Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:38, 20 January 2024 view sourceGalobtter (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Administrators42,037 edits →Requested move 12 January 2024: movedTag: 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:27, 22 January 2025 view source GeoffreyA (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users991 edits →Discussion: Corrected mistake in my comment.
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~pp-extended~~\|~~small~~=yes}}		{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
			{{Old moves\|collapsed=yes
	{{pp-extended}}
	{{Talk header\|age=3\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|minthreadsleft=1}}
	{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=a-i}}
	{{American English}}
	{{controversy}}
	{{notforum}}
	{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|blpo=yes\|class=B\|collapsed=y\|1=
	{{WikiProject Current events}}
	{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|class=\|importance=Low}}<!--Covers mass murders, which the massacres at kibbutzim clearly were -->
	{{WikiProject International relations \|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Islam\|importance=Mid\|Islam-and-Controversy=y\|Sunni=y}}
	{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
	{{WikiProject Lebanon\|class=\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Military history\|class=\|Asian=y\|Middle-Eastern=y\|Post-Cold-War=y\|B-Class-1=no\|B-Class-2=yes\|B-Class-3=yes\|B-Class-4=yes\|B-Class-5=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Palestine\|class=\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Yemen\|class=\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Syria\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Terrorism\|importance=Mid}}
	}}
	{{Section sizes}}
	{{press
	\|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html \|title=Misplaced Pages Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X \|author=Stephen Harrison \|lang=en-US \|org=] \|date=2023-10-26
	\|url2=https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-769599 \|title2='The Sabbath Massacres': Naming Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on Israel - opinion \|author2=Mark Klugman \|lang2=en \|org2=] \|date2=2023-10-22
	\|url3=https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/wikipedia-at-war/ \|title3=Misplaced Pages at war \|author3=Hava Mendelle \|lang3=en \|org3=] \|date3=2023-11-02
	\|collapsed=no}}
	}}
	{{banner holder\|collapsed=yes\|text=Page history\|1=
	{{Top 25 Report\|October 1 2023 (24th)\|October 8 2023 (3rd)\|October 15 2023 (5th)\|October 22 2023 (7th)}}
	{{ITN talk\|7 October\|2023\|oldid=1179028067}}
	{{page views}}
	{{Old move
	\|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict		\|from1 = October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict
	\|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|destination1 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|result1 = moved		\|result1 = moved
	\|date1 = 7 October 2023		\|date1 = 7 October 2023
	\|link1 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1179550401~~#Requested move 7 October 2023		\|link1 = /Archive 4#Requested move 7 October 2023
	\|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from2 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War		\|destination2 = 2023 Gaza War
	\|result2 = not moved, ]		\|result2 = not moved, ]
	\|date2 = 11 October 2023		\|date2 = 11 October 2023
	\|link2 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1179788985~~#Requested move 11 October 2023		\|link2 = /Archive 7#Requested move 11 October 2023
	\|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from3 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war		\|destination3 = 2023 Gaza–Israel war
	\|result3 = ~~not moved,~~ no consensus		\|result3 = no consensus
	\|date3 = 15 October 2023		\|date3 = 15 October 2023
	\|link3 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1181585273~~#Requested move 15 October 2023		\|link3 = /Archive 22#Requested move 15 October 2023
	\|from4 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from4 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination4 = Israel–Hamas war		\|destination4 = Israel–Hamas war
	\|result4 = not moved, ]		\|result4 = not moved, ]
	\|date4 = 31 October 2023		\|date4 = 31 October 2023
	\|link4 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1182857855~~#Requested move 31 October 2023		\|link4 = /Archive 25#Requested move 31 October 2023
