirmed to have died subsequently after October 7, but were taken on October 7. And we are currently listing civilian hostages and hostages thought to have been killed on October 7 but bodies taken to Gaza separately. So we should be careful regarding double counting in regards to the other separate figure. EkoGraf (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The reservist is considered as a military casualty of the conflict by the IDF, his name is on the list [2] and is already included in the overall toll of IDF fatalities in the conflict by the Israeli military [3]. EkoGraf (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That source is from May and is out of date. Further, it’s referring solely to those killed on October 7; Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,189 people

Regarding the reservist, it doesn’t matter how the IDF chooses to list him. The only question is whether he was a civilian, and he was. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Quote from the AFP report - "The latest toll from the attack is now 796 civilians, 379 members of the security forces and 14 civilian hostages, giving a total of 1,189.". So it was clear AFP also includes in its death toll of October 7th hostages who subsequently died. Most likely because they were victims of October 7th. Since that May report, AFP issued only three new updates of the overall toll 1,190[4], 1,194[5] and 1,195[6]. The last one being the figure that HRW used in its report. So no indication they stopped counting in the overall October 7th toll hostages who were subsequently killed.

As for the reservist, what matters is what the sources say, and the IDF (as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs[7]) counts him as a military fatality, and their overall figure (including him) is the one being reported by other media outlets. Also, I have not seen sources that he was demobilised at the time of his death. If they did, I would actually totally agree with you. Reports say he was only "off-duty" at the time [8]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s referring to hostages who died on October 7, it lists hostages who died on other days separately.

See his obituary; he was demobilised on Hanukkah.

However, in this case it doesn’t matter - even if he was a full time soldier he would be a civilian casualty, because he was targeted as a civilian. It’s no different to the soldiers who were massacred at Nova. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, AFP's reporting clearly states they include in their death toll hostages as well (I quoted the sentence). The only other figure they reported separately is the one that the IDF has said are thought to be dead, but are not confirmed.

Your source says, and I quote - "Ori served on the Gaza border in the wake of October 7th, was discharged during Hanukkah, and had returned to reserve duty in the Gush Etzion region when his life was tragically cut short." So after being discharged during Hanukkah, he was subsequently returned to reserve duty (see linked definition). He did not become a full-time civilian like Lidor Levy[9]. And your source also says he was an "off-duty" soldier at the time of his death. EkoGraf (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-duty soldiers are still soldiers and they are officially considered military fatalities of this conflict. There were dozens of off-duty US soldiers for example who were killed in insurgent attacks during the Vietnam War, but are considered military and not civilian fatalities. In any case, our personal interpretations and views need to be put aside and we are required to stick to what the sources say as per WP:Verifiability. And the state of Israel officially considers him as a soldier who died during this conflict. We can see what other editors also think... EkoGraf (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes - they include hostages killed on the 7th. Hostages killed on other days are listed separately, so currently we are undercounting.

I’ll add that we shouldn’t be relying on our interpretation of the source when ambiguous - we should be relying on reliable sources’ interpretation, and in this case they say the number is for those killed on October 7.

Regarding Ori, you’re right - I misread that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad Ori is cleared.

Like I already said, in none of its reports has AFP listed hostages killed later separately. The only figure they have listed separately is those hostages who are thought to be dead by the IDF but not confirmed. AFP includes confirmed hostage deaths (bodies retrieved) in their overall count of deaths of the October 7th attack, as seen from the quoted sentence. Every time a new body is recovered, AFP increases its count. The latest being 1,197 as of today [10]. They have clearly stated their count includes civilians killed on October 7, security forces members killed on October 7, and "civilian hostages" killed. At the time when they reported 14 civilian hostages in their count, 14 bodies had been recovered from Gaza up to that point. Its getting late at the moment and best to take a break and like I said see if other editors can chip in with their opinions as well. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hamas's October 7 attack on southern Israel that sparked the war resulted in the deaths of 1,195 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli figures.
The militants also seized 251 hostages, 116 of whom remain in Gaza, including 42 the military says are dead.

