Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Split

The article now has over 520,000 bytes and my computer is lagging a bit because of that. Should we split to prevent bugs from showing up? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it lagging when loading or scrolling? On my computer, 4-core 2200G and 16 GB of RAM, the article loads in about a second or so in both Firefox and Chrome. On my budget, 2 GB Samsung phone, it loads in about two to three seconds. Scrolling is solid on both. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My core i7 10th gen and 32 gigs of ram just die when i press the edit button Abo Yemen✉ 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing, it does take a bit longer to load, but still solid and responsive. Honestly, I'm surprised: the 10th gen was, I think, the last iteration of Skylake and quite fast. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

lil update: Found out the my cpu was missing the fucking cooling fan. Moral of the story: dont get prebuilts Abo Yemen✉ 11:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the events section needs another mass trim. Page has grown considerably in recent weeks. CNC (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What really matters here is WP:SIZERULE, and according to the prosesize tool, the article is currently at 17,933 words, which is well over the 15,000 at which splitting is recommended. My browser is also noticeably slow at loading this page, which is why splitting/trimming at >15,000 words is usually recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll second (third?) having issues with this page loading. It typically takes 20-25 seconds to become scrollable. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The question is what is there left to split? CNC (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So I joke about splitting off Events section, but according to section sizes it represents 52% of the article and approx. 9,500 words, which in itself, would be a full sized article that would benefit from trimming... CNC (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have problems loading the article on my computer, but perhaps some trimming is in order. I find mass moving of content to timeline articles to be undesirable, as I don't think these articles get as much attention and they are often of poorer quality than the main page. I think the best way to trim the article would be to find sources that cover the breaking news content in the events section in more of a summary manner, classifying similar events together and using aggregate figures to describe trends rather than reports of each massacre. Unbandito (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Moving some content out of the Events section and to the Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war may just be an unfortunate but necessary restructuring.

This article by necessity covers the whole war as its topic. And we should try to keep it readable and accessible to as many people as possible, per WP:SIZE.

However, in practicality, this always becomes a nightmare to actually accomplish for current events. Because we would have to develop some sort of "threshold" criteria on what to keep in this article. And this can go horribly wrong and devolve into edit wars and interminable talk page discussions along a few different routes:

1. We only include coverage from "the most reliable" sources ("Well how can you say that X source is more reliable that Y source? I think Y source should be included because...")
2. We only include events that are extensively covered ("I've got three whole marginally reliable sources that cover this event, how is that not extensive coverage...")
3. We only include events that historians and scholars consider to be significant - obviously nigh impossible for a current event

And so on. Potentially for every single bit of content proposed for relocation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tricky problem, it being too soon to expect scholarly summaries of things. We might try and identify key "topics" idk, anything war crime related for example, I think it might well be possible to find suitable summaries relating to those, without specifying every potential war crime. Or humanitarian aid, attacks on healthcare, Northern Gaza, etcetera. Incidents within should go straight to the timeline articles. Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How about we just merge some sections and/or rewrite sentences in a shorter form for clarity...? It might not help as much but it's worth a try. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the first step would be to to reduce the events section through trimming without removing content. I think we should be aware that Wikipedia serves an important archival function, and we should balance size considerations with an imperative to preserve sources. We should strive to retain the sources in the article unless they contain meaningfully outdated information. Thematic organization helps cut down on redundancy. As more scholarly and analytical material is developed, we will become more able to shorten the article without sacrificing material. To reduce bytes, we can remove quotes from non-paywalled sources unless a claim is in particular need of embedded context. Unbandito (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the events section, which needs to be compressed, I think Other Confrontations could also do with a bit of summarising. As for the remaining sections, they are reasonably small. Another round or two of trimming would shorten them further. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support since we have already split for example the background section into the Background to the Israel-Hamas war while keeping an intelligible four paragraph summary here which led to good results and set a precedent. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I found a page I created for a wbsite I run took over ten seconds to reload after Javascript changed it and less than a fifth of a second when I switched the anti-virus protection off. It may be a problem like that is causing the wide difference in experience above. But I agree the page is too long. If something is covered by a sub article the normal rule is to only include some edited version of the lead summary and put a main link at the top of the section. And if some section is too long then convert it into a sub article. NadVolum (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