	\|from5 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from5 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination5 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war		\|destination5 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war
	\|result5 = not moved, early close, no consensus		\|result5 = not moved, early close, no consensus
	\|date5 = 1 November 2023		\|date5 = 1 November 2023
	\|link5 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1183002871~~#Requested move 1 November 2023		\|link5 = /Archive 25#Requested move 1 November 2023
	\|from6 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from6 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination6 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war		\|destination6 = 2023 Hamas–Israel war
	\|result6 = Not moved, moratorium on requested moves, speedy close		\|result6 = Not moved, moratorium on requested moves, speedy close
	\|date6 = 26 November 2023		\|date6 = 26 November 2023
	\|link6 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1186926732~~#Requested move 26 November 2023		\|link6 = /Archive 29#Requested move 26 November 2023
	\|from7 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from7 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination7 = ''various names''
	\|result7 = Retain "Israel–Hamas war", no consensus on year disambiguation		\|result7 = Retain "Israel–Hamas war", no consensus on year disambiguation
	\|date7 = 23 December 2023		\|date7 = 23 December 2023
	\|link7 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1194928469~~#Requested move 23 December 2023		\|link7 = /Archive 34#Requested move 23 December 2023
	\|from8 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war		\|from8 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
	\|destination8 = ''various names''
	\|result8 = Procedural close		\|result8 = Procedural close
	\|date8 = 10 January 2024		\|date8 = 10 January 2024
	\|link8 = ~~Special:Permalink~~/~~1195489946~~#Requested move 10 January 2024		\|link8 = /Archive 35#Requested move 10 January 2024
			\|from9 = 2023 Israel–Hamas war
			\|destination9 = Israel–Hamas war
			\|result9 = Moved
			\|date9 = 12 January 2024
			\|link9 = /Archive 37#Requested move 12 January 2024
			\|from10 = Israel–Hamas war
			\|destination10= Israel–Gaza war
			\|result10 = No consensus, three month moratorium from date of close (28 February 2024)
			\|date10 = 23 January 2024
			\|link10 = /Archive 40#Requested move 23 January 2024
			\|date11 = 29 May 2024
			\|destination11= Gaza War (2023–present)
			\|result11 = no consensus
			\|link11 = /Archive 44#Requested move 29 May 2024
			\|date12 = 13 August 2024
			\|destination12= Israel–Gaza war
			\|result12 = No consensus. Listed at ]; ] endorsed
			\|link12 = /Archive 47#Requested move 13 August 2024\|date13=30 December 2024\|destination13=Gaza war (2023–present)\|result13=not moved\|link13=Special:Permalink/1266840090#Requested move 30 December 2024}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=a-i}}
			{{Controversial}}
			{{Banner holder\|
			{{Censor}}
			{{American English}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=other\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Islam\|importance=Mid\|Islam-and-Controversy=yes\|Sunni=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Lebanon\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject International relations\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|Asian=yes\|Middle-Eastern=yes\|Post-Cold-War=yes\|b1=yes\|b2=yes\|b3=yes\|b4=yes\|b5=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Syria\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Yemen\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
	}}		}}
			{{Press
			\|url=https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wikipedia-elon-musk-gaza-hamas-israel-x-twitter-dispute.html \|title=Misplaced Pages Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X \|author=Stephen Harrison \|lang=en-US \|org=] \|date=2023-10-26
			\|url2=https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-769599 \|title2='The Sabbath Massacres': Naming Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on Israel - opinion \|author2=Mark Klugman \|lang2=en \|org2=] \|date2=2023-10-22
			\|url3=https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/wikipedia-at-war/ \|title3=Misplaced Pages at war \|author3=Hava Mendelle \|lang3=en \|org3=] \|date3=2023-11-02