Regardless, when there is a dispute over the interpretation of reliable sources, we should defer to reliable sources - which say that AFP’s figures are for October 7. BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

See this report [11], at this time (yesterday) they said 24 hostage bodies recovered, while 39 are thought to be dead by the military. Those 24 are among AFP's count. I would be willing to compromise that we put 815 as per HRW's report of citing AFP, if we remove the separate hostages toll from the count or just leave the current figure of 42 thought dead. Since its more than apparent AFP increases its count of victims of October 7th each time a new body is recovered (of either someone who died on October 7th or later). In any case, to be continued, hopefully after other editors also state their views. Good night! EkoGraf (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Excluding dead hostages isn’t appropriate.

However, this discussion is going in circles, let’s resolve it. Do you have a source supporting your interpretation that the figures include hostages who died after October 7? BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I already provided a source, AFP itself [12], which said its toll includes civilians, security forces and "civilian hostages". Further, the report says, and I quote - "The new count includes those taken hostage on October 7 by the Palestinian militant group and whose deaths have since been confirmed." EkoGraf (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It also says that this is the toll from the attack, which is why I am asking you if you have a third party source telling us how to interpret this, rather than us engaging in WP:OR - do you? BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, your assumption that they add recovered bodies to the toll is incorrect. On the 25th five bodies, all killed on October 7, were recovered, but the most recent figures are only two higher than the figures from mid-July - 1197 to 1195. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not engaging in OR, please keep WP:GOODFAITH. I will quote the source again... "The new count includes those taken hostage on October 7 by the Palestinian militant group and whose deaths have since been confirmed." At the time 14. So, if they include only those killed on October 7th, they confirmed their deaths when their bodies were recovered. It has been stated multiple times in regards to the bodies of hostages recovered since then that some of them were killed on October 7th, but their bodies taken to Gaza (these are most certainly counted by AFP). Because of those, we should remove the separate hostages toll because it most definetly includes these as well, resulting in doublecounting. Another reason is because the 42 assumed deaths also includes soldiers as well, thus increasing unjustifiable the civilian death toll. Add 815 confirmed civilian deaths, no problem, but remove the separate hostages toll, because at least some of them (the ones who died on Oct. 7th) are obviously included in the 815 as well (confirmed by AFP). If you want, we can do some research, find sources, and add separately civilian hostage deaths who were definetly confirmed to have died after October 7th. EkoGraf (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been checking the numbers of losses and their sources and currently, there are varying numbers of losses depending how the given Israeli source label them. For instance The Times of Israel that is the most dedicated and reliable source for this type of information in an article of 28 July 2024; list the number of IDF casualties at 689 while a Israeli Goverment page cite the names of 680 servicemen killed here. Sadly there is no distiction if they were on duty or reservist soldiers. We should take the data as it comes with the term of IDF "servicemen" or "soldiers". Any distintion of the given number of IDF soldiers killed by their status in the Army would be unnesesary and will be WP:OR, if there is not a direct source indicating those alleged status.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ::Found another Source with 689 names of IDF soldiers killed during the war. 1. And as you can see there are two newly aditions of two IDF soldiers killed on 7 October, 2023 that their funerals were held in 28 July 2024. What I want to note with this comment is that there is still casualty recording and bodies recoveries and identification taking place, its premature to start making separate tallies until the conflict reach a ending phase. Currently I recomend to simply cite IDF losses from that very last site and civilians losses from the Times of Israel.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mr.User200:, somehow we managed to resolve the issue of the IDF's tally. However, the issue now is in regards to the AFP's tally of the civilian victims of October 7th. AFP previously stated [13] "The new count includes those taken hostage on October 7 by the Palestinian militant group and whose deaths have since been confirmed." And during a breakdown of the victims they said (at the time) the toll includes 796 civilians, 379 members of the security forces and "14 civilian hostages". Since then the AFP's count has increased only slightly, and each time after new bodies were recovered. BilledMammal's view is they include hostages killed on October 7th only. I have suggested a compromise that we include HRW's report that AFP's latest figures includes 815 civilian deaths, but to remove that separate figure of hostage deaths, because it most definetly includes hostage deaths that were subsequently confirmed, resulting in doublecounting and an unjustifiable increased number of civilian deaths. Your opinion? EkoGraf (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we update casualties of Israeli soldiers using this source