How would everyone feel about removing the "Use of propaganda" section and adding its child article, Misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war, to the See also section? Unbandito (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Other confrontations

 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Other confrontations

Moved from Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Split

 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Much of the content of the "Other confrontations" section could probably be moved over to the Middle Eastern crisis (2023-present) article, although that article probably needs a rewrite. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of the material in other confrontations, and I am planning to do this soon. We can keep a basic summary and some aggregate statistics here and move the more detailed material over there. I like the idea of the middle east crisis article but I'm not sure how we would go about getting it to the quality and level of attention where it can act as a true parent to this page rather than a neglected distant relative that splits valuable context out of the page readers are looking at. I think the first step is broadly improving it, then getting this page replaced with that one on the main page. Unbandito (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Approve of this. Only just realised that Other confrontations is supposed to be a summary of the middle east crisis article. It's also 21% of the article at 3,500 words so would help a lot to bring article under <13,000 words. The fact that the MEC article is only 3,200 words in itself, the content is clearly misplaced here, and merging it would create a full article over there. Overall the section should be summarised similar to how we summarised background section after splitting. Any objections? CNC (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I only object to wholesale removal of the other fronts. If the middle east crisis page reaches the quality and readership levels of this page, we should reconsider making it more specific to the Israel-Gaza front. (Another reason to reconsider a name change for this page at some point in the future) Unbandito (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The quality/readership analysis here is backwards; the reason there aren't as many views on that page is because the content isn't there and it's poor quality. If the content was there, and the quality improved, there would be more views. This is a chicken and egg scenario: as why would anyone visit MEC article when most of the content is here? The views argument also isn't relevant to policy or guidelines on summarising main articles to parent articles. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the first step is to improve the MEC article, but I also think this page's status comes from its presence on the main page, its age, and its proximity to common search terms like "israel" "hamas" "israel war" etc. I just think we should wait to completely remove the other confrontations until the MEC article, which I believe is brand new, is more established and serves its function. Some of the material in other confrontations, like Israel's prison system, the Iranian strikes, assassination of Haniyeh, and the conflict with Hezbollah are inexorably linked to the Gaza front and should probably remain as a brief summary in this article for some time so that the bulk of readers about the conflict as a whole aren't misled based on what article they choose to start on. Unbandito (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed there should be a brief summary, at present that section is not brief nor a summary. Managing article sizes shouldn't be based on searches or views, but on scope and guidelines. CNC (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say the Israeli prisons and similar sections, the West Bank section and the Israel-Iran section deserve the most detailed summary on this page but each front should have an adequate summary of major events here. Unbandito (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The stuff about the Houthis blocking off the Red Sea and attacks on US forces in Iraq? Yes. The Lebanon and West Bank fronts as well as attacks in Israel? No. They should be treated as integral fronts of this war. In fact one of my issues with this article is that it has too little emphasis on that. This is a proper three-front war now, it isn't just between Israel and Gaza. RM (Be my friend) 14:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This article's scope is specifically about the war with Hamas and the war on Gaza, which is part of a broader Israeli war on seven fronts (if we count Jordan). The scope of this article is not about Israel's seven front war. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a mistake then. The Hebrew Wikipedia article for example treats all fronts Israel is fighting on as the same war. I actually think there needs to be a discussion on changing this. Wikipedia's job is to describe the war in full, not just one part of it. It's like the World War II article focusing heavily on the European theater and neglecting the Pacific War. In any event, we should move more stuff that doesn't directly involve Israel to trim the article if needed but we should keep stuff about the other fronts with a view to eventually expanding it. RM (Be my friend) 14:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not our problem at the English WP if the Hebrew one is treating the war from an Israeli perspective. The Gaza war is a topic on its own and it fulfills the notability guidelines for a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza War is one front of a multi-front war. Wikipedia's job is to summarize a war in it's entirety, not just one particular front of it. RM (Be my friend) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Upon which RS are you relying for "multi-front war". Just because Gallant and Halevi say it is, doesn't count for diddly. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaza War is indeed a one front of a multi-front war from an Israeli perspective. That doesn't change the fact that: 1- Gaza War satisfies the notability guideline for a standalone article 2- that the Israeli perspective is not the only perspective in this world. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea that we are debating whether this war deserves a standalone article is baffling, especially when is an article that already documents this "multi-front" war that could be expanded. CNC (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As explained above by Makeandtoss, this article is about Israel–Hamas, not the Middle Eastern Crisis. The section should be summarised just like every other section that has a main article (without exception). CNC (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My point is that this article shouldn't just be about the Israel-Hamas war. The very name seems to have been sort of made up as a filler in lieu of an official name. This is in fact a proper multi-front war. Everything not involving Israel can go into the Middle East crisis section. RM (Be my friend) 14:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If we merge Other confrontations to MEC as explained above this article would still be over 12,000 words. That is still arguably too big based on WP:SIZERULE and the scope should be further reduced if anything, certainly not expanded. I get that some editors want all the information to be in the same place, but if that were the case, this article would be 100,000+ words based on all the child articles combined. This is why we should split/merge/summarise. CNC (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I never said we shouldn't significantly trim it. We can focus more info in spin-off articles such as specific battles and "allegations of" this or that to trim the size, but we need to focus on all fronts as integral parts of the same war. This article needs a major restructuring at some point, and as part of it we should give info on all fronts in a similar manner, not treat it as a war solely between Israel and Hamas and all the other fronts as spin-offs barely relevant to the article. RM (Be my friend) 15:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We're supposed to follow the sources, not right great wrongs as you are doing here. Desist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Calm down. There are many sources that treat it all as one war. Israel's official list of casualties for one. This is very obviously a multi-front war, and the article just puts overwhelming emphasis on one front. Which is indeed the main front but not the full story. The article simply needs to give more attention to the other fronts and not cut back on it. RM (Be my friend) 19:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we are going round in circles a bit here so have created survey below for support/oppose votes, in case there are more editors with opinions beyond this discussion. CNC (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Should Other confrontations section be merged into Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)? CNC (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be, with very brief summaries here. But that was not what some editors were proposing, which was the elimination of this article as a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support VoicefulBread66 (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, and keep brief summaries with aggregate info and mention of the most important developments only in this article for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. Keep the attacks in Israel, Israeli prisons, and Iranian strikes in this article more or less as-is. Unbandito (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Partial oppose The section about Palestine and Israel should remain (Israel–Hamas_war#West_Bank_and_Israel). The other sections about other countries can be moved and a summary section can be added for other countries. Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, this section should remain. Maybe need to start this again with that 🙄 CNC (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: this article is 16657 words, so it definitely needs to be trimmed per WP:PROSESIZE rule. Skimming the article, I did notice places where lengthy quotations have been used. It’s probably better to paraphrase them per WP:QUOTE. I will try to paraphrase the quotes to help trim down the article. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Another thing I noticed which could be an easy way to trim the article is to trim the parts that are not using the best sources. Am noticing some sourcing from a liveblog. I think liveblogs are a great way to keep up with live news and snippets but liveblogs should be used with caution in Wiki articles per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:NOTNEWS. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I stopped trimming at the "Attacks in central Gaza". A lot of those sources used about the daily deaths are from a live news blog. I stopped because I think I would be removing a lot of that section if I continued, but those liveblog sources should probably be replaced with better sources and it would probably be better to report cumulative deaths in the month rather than daily reporting of deaths to help trim the article size. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with trimming daily death counts, however I think it is important to retain mention of individual attacks and massacres. Doing so allows the reader to asses a pattern of action. Unbandito (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think so. I noticed there were non-liveblog sources also reporting specific instances of casualties. I think I will keep those since the non liveblog sources thought they were notable to use in an article. I will just trim the liveblog ones to reduce the Wiki article word count. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Partial oppose: The Hezbollah-Israel conflict, raids in the West Bank, Israeli clashes with the Houthis, and Iranian attacks on Israel should all be extensively covered here. In fact we should have a conversation on renaming this article as "Israel-Hamas war" was very obviously made up by editors trying to do the best that they could in lieu of official names for this war. This is a multi-front war between Israel and the Axis of Resistance and should be treated as such, rather than just covering one front of it. The stuff about Houthi attacks on international shipping and NATO strikes against the Houthis, attacks on US forces in Iraq and US counterstrikes, and other stuff not directly involving Israel should be put in the Middle East crisis article. If there's more trimming to do it can be done by taking more info from here and putting it into articles on battles and campaigns in this war.--RM (Be my friend) 13:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Partial oppose in agreement with this. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Note: I changed my mind reading arguments in thread, please don't count this. <3