			\|author4 = Aaron Bandler

			\|title4 = Seven Tactics Misplaced Pages Editors Used to Spread Anti-Israel Bias Since Oct. 7
			\|date4 = 2024-05-23
			\|org4 = ]
			\|url4 = https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/371545/7-tactics-wikipedia-editors-used-to-spread-anti-israel-bias-since-oct-7/
			\|lang4 =
			\|quote4 =
			\|archiveurl4 =
			\|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate4 = May 24, 2024

			\|author5 = Avior Byron
			\|title5 = Truth held hostage: Language differences in Misplaced Pages's 'Israel-Hamas War' page – opinion
			\|date5 = 2024-06-03
			\|org5 = ]
			\|url5 = https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-804636
			\|lang5 =
			\|quote5 =
			\|archiveurl5 =
			\|archivedate5 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate5 = June 3, 2024

			\|author6 = Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv
			\|title6 = Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research
			\|date6 = October 17, 2024
			\|org6 = ]
			\|url6 = https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
			\|lang6 =
			\|quote6 =
			\|archiveurl6 =
			\|archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate6 = October 18, 2024
			}}
			{{pp-extended\|small=yes}}
			{{pp-extended}}
			{{Annual report\|] and ]}}
			{{Top 25 Report\|Oct 1 2023\|until\|Nov 12 2023\|Dec 3 2023\|Dec 10 2023}}
			{{Old RfD \|date=24 November 2023 \|result='''Keep''' \|page=2023 November 24#Israel–Hamas war}}
			{{Annual readership}}
			{{Section sizes}}
			{{ITN talk\|7 October\|2023\|oldid=1179028067}}
			\|collapsed=yes}}
			{{refideas
			\| {{cite news \| last1 = Hasson \| first1 = Nir \| last2 = Yaniv \| first2 = Kubovich \| work = ] \| title = The Israeli Army Is Allowing Gangs in Gaza to Loot Aid Trucks and Extort Protection Fees From Drivers \| url = https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-11-11/ty-article/.premium/the-idf-is-allowing-gaza-gangs-to-loot-aid-trucks-and-extort-protection-fees-from-drivers/00000193-17fb-d50e-a3db-57ff16af0000 \| date = 2024-11-11 \| archiveurl = https://archive.today/t28IY \| archivedate = 2024-11-19 \| url-status = live \| quote = <small> …looting of the convoys reflects the complete anarchy that prevails in Gaza due to the lack of any functioning civilian government. … Defense officials confirmed that the IDF is aware of the problem. (the Israeli government) considered making the clans to which the armed men belong responsible for distributing aid to Gaza's residents, even though some of the clans' members are involved in terrorism, and some are even affiliated with extremist organizations like the Islamic State.</small> }}
			\| {{cite news \| title = Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Image \| url = https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges \| access-date = 21 November 2024 \| work = ] \| date = 21 November 2024 \| quote = The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population. }}
			\| {{cite web \|last1=Murphy \|first1=Brett \|title=A Year of Empty Threats and a “Smokescreen” Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza \|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/biden-blinken-state-department-israel-gaza-human-rights-horrors \|website=ProPublica \|access-date=16 January 2025 \|language=en \|date=15 January 2025}}
	}}		}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~150K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 36		\|counter = 47
	\|minthreadsleft = 1		\|minthreadsleft = 1
	\|algo = old(5d)		\|algo = old(14d)
	\|archive = Talk:~~2023~~ Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

			== Split ==
	==Mention of apartheid RfC==
			{{atop \|status=Partially merged \|reason=After initial split discussions, convincing consensus to merge ] to ] was established. Multiple editors also recommended that the ] section remain, and a partial oppose was made for this reason alone. There was additionally a parallel discussion to ], however this proposal failed to gain traction alongside the ]. This is an ], so any strong opposition to this summary should be reverted; however it's worth noting the overwhelming consensus that was established making this close far from controversial, as well as the partial execution of a merge occurring on of the sections Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. Thus I believe this close is more procedural than consensus determining, given the bold merge that has already occurred and become the ], while noting that the section on ] still remains against the established consensus. ] (]) 17:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) {{nac}}}}
	<!-- ] 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1705838482}}
	In the historical background of the war, is it necessary to include references to apartheid claims? ] (]) 11:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

			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? ] (]\|]) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
	:@] Yes it is ''']]''' 16:39, 20 December 2023 (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. ] (]) 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			::My core i7 10th gen and 32 gigs of ram just die when i press the edit button ''']]''' 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. ] (]) 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 ''']]''' 11:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Looks like the events section needs another mass trim. Page has grown considerably in recent weeks. ] (]) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			::What really matters here is ], and according to the , 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.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 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. ] (]) 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::The question is what is there left to split? ] (]) 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... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Moving some content out of the Events section and to the ] 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 ].
			::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:
			::# 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...")
			::# We only include events that are extensively covered (''"I've got <u>three</u> whole marginally reliable sources that cover this event, how is that not extensive coverage...")
			::# 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]\|]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Support since we have already split for example the background section into the ] while keeping an intelligible four paragraph summary here which led to good results and set a precedent. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			:How would everyone feel about removing the "Use of propaganda" section and adding its child article, ], to the See also section? ] (]) 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion to\|Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Other confrontations\|] (]) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}
			=== Other confrontations ===
			{{Moved discussion from\|Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Split\|] (]) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}
			:Much of the content of the "Other confrontations" section could probably be moved over to the ] article, although that article probably needs a rewrite. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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) ] (]) 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 ] to parent articles. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::That's a mistake then. The Hebrew Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages's job is to describe the war in full, not just one part of it. It's like the ] article focusing heavily on the European theater and neglecting the ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::The Gaza War is one front of a multi-front war. Misplaced Pages's job is to summarize a war in it's entirety, not just one particular front of it. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] just like every other section that has a main article (without exception). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::We're supposed to follow the sources, not right great wrongs as you are doing here. Desist. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