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14024678 is the source. Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Add us, iran as belligerents

I think it is self explanatory 2601:40F:4400:8420:2860:2FD2:ED43:691E (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also support this, but with a “supported by” as the usa is not an active combatant yet The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither Iran nor the US are directly involved in this war. Both countries' military involvement in the region are part of the larger 2024 Iran–Israel conflict, and therefore including them in this infobox as belligerents would be misleading. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing guesses/estimates about future casualties from the infobox, to keep consistency with all other articles about ongoing armed conflicts

I looked today at the page List of ongoing armed conflicts, and checked all the conflicts (and their sub-conflicts) under the heading of Major wars (10,000 or more combat-related deaths in current or previous year) and wars (1,000–9,999 combat-related deaths in current or previous year). Except for this page on the Israel-Hamas war, NOT EVEN ONE of the ~90 articles listed under those categories, mentions future hypothetical deaths (that may or may not happen) in the listing of casualties in the Military Conflict Infobox. Therefore including this guesses/estimates about the future here is a glaring violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, therefore I removed it. Vegan416 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2024 (Belligerents section)

add united states to Belligerents section on the israel side as they passed a aid package sending weapons to israel 173.72.3.91 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Please seek consensus first. The belligerents section is primarily for countries and other entities that have engaged in combat, which the US has not. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

since 9 are killed and 87 are injured from israel in 2024 Israeli strikes on Yemen i think they should be added inside the template 173.206.1.59 (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Unconfirmed in mohamed deif

why there is unconfirmed after deif and not marawan issa because hamas didn't confirm marawan issa death also so either both are unconfirmed or both to not have unconfirmed between brackets أحمد توفيق (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Hamas did not comment or deny Marwan Issa being assassinated. With Mohammed deif they denied his assassination, and with Ismail haniye they acknowledged it even before the IDF did The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

maybe "disputed" is a better word for it? given most are unconfirmed. FourPi (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If we don't know, we shouldn't say anything except we don't know = unconfirmed Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

American estimate of dead combatants in Gaza

in the [h] note next to the casualties of the Gaza strip, in the "Per US intelligence:" category, it is stated that 9,000 to 12,000 combatants were killed. This figure was cited from a Reuters article. However when reading the article, it is stated that: "The enclave's ruling group has been reduced to between 9,000 and 12,000 fighters, according to three senior U.S. officials familiar with battlefield developments, down from American estimates of 20,000-25,000 before the conflict. " Subtracting the numbers, the amount of combatants killed according to the US intelligence is between 8,000 to 16,000. Stone fridge (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Stupid figures I don't feel like having anything to do with, but if somebody wants to fix the template can I sugges just repeating what Reuters said and not get Wikipedia involved in making up more figures by subtrcting two ranges from ech other. NadVolum (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Reduced to between 9,000 and 12,000 fighters" seems like they're saying that the original number, 20,000-25,000, was reduced to 9,000-12,000, not reduced by 9,000-12,000. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Scope

@Jonesey95: There is no requirement for prior discussion to enact any changes per WP:BOLD. Do you have any concerns relating to the merits of this edit? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion on the content. The edit resulted in broken syntax. You can check "Page information" for Lint errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I understand that you would not object to the edit given the lack of broken syntax? And any idea how to fix it? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ensure that every tag that is opened is also closed. Any tag that is opened inside a template or other tag needs to be closed inside the template, or before the other tag is closed. Check the Page information page for Lint errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Honestly I have no idea how to do that. Where can I seek technical support? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 what is broken? FourPi (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(tag me in the reply please) FourPi (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

FourPi, there is nothing broken now. This large change removed tags that were necessary to close li, ul, and div tags that had been opened. Because the edit was undiscussed and broke the syntax, I reverted it with an appropriate edit summary. Re tech support, if you do not know how to make an edit to a page that contains complex syntax, post on the talk page saying what you would like to have removed, and ask for someone else to make the edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sort of the opposite. I was looking for things I might be able to help fix. But if nothing needs fixing, that's ok, I'll find something else to work on. FourPi (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