  Note though we had a conversation about changing the name to 'Israel-Gaza' war above, which i think we're changing it to if i understood the vote correctly. It should possibly be widened yes, but at least it works in that all the other fronts exist in relation to Gaza. SP00KYtalk 14:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Seems fine, after all it isn't just Hamas fighting in Gaza. It leaves out the other fronts but it's a start. I do think we should consider alternative options once the war is over. Currently the war is called the "Iron Swords War" in Israel (and that's its name on Hebrew Wikipedia). I doubt that name will reach consensus on English Wikipedia but I've also read that it might become known as the "October 7th war" (and in fact there's already a book that's been published under that name), if that does go mainstream it would be the perfect name for it in my opinion. RM (Be my friend) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Maybe after the war we'll be having conversations to change it to 'Gaza Genocide'. That's certainly not a vote i'm going to be looking forward to but it all depends on the courts I guess. There is also 'Al-Aqsa Flood' which would be an obvious one, but bizarrely in my looking around 'Al-Aqsa Flood' whilst refers to the war in Arabic only refers specifically Oct7 in English. SP00KYtalk 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Gaza genocide is already a separate article. JasonMacker (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciated, cheers JasonMacker ! <3 SP00KYtalk 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support The title, now supported multiple times, along with the opening sentences of the lead, should define the scope. Anything outside of that should be in some other article with relevant summaries here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Right now this article seems to almost completely overlap with Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). Unless we reduce the scope of this article, we'll be forced to merge both articles, per WP:FORK. But we've already established this article is WP:TOOBIG, so lets start reducing scope.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support its better to split this into separate articles linked to this page as main article, also it will be better to create a separate page for West Bank with regards to this war, bcoz I feel the happenings in west bank are getting far less mention but fat is the disterbance there is far worse.

Bonadart (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support because it's become just way too much BarntToust 19:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support As above, it's simply to long already as many people have already mentioned and with all the sections as well as being ongoing-news the article IMHO will always be subject to 'scope-creep' for a lack of a better term, and so i believe there will be many events and so on that simply won't have the space to be properly explained in the detail they could be. Things can still be mentioned with things like inline links, and {{main}}, {{see also}} or {{Further Information}} templates to articles which will go into more depth anyways. SP00KYtalk 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support: The recent events involving the IDF are intertwined with each other. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support The article of multiple separate that Other confrontations should be merged into Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) in this article, thank you. Andre Farfan (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose to oppose: Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) is bigger than this article. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 02:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  That article has since been split and cut down to under 400k. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support: this section and the article have the exact same scope. A simple summary of each conflict should suffice under a normal main article tag. Yeoutie (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, keep "West Bank" section. I would say the West Bank events are more a theatre of this war, whilst the Lebanon war, Yemen blockades and the others are separate but related.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support split Splitting the article can help with its consistency. KOLANO12 3 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Elimination of this as a standalone article

This possibility was mentioned by user:Makeandtoss above and it's not something I'd considered until now, but there is some logic in it. We already have an article on the general war between Israel and allies versus Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and allies: Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). We also have an article on the portion of the war which is in Gaza, between Israel and Hamas: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. So what is the purpose of this article other than to duplicate information in those articles? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the last RM, My !vote, not that it gained any traction. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather, I think Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip should be merged into this article. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. Removing this as a standalone article would cause confusion, as there are certain events such as skirmishes with Hamas in the West Bank and the assassination of Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders that did not take place as a part of the Israeli invasion but are inexorably linked to the Gaza front of the war and its main belligerents. Unbandito (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I think if we try to look ahead, this will doubtless be the Gaza War, as documented here. I can't see the sense in removing it or merging it into an overarching article. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If it does end up as Gaza War, then the invasion article could be merged, for now the two things should stay separate, just like 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel is separate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war exists but should probably renamed to something less cumbersome. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"most" vs "over half"

@Pachu Kannan Thank you for your numerous contributions to this page. I don't get your reasoning for [1] though. I read the Reuters ref before I made the edit; I was careful to say "clashes with" instead of "contradicts" in my edit summary. What's your reasoning for "over half"? Because the AP ref uses it? Why is the Reuters ref there? Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I will self revert my edit. Reuters reference is the source for the UN verified percentage of women and children among just more than 8,000 Palestinian deaths verified by it. It is added because other two references are sourced from Gaza Health Ministry. Pachu Kannan (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

New sources of interest

Hello.