	===Survey===		==== Survey ====
	{{notavote}}
	* '''No'''. Most mainstream sources do not mention apartheid in the context of the war or as its background. ] (]) 11:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

	~~:::~~ @] ~~Define~~ ~~"mainstream"?~~ ~~Where~~ ~~are~~ ~~these~~ ~~sources~~ ~~from?~~ ~~How many are not from the USA or UK? Are any African~~? ] (]) 09:42, 13 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		Should ] section be merged into ]? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
	*]???? ''']''' - 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' ] (]) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:]??? I know the discussion was 2 weeks ago, but I simply didn't have time to sit on formulating the question. ] (]) 12:01, 17 December 2023 (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. ] (]) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
	*::Where is the discussion that showed a lack of consensus on this topic? Not having time isn’t a reason to make everybody else waste theirs. ''']''' - 12:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*~~:::I just sent you the link.~~ ] (]) 12:22, 17 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		*'''Support''' ] (]) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''No''' ~~per~~ ~~Davidroth,~~ ~~and~~ I ~~note~~ ~~that~~ ~~the~~ ~~references~~ to ~~apartheid~~ in ~~the~~ ~~article~~ ~~(such~~ as ~~the~~ ~~one~~ ~~with footnotes 181~~ and ~~182)~~ ~~fail~~ to ~~reflect~~ ~~that~~ ~~the~~ ~~sources~~ ~~concern~~ ~~''denial'' of the apartheid claim~~. ] (]) 15:55, 17 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		*'''Partial oppose''' The section about Palestine and Israel should remain (]). The other sections about other countries can be moved and a summary section can be added for other countries. ] (]) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:~~so?~~ ~~they~~ ~~wouldn't~~ be ~~denying~~ a ~~claim~~ ~~that~~ ~~wasn't~~ ~~made?~~ ] (]) 01:07, 27 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		*:Good point, this section should remain. Maybe need to start this again with that 🙄 ] (]) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''No''' ~~per~~ ~~Dovidorth,~~ I ~~think~~ it ~~was~~ ~~rather~~ ~~unfitting~~ ~~and~~ ~~rather~~ ~~disconnected~~ per ~~the~~ ~~time~~. ~~Furthermore~~, ~~there~~ is a ~~truth~~ to ~~Dovidorth's~~ ~~statement~~ ~~that~~ ~~most~~ ~~mainstream~~ ~~sources~~ do ~~not~~ ~~mention~~ ~~Apartheid~~ in the ~~context~~ of the ~~war~~.] (]) 16:02, 17 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		*'''Comment:''' this article is 16657 words, so it definitely needs to be trimmed per ] rule. Skimming the article, I did notice places where lengthy quotations have been used. It’s probably better to paraphrase them per ]. I will try to paraphrase the quotes to help trim down the article. ] (]) 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 ] and ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	*: 1. Can you give an example of a "mainstream" source from a country that has not fired a shot in this war? i.e. Not Israel, UK, or USA?
			*:::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. ] (]) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	*: 2. Can you give an example of a "mainstream" source that is left wing? (further left than liberalism)
			*::::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. ] (]) 18:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	*: But, as @] pointed out below, even MSNBC and the BBC mention it, I can't think of anything more mainstream than they are?
			*'''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.--] (]) 13:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	*: ] (]) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
			*:<s>Partial oppose in agreement with this. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.</s> '''Note''': I changed my mind reading arguments in thread, please don't count this. <3
	*:Reliable sources ''do'' mention the apartheid in the context of reporting on the war(], ], ], , Professor ], ], ], ], ] etc). Even pro-Israeli news reporting mentioned (and argued against) the apartheid analogy().The question is not whether it should be mentioned, but how we can mention it in a neutral way, giving ] weight to all opinions. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
			*: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. ]] 14:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:: {{anchor\|18:16, 17 Dec}} If you search for that term in your query, you can find articles that mention it, but that is ], and invalidates your conclusion. Because there is now such a vast number of articles about this war, you can find a lot of terms if you search for them, but that is a biased search and doesn't prove anything. Here are a dozen articles that mention "New Jersey" somewhere in the article: (<span class="plainlinks"> ).</span> This list of articles doesn't prove anything, except that there are now lots and lots of articles about the war. ] (]) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (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 Misplaced Pages). I doubt that name will reach consensus on English Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:::: @] when you do your search, how far down is the first source from Africa, and does it mention apartheid? ] (]) 09:13, 13 January 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. ]] 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Did you read the articles I mentioned? They mention apartheid in some meaningful and relevant way. The stuff about New Jersey could very well be relevant - one of your articles says one of the victims of the Hamas attack was from New Jersey, and that is covered in the part on foreign casualties (whether in this article or the subarticle on casualties). ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