Mohammed Deif] X 2A06:C701:C6B4:1700:980B:BD5A:20BF:9AC5 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Lack of estimates about Militiant deaths in gaza

Militiant deaths in gaza is a volatile subject. However, not mentioning any estimates of the matter at all is a very biased way of presenting the availabil information to unsuspecting readers. It is very dishonest to do so and is against Wikipedia's goals and guidelines. 213.137.66.43 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Gosh what a corrupt conspiracy you've uncovered! Do try to just state the problem you see, what you think should be done and provide citations to reliable sources if you ever want to get something done on Wikipedia thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

Mohamed Deif has been assassinated. It should be updated in the Commanders section on the top of the page Stormwaker (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Syria from Infobox

Syria's presence as a combatant seems very weakly sourced. Syria's role appears to be more as a partner and ally to Palestinian and Lebanese militants, rather than direct involvement. The airstrikes by Israel against Syria during this time period seem to be more just a continuation of the longstanding Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, rather than a new escalation like in Lebanon and Yemen. As a result, and given that Iran itself is currently absent from the infobox, I would suggest removal of Syria from the infobox. The Syrian role in the war can be discussed further in the article body rather than the infobox, which should only include actual combatants in this conflict.

• https://www.news24.com/news24/world/news/they-would-destroy-his-regime-syria-steers-clear-of-israel-hamas-war-despite-iran-ties-20240426
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-threatened-to-topple-assad-regime-if-syria-gets-involved-in-gaza-war-report/
• https://www.axios.com/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-gaza-war-uae-syria-assad
• https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240426-iran-ally-syria-strives-to-stay-out-of-gaza-war-experts
• https://www.stimson.org/2024/why-syria-is-so-silent-about-hamas/
• https://www.dw.com/en/what-role-does-syria-play-in-the-hamas-israel-conflict/a-67399322

Jay942942 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024 (2)

Mohhamed Deif was assisnated aswell AlonRafaeli (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources and follow the form of "please change X to Y" when requesting. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

add 14 Yemeni are killed from Israel airstrike in 2024 Israeli strikes on Yemen to the causalities in the template. 142.116.32.130 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources for the edit you are requesting for. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Jaysh al-Ummah

Do they really belong in allies? (In the footnote in Palestine) They seem to have endorsed Hamas, but no reciprocity? They don't usually like like each other, and I've seen multiple news stories mentioning the rest of that list, but nothing about them. FourPi (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Error-generating Al Jazeerah references

Greetings and felicitations. There are currently four "Cite web" templates that are generating "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list" errors because the authors are jumbled up in the author fields. I would fix them, but the references are linked to a blog which, when I can find the titled pieces, doesn't actually cite any authors. I could use so help with this, please. —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Citation nos. 63, 68, 81, and 116. —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone apparently fixed them, so this can stay archived. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2024

I wanted to point out that you listed the 3 Israelis killed at the Allenby checkpoint a few days ago as civilians. We know, however, that they were armed guards for a private company that works with the border police. It is difficult to consider armed members of an armed private company as "civilians". Thank you for your work. So change "915 civilians killed and 782 security forces killed" in "912 civilians killed and 785 security forces killed" 2A0E:419:A093:0:85E5:4C7B:4FD8:AB3B (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 14:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Number of militants killed