Here are some news sources of possible interest:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-12-17/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israeli-attacks-on-the-south-gaza-humanitarian-zone-have-killed-scores-of-palestinians/00000193-d0f9-d4b3-adb3-f8fd6c5a0000

https://archive.ph/mkk6C

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/investigation-must-be-opened-israels-potential-use-banned-thermal-weapons-which-cause-victims-bodies-melt-or-evaporate-enar

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-12-18/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-expose-arbitrary-killings-and-rampant-lawlessness-in-gazas-netzarim-corridor/00000193-da7f-de86-a9f3-fefff2e50000

https://archive.ph/nw3A8

According to these articles it seems like the IDF is now using thermal weapons that vaporise, or at the very least leave their victims unidentifiable to be possible to count among the official death toll, and do not consider any Palestinians to be civilians as a general policy.

It seems like relevant information to add somewhere in this page. Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"According to these articles it seems like the IDF is now using thermal weapons that vaporise". No, they don't say that. Accusations are not good enough to be put into articles as fact.

"do not consider any Palestinians to be civilians as a general policy". Also does not say that. It says there are specific cases where IDF personnel have done that, but it absolutely is NOT GENERAL POLICY, at least based on your cited sources.

Put simply, Wikipedia's job is to be impartial. It is not our job to spread misinformation.

Mag1cal (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:RFED

Change 16,000 civilians (May 2024)[43] to 16,000 civilians (May 2024)[42]

Source 42 has these numbers and source 43 doesn't Alderman pained dios finnish (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done with an edit on the infobox template. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Genocide

How to reflect that Israel's war conduct has already been characterized by several prominent human rights organizations as genocide in the lede? Clearly, the ICJ case is not the only relevant aspect to the genocide charachterization. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

While some organisations and individuals have made this claim, this is not a consensus view and we should not present it as such. Even The Guardian says "there is no clear consensus" [2]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Among US scholars of genocide (what the Guardian article is mainly about) that might be true but otherwise there is a growing consensus and it is documented at Gaza genocide#Academic and legal discourse. Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a rough attempt. It seems logical to put it with the ICJ sentence.

"The International Court of Justice is reviewing a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, and various human rights organisations have characterised the events as genocide. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders." GeoffreyA (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I like this language, though we should be careful not to draw a false equivalence between the characterization of Israeli and Hamas actions in the way we discuss their ICC warrants. Unbandito (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I added the ICC sentence only to delineate the part of the paragraph we were referring to; but I see the way the sentences are lined up does create a certain "story," though unintentional. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Not just human rights organizations, but also experts. This is what I would suggest:

"The International Court of Justice is reviewing a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Various experts and human rights organisations have characterised the events as genocide" Bogazicili (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That would be an improvement. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added the sentence as proposed. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The addition seems premature with no consensus for it in this discussion. Please self revert and await further comment on the proposal. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't call RS reporting by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a UN Special Committee to be "premature". Also, four editors, myself included, have supported the phrasing, so that would indeed be consensus among editors for its inclusion when the edit was made. If you wish to remove this against consensus, you will have to revert on your own I am afraid. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not a neutral wording. Both the Guardian article and our own article make it clear that many experts disagree with this characterisation. Adding only one side's position to the article is a violation of NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 23:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterisation of the Guardian piece, which notes only that "many experts" have stayed silent, fearful of taking a position (on either side and for obvious reason given the political rancour over accurately describing the reality, particularly in the US). Against this stands the actual weight of the world's two most prominent human rights groups, UN special rapporteurs, and growing rank upon rank in of genocide experts, not to mention the in process ICJ and ICC cases. The only two serious "positions" still in the market at this stage are affirmation and denial. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Alaexis, what wording do you propose? Should we add that some experts, particularly American, disagree?