			*::::] is already a separate article. ] (]) 19:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::: Like this <ref>{{cite news \|last1=Dall \|first1=Nick \|title=Unpack the past: When Nelson Mandela wore the Palestinian keffiyeh \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/12/5/unpack-the-past-mandela-the-keffiyeh-and-south-africas-palestine-embrace \|access-date=9 January 2024 \|work=Al Jazeera \|date=5 December 2023 \|language=en}}</ref> article (which I found in a, slightly deranged at 3:00am, ] for "apartheid New Jersey") looks general from the headline… {{reflist}}
			*::::: Appreciated, cheers ] ! <3 ]] 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::: But contains President ] saying, "{{teal\|… they (the Palestinian people) have been under occupation for almost 75 years … waging a struggle against an oppressive government that has occupied their land, but also a government that has in recent times been dubbed an '''apartheid''' state.}}"
			*'''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. ] (]) 14:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::: <small>It also contains the wrong Jersey, "Mandela famously wore the Springbok rugby jersey – for many, a symbol of apartheid – to present Francois Pienaar with the Rugby World Cup trophy."</small>
	~~:::::~~ ] (]) 07:31, 10 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		*'''Support''' ] (]) 11:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above. Right now this article seems to almost completely overlap with ]. Unless we reduce the scope of this article, we'll be forced to merge both articles, per ]. But we've already established this article is ], so lets start reducing scope.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: @] searching apartheid + war + new Jersey also got me a ] article about protesters in New Jersey calling Israel an apartheid state. ] (]) 09:13, 13 January 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.
	* '''No'''. The majority of sources on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war do not mention ''apartheid'', therefore per ] neither should we. I did an unbiased news search for <code></code>. Looking at the titles of the first 100 results, the number of articles with ''apartheid'' in the title was zero; the number with ''apartheid'' in the search result abstract was zero. I opened the top ten and checked the entire article with search-in-page, and the number of articles with ''apartheid'' in the body of the article was zero. My conclusion is that ''apartheid'' is hardly ever mentioned in current news articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. ] (]) 17:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:News sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events. ] (]) 17:59, 17 ~~December~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		] (]) 08:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' because it's become just way too much <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:: You may well be right about that. This article documents a current news event; some day, there will be books written about it, and I can well imagine that they might discuss the background going back to British Mandatory Palestine and possibly use the term ''apartheid'', and if and when they do, those would be great ] sources to use to include the background information you wish to include. But lacking that information now, under what ] do you propose that we should mention it at this point, if the sources do not? Misplaced Pages ]. ] (]) 18:39, 17 December 2023 (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 <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{see also}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{Further Information}}</nowiki> templates to articles which will go into more depth anyways. ]] 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:: @] The concept appears frequently in the news I listen to, without seeking it out. Most recently, the first speaker of the South African deligation to the ICJ mentioned it at least twice. (I was watching the full proceedings on the ] YouTube channel.)
			*'''Support''': The recent events involving the IDF are intertwined with each other. ] (]) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:: I would guess news your news diet skews centre right (AKA liberal) and is mostly from the USA? Mostly because you seem to think "Israel-Hamas war" is an "unbiased" search? The term is very common, but it still gives a biased subset of sources.
			*'''Support''' The article of multiple separate that should be merged into ] in this article, thank you. ] (]) 09:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:: ] (]) 09:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Slightly oppose to oppose''': ] is bigger than this article. ] • (]\|]). 02:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
	*: @] The other problem is searching "Israel-Hamas war" gives you sources that skew somewhat right wing and severely towards Israel and the USA.
			*:That article has since been split and cut down to under 400k. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 14:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	*: e.g. When I search "2023 Israel-Hamas war" in "news" on Google (exactly following @]'s suggestion above of an allegedly "unbiased" search I tried about 4 times at different times of day, over the past few days) the pro Israel lobby group ] is always in the top ~6 results, this doesn't normally rank very highly.
			*'''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. ] (]) 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	*: The search Israel-Hamas war also misses a lot of things like ] that show up if I search Gaza or Palestine instead of Hamas. The medical aid charities don't tend to mention apartheid, but it is more evidence of how much you are missing with your "unbiased" search.