I view the figure of 17,000 militants killed as coming under WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It should be removed or directly attributed inline to the IDF and not using a note. If other figures from non-Israeli sources were added to form a range it would be okay to put it in a note I think like for other things. One can easily see it is a stupid figure. Assuming the Gaza figures for identified casualties are something like correct and that deaths are either random collateral or Hamas men with no mistakes then approx (11000-5320) = 5680 of the identified 28185 killed would be Hamas assuming the same number of civilian men are killed at random as women. plus we'll add a 1/50 from the random number as being Hamas anyway. This gives 5680 + (28185-5680)/50 = 6130 out of 28185, or if we count 10000 under the rubble (6130/28185)*(40861+10000) = 11061 Hamas killed as a first estimate. I'm sure there's lots of ways to get it up or down some amount but I think WP:EXTRAORDINARY covers the IDF claim of 17,000. NadVolum (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This is original research, and flawed. (For example, many of the militants killed are young, unmarried men, so the widow part is irrelevant.) The figure of 17,000 seems reasonable to me, and I'll provide sources later. I didn't find any reliable sources refuting it. Gabi S. (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mention widows above. Yes it is original research - showing the figure is extraordinary. That is why for instance the BBC and others talk about Israel providing no evidence for their figure. I mentioned them on your talk page. I said they would increase the number of men killed relative to others so they'd increase the number of possible militants, They help to put the figure up as far as I could. I wasn't trying to cut down the possible number of militants killed. Try and find a friend with a feel for statistics or maths if you don't have any. NadVolum (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The figure of 17,000 militants killed is not extraordinary. I'm sorry that it takes some time, but I'll provide sources that support the reliability of this data. Gabi S. (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I can wait. NadVolum (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The numbers provided by IDF are not arbitrary, but based on examination of each attack. The attacks are not random, but based on intelligence and directed at Hamas militants, mainly officials. They gather information on each official, which is identified by name. As part of the intelligence gathering process, information and name identification of their assistants is also completed. After each ground or aerial attack, IDF soldiers count the number of armed men killed, regardless of organization, they can be Hamas or Jihad or anyone carrying a weapon.

You can see this process in war reports, for example this one [14] says that military intelligence identified a building with hundreds of Hamas militants. At the start of the operation, residents were allowed to exit the building, while those identified as Hamas militants were arrested. Afterwards the building was struck. Another example is this report [15] where the target was a Hamas sniper, and after the attack 20 other armed militants were counted among the dead.

Additional sources point toward reliability of IDF figures. I’ve not seen any research disputing these figures, and they are quoted in reports of reliable organizations, such as the Institute for National Security Studies. Hamas attacks on Israel during the last months are sporadic, as they lost many commanders and large numbers of armed fighters. According to a report from June 2024 [16], Hamas has seen about half its forces wiped out. It says that Hamas forces were reduced to between 9,000 and 12,000 fighters, down from estimates of 20,000-25,000 before the conflict. According to Israel, Hamas forces were estimated to be 30,000 before the conflict, and by September 2024 more than half its forces were killed, thus the 17,000 figure makes sense and is not exaggerated. Gabi S. (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those references talk about the number of militants killed, only about estimating the number of militants left in Gaza. Israel has detained a huge number of people. Read the ynet reference and see what it actually says. It is hard to know exactly how many Israel detains as it refuses to release details but it is at least 9,500 and I think it may be about 13,000 - and it assuumes most are militants. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The numbers make sense. Regarding the detainees, there are currently about 9,623 Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons, but there were already 5,088 detainees in September 2023 (before the war) and among those added are also Palestinians from the West Bank, not only from Gaza. Your estimate of 13,000 is original research, but even as such it seems not far from the IDF numbers, so I wouldn't classify it as extraordinary. Gabi S. (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You'd know the Israeli figures are just ridiculous if you were able to actually think with numbers. Didn't you read what the IDF said in ynet? And when they talk about their intelligence helping in killing commanders they very often mean dropping a big bomb on the apartment block where the family live. "Israel Gaza: Checking Israel's claim to have killed 10,000 Hamas fighters". BBC News. 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-09-20. is BBC assessment from the end of February of their claims from then. As opposed to those figures above they actually explain what they do. It is quit typical for people in a war to claim double the number of kills. NadVolum (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC article is flawed, but it has some important insights. First of all, the 8,000 IDF estimate from December 2023 is based on intelligence, interrogations and examination of satellite photographs. So claims like "Israel hasn't provided any evidence" are gone out the window. One Hamas official had admitted 6,000 fighters had been killed, but later denied it. And one of the main flaws is that all of these estimates ignore 1,600 additional armed militants that were killed inside Israel on the bloody October 7 massacre. Yes, I can think with numbers. They align. Gabi S. (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to think with numbers you would be able to point to some flaw in what I said at first - and you definitely would never have tried pushed Abraham Wyner's rubbish. Unless there's some other reason you pushed that. NadVolum (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I showed consistency and reliability in IDF reports of numbers of Hamas militants killed. There is no source that claims otherwise. I also quoted a source that refutes the claim "they are providing no evidence for their figure." I don't see any reason to go further than that. Gabi S. (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is the IDF, no evidence is given! Reliable sources all say the figure is given without evidence and even the Jewish papers just attribute it to the IDF. Just saying you showed consistency and reliability in the IDF figures is not the same as actually doing it. Going back to when they were claiming 14000 militants and 16000 civilians that goes badly against the numbers identified so far - one would need to say practically every man and thousands of women and children were Hamas to get that ratio. That is why the figure is extraordinary. NadVolum (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the source quoted above, the number is based on intelligence, interrogations and examination of satellite photographs. What evidence do you need more than that? Do you expect IDF to show you the intelligence reports, interrogation transcripts and military satellite photographs? The current estimated number of militants killed is 17,000, which makes sense and is close to other estimates. Gabi S. (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I expect a reliable source or some checking rather than the source for the confirmation of an extraordinary 'fact' to be the crowd who said it and have no independent evidence. And even what they say is not exactly believable. From interrogations where torture is alleged? From bomb craters where they hope to kill people in a group in a tunnel beneath? From knocking down whole buildings with 2000lb bombs? Their precise strike in Beirut they just did where they had a visible target killed 12 Hezbullah - but the total including women and children was 37. That is not some 'Gold standard' even when conditions were best. I might accept all that with a shrug if they came up with some halfway credible figure but they did not. NadVolum (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Gaza Health Ministry