Having said that, the weight of evidence and interpretation for genocide is slowly gaining critical mass, if it hasn't already done so. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

@Nowa: I do not believe that the crowdfunding campaigns by Palestinians are important enough to include on this page. This article is currently too long, and these campaigns do not seem like an important enough aspect to include. I could see this maybe being included in the child article on the humanitarian crisis, but definitely not in this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point. I thought about including it in Humanitarian aid during the Israel–Hamas war, but that article has more of a timeline format. It wasn't real clear where to include information on crowdfunding. It seemed to me that it fit better here in the section on humanitarian aide. Having said that, however, if you feel it's more appropriate to move it to another article, that's fine. Nowa (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2024

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. Snow opposition, either outright or procedural objections based on a lack of prior discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Israel–Hamas war → Gaza war (2023–present) – Growing consensus Ecpiandy (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In the last poll, there was a growing clear consensus to move this page's name but it was eventually closed on the initial results. I now propose we move this to Israel–Gaza war, as per most news outlets now as well as public opinion. If this can be looked at again I would be grateful. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – the evidence points in the opposite direction. Checking scholarly sources and book sources using an OR'd search query designed to elicit results of either type does not appear to substantiate your claim based on the reliable sources available. Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - No longer about Hamas. It's about time this gets renamed. (unrelated note: last RM of this year lol, for me at least) Looking back, this RM didn't give any proof that most news outlets now use that name Abo Yemen✉ 08:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What specifically has changed since the last RM?. Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• I personally think that this move request should be withdrawn and a brief discussion should be opened first, to see which specific title should be proposed, and check the updates by RS since the last move. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we should wait because quite likely, nothing will change at present. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing has changed since the last time this question was asked. I still support the article's current title. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Last time a consensus for Gaza War was forming in the last 2 months. Ecpiandy (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment — There is a conflict between Hamas and Israel, and it is generally referred to as the Israel–Hamas war in western media (a point of bias, but not one that I expect Wikipedia to overcome any time soon, so I won't belabor that point). I think part of the issue pertains to scope. Because this article is on the front page as an ongoing news item, I think the expectation is that it should cover the Gaza humanitarian crisis and other developments in the region as well. An article that covers both the specific military developments of the Israel–Hamas war and the humanitarian crisis at length arguably should have a different title, (and in such an article, "Israel-Hamas war," the western WP:COMMONNAME for some aspects of the overall crisis, could be a subsection) since the Israeli military has clearly caused immense harm to all of the people of Gaza, not just Hamas and its affiliates. "Maximum damage", as they say. However, if the intention is to keep this article limited to primarily military developments between the IDF and Hamas, I think the current article is fine.

Perhaps part of the problem could be addressed by including both the war and the humanitarian crisis on the "In the news" page. I'm not really familiar with the process for that, but I would argue that the humanitarian crisis is as important as, or maybe even more important than, the military conflict, though the two are related. By including both on the front page, we could highlight the civilian and international impacts of the war (vital to understanding it; to sideline them is an WP:NPOV violation) while also keeping space for discussing specifically the conflict between Israel and Hamas (this article space) and perhaps put an end to the constant move requests. Spookyaki (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. From what I recall, there was a consensus in the last discussion that "Israel–Gaza war" is an inappropriate title, and that "Gaza War (2023–present)" or simply "Gaza War" would be more appropriate. It's basically impossible to argue what the WP:COMMONNAME of the conflict is; I would argue that "Gaza War" is the most neutral and concise descriptor, but that's not the subject of this RM, so I'm opposing. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well the point of the discussion was a rename relating to Gaza War. Seeing as that was the most popular opinion, why isn't that being talked about now? Ecpiandy (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Procedural oppose, should be withdrawn - @Ecpiandy: you're proposing the same thing that has been proposed and rejected before multiple times, you acknowledge this but fail to address it in your RM (what's changed? why would you raise the same thing again?). You have no links to new sources. You don't address any of the other proposed titles raised in prior RMs ("Gaza war") or arguments (AT isn't just about COMMONNAME). You did no kind of RFCBEFORE-type pre-discussion before launching this AFAICT. And you launched it the day before New Year's Eve (is over a world holiday the best time to run an RM?). Please withdraw this RM. The next RM needs to be much more well-thought-out than this. We've been doing this same RM (people just posting snap RMs with little evidence or discussion and not addressing any of the arguments/evidence of prior RMs) for over 15 months now, we gotta stop doing this. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about NYE. Read the conclusion of the previous RM: Everything in the previous month of discussion was a consensus to move to Gaza War yet the admin chose against this based on the early day discussions. Why do you bring up recent holidays as if it is relevant? I don't get it sorry Ecpiandy (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't change the RM target after a bunch of people have already commented. Why not shut this down and start a proper RFCbefore discussion about the title? Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 Abo Yemen✉ 10:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ecpiandy: A prior discussion would really help narrow down the options per RS usage. Withdrawing this move request will not damage the chances of a move, on the contrary it will later support it. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Consensus is not the same thing as a poll. Polls and consensus can be different, and often are. There is no real change in the weight of the consensus. Hires an editor (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy close I support this proposal, and have done so since the beginning of this war, however, there needs to be an RFCBEFORE that gathers sources, ngrams, etc. The nom has cited no sources, and the nomination statement reads like a protest of the closure of the last RM. @Ecpiandy: Please withdraw your nomination and create a new, informal discussion, with sources, that other editors can add to, before a second discussion is started. You do your position no favors in opening this. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as checking news outlets, the proposed name is not dominant. And the names used seem to be whatever POV the agency is supporting. SO best to just keep the name the same. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (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.