			*'''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.</]> <] /><] /> 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	*: ] 2024-01-13 07:54 (UTC) <small>(fixed the mess the mobile website made)</small> ] (]) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support split''' Splitting the article can help with its consistency. ]] 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{re\|Mathglot}} if being mentioned in the first 100 articles in an unbiased news search was the threshold for inclusion, there's a LOT that can be removed from this article! Also, kinda curious how you determined that ''none'' of the articles mentioned apartheid. Did you read through every single one of them or use some tool? ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', while keeping section on West Bank and Israel. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:: Reread my comment; I was completely transparent about my methodology. It's possible that another search method will demonstrate that ''apartheid'' does belong in the article, and if someone does that, I will change my vote. I'm just saying no one has done that so far. Misplaced Pages needs to follow the sources, not start with what we want to include, and then search for sources that validate it; that's backwards; we need to start from the best sources available, and summarize the majority opinion we find there, wherever that takes us. ] (]) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::: @] please try just "Israel" or "war" without the rest? Set the time frame as October 2023 till today to get more relevant results. Then ctrl+F for apartheid to look past headlines. ] (]) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::The "first 100 results" is not a methodology specified in our editorial policies. Please cite at least one paragraph from our policy which could back you up. First of all, as IOHANNVSVERVS have already said "news sources seldom contain in-depth background information about events". This is even more relevant for an ongoing military conflict started few months ago. -- ] (] · ]) 04:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::: Sure, I can do that. But it's too long for the Survey section, so I'll add it to the ] below. Thanks for asking. ] (]) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*: If you're searching for "Israel Hamas war" that's what the majority say, but sources calling it that are giving one side of the story. A few sources I've seen from South Africa (relevant to apartheid) call it "operation Toofan Al-Aqsa" or things like "Resistance against the colonial occupation" etc. those are probably too biased to include, but "war in Gaza" or "Israel Palestine war" etc. might find some more moderate views from the middle. We shouldn't be basing this article too heavily on USA sources. ] (]) 01:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Comment:''' This RfC is similar to a previous discussion on this talk page here . ] (]) 17:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''', ] provided many sources referencing apartheid as relevant to the background of the current war in Gaza. ] (]) 18:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Yes'''I seems perfectly valid to include at least a reference to this. In my brief search I have turned up several RS that support this. ] (]) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''unrelevant RFC'''. What matters is what the sources say. The criterias for naming apartheid rely on several strict points established by International Court of Justice; Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be ]. Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk ], rightfully raises questions. ] (]) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:@]Please strike your comment falsely accusing people with a different opinion of lobbying. If I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, please correct me. ] (]) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:@] - You are entitled to disagree with me and many others here, but you are not entitled to cast personal attacks and accusations without evidence. If you do not strike this, I will consider reporting you. ] (]) 06:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::What exactly would you like ] to strike from their comments?
	*::''"Denials of facts recognized as such by many Human Watch un-gouvernmental organisations would be ]"'' and ''"Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk ], rightfully raises questions"'' are both reasonable statements which do not include personal attacks. ] (]) 07:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::“Reading pro-israel comments with biaised opinions in this previous talk Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29#Large_removal, rightfully raises questions.” I see this as a personal attack against pro-Israel editors. If it is not, please clarify. ] (]) 07:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::] — "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible ] on a specific article or topic"
	*::::] — "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view(NPOV) without editorial bias."
	*::::] (]) 07:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Malformed RfC''', but '''yes'''. In addition to the sources raised by VR, two more from Vox discussing apartheid in the context of the war: ; from Reuters: ; another from Amnesty (UK) discussing apartheid at some length: ; from Jacobin (possibly an opinion piece but not labelled as such): ; from Newsweek: ; from HuffPo: . Not only is it relevant background to the war as a whole, it also contextualizes other details such as South Africa suspending relations with Israel and the rhetoric used in ongoing ceasefire protests. Outright exclusion is not justifiable, the issue is NPOV and ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:I agree with this. It's NPOV and DUE. ] (]) 11:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