(Moved from User talk:Gabi S.)

Please do not stick in something saying well suppoprted figures are extraordinary. That is disruptive. I believe you put that in because I put in that the IDF figures for militants killed was extraordinary. If you think the figures from the IDF are not extraordinary explain why in the talk page or provide an independent source that confirms they are a reliable source for that figure. Even better try and find other sources for estimates of militants killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The numbers provided by Hamas were assessed as reasonable by reliable independent sources in the early stages of the war, when they were far lower. The current numbers are not verified by any other agency and might be, well, extraordinary. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Some sources with similar claims: [17], [18], [19]. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

They have been discussed on the talk page for the Gaza Health Ministry and on the reliable sources noticeboard and are rubbish. The Abraham Wyner one is partcularly bad as he is a professor of statistics. I supported including him as he is academically qualified for the task, plus also rebuttals by four academicss includng two statisticians. However an RfC removed him as his stuff was not peer reviewed but an opinion piece and contradicted reliable sources. One of the statistics professors Joshua Loftus said it was one of the worst abuses of statistics he had ever seen. NadVolum (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also 'might be extraordinary' is not the same as patently extraordinary. I was being conservative and tried to push the figure up as far as I could from the numbers. The number of men identified may actually be on the high side compared to women and children because identification helps with getting state aid for widows. Also I don't really suppose Israel is actually that good at identifying militants as I assumed there. And I got the figure out of 50,000 not 40,000. Israel may be just quietly burying militants without telling anyone but the widows do not have to actually show a body, just get their claim checked as reasonable by a court. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your claims. Gabi S. (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest discussion was at Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#RfC - criticism of Abraham Wyner's article. The others don't affect much but are also discussed in the various discussions. What have you got to show the Israeli figures have any connection to reality? You do know the IDF themselves have used the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry [20]? NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

IDF used to do it in January. The current reported numbers are not verified by any other agency and might be actually lower. Again you resort to original research to prove yor point, because there are no sources that can back your claims. Gabi S. (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what claims you're talking about or what type of evidence you would take any notice of but here's a Sky source [21], and an expert source [22] assess the Gaza Health Ministry figures as quite reliable. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability aside, I think that the numbers provided by Hamas should be attributed to the Gaza Health Ministry since they are the sole source for these figures. Gabi S. (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is the point. See "Harrowing 649-page document names every Palestinian killed by Israel in Gaza amid 'genocide denial'". The New Arab. 16 September 2024. Retrieved 17 September 2024.. Israel has those id's, if a lot of them are still alive and the Israelis though the figures were made up I'm sure they'd have tracked some down by now. NadVolum (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've seen the reports, and understand their meaning. Still, the Gaza Health Ministry is the one and only source for numbers of victims in Gaza, so it would be better to attribute the infobox numbers to the source. Gabi S. (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:INTEXT. The note attributes the data. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

These are interesting guidelines. Check this example:

Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

Y The sun sets in the west each evening.