RFCBEFORE on a future move

I am starting this discussion to begin thinking about a new RM, to be opened with good sources. Feel free to add to the table below. As far as I know, the only RS that still uses "Israel–Hamas war" is NYT. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Should we modify the table so that "both" and "something else" are separate categories? Unbandito (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think if one source uses two, perhaps simplest is to include it twice like, for example, NYT or NYT Live and BBC or BBC Live. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if the source is inconsistent, it's still a use, and counts for the RM (albeit weaker than if it only uses one). 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You gotta account for the sources that use multiple variations; listing those sources under just one variation is misleading. For example, BBC's section on this is called "Israel-Gaza war," not "War in Gaza" [3]. That it used the phrase "the war in Gaza" in an article doesn't merit it being listed under "War in Gaza." Past RMs have gone over these nuances in great detail and collected dozens of links as examples. Levivich (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is all a very elaborate re-hashing of a distinctly One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others) exercise. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO we should give up on trying to prove a common name and talk about a descriptive title of "Gaza war" with a lowercase W. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ground the title in the actual principal geography that the conflict entails, as already done by most media outlets, and per WP:NCE, WP:MILMOS and generally standard practice ... Now there's a thought! Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For over a year, I've been waiting for the right time to propose it (which would be some months after the prior one), and every single time I'm about to, somebody comes along and launches a no-pre-discussion RM. Including now over two consecutive winter holiday seasons. Crowdsourcing doesn't always work. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaza War	War in Gaza	Israel–Hamas war	Israel–Gaza war	Something else
ABCNews Algemeiner al-Arabiya English Arab News The Washington Post Sydney Morning Herald Le Monde Diplomatique 12	BBC Huffpost Intercept/War on Gaza	NYT AP Live Reuters/Israel and Hamas at war F24	Guardian Al Jazeera BBC Live ABC (Australia) SCMP	NYT Live/Middle East Crisis Times of Israel (Uses both 'Gaza war' and 'Israel-Hamas war') NBC/Middle East Conflict CNN/various descriptions

Deir al-Balah strike

Hi @Pachu Kannan regarding this edit summary—the strike was not at Al-Aqsa Martyrs, but reported by Al-Aqsa Martyrs. It took place east of Deir al-Balah, which is 10 miles away. WAFA reported 9 dead, AP cites 8 from the hospital, and Al-Jazeera says 7. Why have you put "10" on the timeline? GordonGlottal (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello GordonGlottal, 10 is the death toll mentioned in the title of that source. Sorry for incorrectly mentioning in edit summary that the strike happened at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the death toll later increased to 10. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Summarizing proposal

This still reads like a huge chunk, proposal to summarize from:

"Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's continued occupation, blockade of Gaza, expansion of settlements, Israel's disregard for international law, as well as alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the general plight of Palestinians"

To (three are enough):

"Hamas said its attack was in response to the plight of Palestinians resulting from Israel's blockade of Gaza, continued occupation and settlements expansion, and alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Lede updates

These need updating, since we are now in early 2025:

1- "By early 2024, Israeli forces had destroyed or damaged over half of Gaza's houses, at least a third of its tree cover and farmland, most of its schools and universities, hundreds of cultural landmarks, and at least a dozen cemeteries."

2- "Over 100,000 Israelis were internally displaced as of February 2024." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)