Accordingly, since the Gaza Health Ministry is the one and only source for numbers of victims in Gaza, it must be clearly attributed as such. Taking the figure at face value is misleading. Gabi S. (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not the only thing there and what you say is a fallacy of reasoning. A implies B does not lead to not A implies not B. NadVolum (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

Change title “Israel Hamas war” to “Operation swords of iron” 2600:1011:B134:D62D:6950:E0EC:6052:7E57 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To include the battle in the north, this article should really have a title change “The swords of iron war” 2600:1011:B134:D62D:6950:E0EC:6052:7E57 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia names are based on reliable sources rather than the names used by parties to the conflict. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the name given by reliable sources to this war? Is there really a need to separate between Israel–Hamas war that started on October 7, and the Israel–Hezbollah conflict that started on October 8? Gabi S. (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

A suggestion was made here to change inline text phrasing from A to B. To change any article titles themselves, an RfC for a move discussion would need to be made by an editor with WP:ECP. Relevant policies are mentioned in WP:Article title and for this context/area, WP:COMMON, WP:CONCISE and WP:NEUTRAL have been frequently used. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should just wait for a change in the main article name this template is used in before thinking about a change here. NadVolum (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Indirect deaths

It seems the indiret deaths in Gaza are estimated to be not much higher according to Palesine Number of Natural Deaths in Gaza Increased by More Than Six times Due to Israeli Aggression. That comes to about 51,000 seemingly. The average age is quite low which would reduce the natural death rate substantially. I believe the expected natural deaths would be about 8,000 per year and its about a year so that would mean about 43,000 extra deaths not directly due to bombs or shooting. NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Strip status

I remember adding "Israeli-occupied" to before Gaza Strip in the location in the infobox maybe a year back and it was reverted based on the argument that the Gaza Strip is not occupied since Israel had withdrawn from it in 2005. This argument has been recently debunked by the July ruling of the International Court of Justice, which clarified that the existence of a military occupation does not depend on the presence of military forces within a territory, but rather on the "whether its authority has been established and can be exercised." [23] Can we now restore this important piece of information to the infobox? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Does that really add anything useful to the infobox? That is a jargon meaning rather than something that would appear in a newspaper in a sense a reader understands. It could go into an article about the war and about Gaza itself with a description of what it means. NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does, it shows that Israel was already occupying the Gaza Strip, when it invaded again in the past year. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean by jargon. You'll get people saying it didn't have Israeli troops in it and have to stick in explanations about it that they won't look at before they complain. Can't you put it in simple straightforward term? An infobox espaecially should not be for jargonistas. NadVolum (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Occupation is not jargon, it is a commonly known word. We can add ICJ’s elaboration in a footnote. This would be a perfect middle ground solution. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A jargon word having common uses makes it even worse. It's like a mathematician using the word group about a Rubik's cube without explaining what it means. NadVolum (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

17,000 militants killed (figure given by IDF)

Why is this specific information from the footnotes exclusively highlighted in the main infobox, while other relevant details, such as the casualties of women and children, are omitted? Additionally, why hasn't the editor included the varying estimates of militant fatalities provided by US intelligence and Euromed, which differ from the IDF's claims?

Also the claim of 17,000 figure is not supported by evidence according to mainstream news reports, so this should be mentioned along this figure.

Other editors have also raised concern over this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israel–Hamas_war_infobox#Number_of_militants_killed

Hu741f4 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is part of Wikipedia's policy of inline attribution of anything that can't be said in Wikipedia's voice. The other numbers in the template have enough evidence that though they may not be very accurate they are fairly good and reliable. As you say those sources you gave all attribute it inline and say no evidence is given, Wikipedia is just basically doing the same thing. If you can get something halfway reasonable including the Euro-Med and US intelligence and put them in as a range I guess that could go in with the attributions just in the footnote. People are very interested in the figure. However I haven't seen any recent figures from those other sources. NadVolum (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hu741f4, a note has to be added wherever the 17,000 figure is cited to say that no evidence for it has been provided per RS:

The 17,000 figure is entirely fabricated by Israel. This has nothing to do with "fog of war" and "bias", the number is randomly made up and no evidence at all has been provided for it (unlike for the Ministry of Health figures).

Many RS have reported this, and it should be reflected whenever the figure is cited by for example adding "media have reported that no evidence has been provided for this figure".

The fighting has also killed 329 Israeli soldiers. The Israeli military claims that over 17,000 Hamas fighters are among those killed in Gaza but has not provided evidence.[13]

Wikipedia is not doing the same thing by citing it inline as those outlets, because they explicitly say no evidence for it has been provided, while right now on here the figure is cited with the "per Israel" attribution and the Times of Israel as the source for it that also does not mention the lack of evidence for it, and there is no mention at all of the figure having no evidence behind it on the page itself.

That should be changed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum Do you have anything to say? What do you think about either keeping this 17,000 figure in the footnotes along with other estimates and removing it from main infobox or mentioning "claimed by Israel without evidence" if it has to stay in the main infobox. Hu741f4 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Another user insists the figure has to go in to the main part. My preferred choice would be to have a range from a few estimates then the attribution to the various sources could be put in the note attached. But we haven't had anybody else giving a figure in the last few months that I know of. I thought just specifically attributing it inline was about the minimum needed and any more would be excessive. Perhaps it would be better to change the source to one that says that no evidence has been given. I'm unhappy even attributing it to the IDF but that's what the source says - it is almost certainly a Netanyahu invention and the IDF aren't that stupid. All that lot like Trump Bolsinaro Putin etc do that these days I'm afraid. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Coming from Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#17,000_militants_killed: Here's a source that provides more context on Israel's estimations for combatants killed than a brief mention of "no evidence."[24] According to Reuters, Israel bases its estimates on a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed. Now, Israel has not provided these assessments to new outlets, so they haven't independently verified the results, which is why many of them say "no evidence has been provided." I don't see a need for independent verification of these numbers, however, as long as this figure is called an estimate, is attributed to the IDF, and we cite RS reporting it.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If you check it is in the infobox. The only difference is that is attributed inline to the IDF rather than the attribution being in a note. That is because it is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. NadVolum (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Civilian_to_military_ratio has just had a table added to the top with estimates. I think this gives a reasonable basis for putting in a range of estimates into the main infobox display. The 17,000 figure is pretty thoroughly debunked there. NadVolum (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents on behalf of Israel

Why is it that Israel don't have any of their Western supporters listed here? Most Western countries have been providing funding and supplies to Israel such as the EU, USA and the UK. These goverments are simply party to the conflict and therefore should be listed as so. Why are they not listed? Lf8u2 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of Israel’s western allies in the infobox is important, especially because the US, UK and France have engaged in belligerent actions by shooting down Iranian missiles and (in the case of the US and UK,) bombing Yemen. The US has also flown UAVs and reconnaissance planes over Gaza and advised Israel’s hostage rescue operations, and has skirmished with the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Without the inclusion of these nations, the infobox gives the misleading impression that Israel is fighting entirely by itself when in reality, at least three of Israel’s most prominent arms suppliers have taken belligerent actions and Gallant and others in the IDF command have said that Israel could not carry out the war without western arms and assistance. When I first added Israel’s suppliers to the infobox, my edit was reverted because apparently the inclusion of “supported by” in the belligerent parameter was deprecated in a 2023 discussion. I wasn’t part of the discussion and I don’t agree with that result (at least as it applies to this page; I understand that certain infoboxes about historical conflicts were getting cluttered due to conflicting and confusing accounts of supporting powers). I later added the US, UK and France as belligerents in an attempt to compromise with that consensus while keeping the infobox accurate but frankly I think that the infobox as it currently stands with the US, UK, France and Germany listed as allies, supporters or suppliers makes more sense since the bulk of their influence on the war has been through military aid rather than belligerent actions. Unbandito (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)