			===== Elimination of this as a standalone article =====
	* '''Yes, Absolutely'''. Just because the Israeli government denies it doesn't make the mountain of academia on Israeli apartheid any less valid. To not mention it would be purposefully ignoring the context and causes of the war. You might as well try to rewrite ] without mentioning apartheid. ] (]) 01:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No, Absolutely''' per ]. With regards, ] (]) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per Dovidroth and Mathglot. ] (]) 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

			This possibility was mentioned by ] 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: ]. We also have an article on the portion of the war which is in Gaza, between Israel and Hamas: ]. So what is the purpose of this article other than to duplicate information in those articles? ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Yes'''. OP (Dovidroth)'s claim that apartheid isn't mentioned in mainstream media is false, as the apartheid issue of Israel against Palestinians has been being consistently mentioned in reliable sources since the Oct 7 terror attack. Presenting apartheid as a background of this conflict is in line with our ] weight policy. -- ] (] · ]) 04:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Yes'''. ]. ] (]) 05:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

			:Per the last RM, , not that it gained any traction. ] (]) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. while it is very relevant to mention that "Palestinians are in despair over a never-ending occupation in the West Bank and suffocating blockade of Gaza" as a part of the context (and it is indeed mentioned), the use of the term "apartheid" is inconsistent with the low-key spirit of Misplaced Pages , being factual and non-judgmental. Mentioning that some non-profits "have likened the Israeli occupation to apartheid, although this characterization is disputed" just emphasizes the fact that the point about the despair is factual and sufficient in the background. By the way, similarly, the phrase "viewed from Gaza, things were only going to get worse, considering that Netanyahu's coalition partners opposed a two-state solution for the conflict. He suggested they would prefer to annex the entirety of the West Bank" is relevant, while the speculative non-factual addition "even at the expense of turning Israel into an apartheid state" is biased, judgmental and not with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
			:Rather, I think ] should be merged into this article. ] (]) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
	*:Please quote our policy or guideline which specifically requires Misplaced Pages to be "low-key spirit". If anything, Misplaced Pages actually encourages editor to ], as long as the edit is consistent with our editorial policies. If multiple reliable sources agree on a point of view, whether it is disagreed by other entity, we present that POV in our articles without unnecessary compromise. -- ] (] · ]) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

			:] exists but should probably renamed to something less cumbersome. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Yes:''' per the sources provided by VR. If the sources say it, we can say it, duh. Doesn't need an RFC to state what is obvious from basic policy. If RS mention it, it is relevant for inclusion. If they say it is related, we sat it is related. If they say it is unrelated, we say it is unrelated. Etc. Also ] the filer for inadequate ] and source hunting, i.e. simply not looking hard enough for the relevant sources that were so readily discovered. ] (]) 22:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:There was a large discussion ]. How do you think that this is lacking ]? ] (]) 10:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

			===== Post January cleanup =====
	*'''Yes'''? Even if the apartheid is debatable, adding information on it to help people come to their own conclusions is better than obscuring history. ] (]) 09:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
			@] performed a trim, from 14500 words (480K bytes) in 18 January 23:00 to 11000 words (350K bytes) in 19 January 04:00. @] indicated their initial approval. Do you both think the above discussion can be deemed resolved? ] (]) 12:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', it should have a brief, carefully-worded and attributed mention in the article body (likely just a single sentence, part of a sentence, or even as little as just one word in a prose list of some sort, such as the list motivations claimed by Hamas.) There's sufficient coverage to support the idea that it is something enough sources consider relevant that it ought to be briefly mentioned; the sources that do exist support the idea that it's a small but significant flashpoint in the underlying background. I don't think the arguments against it above are sufficient to exclude a mere single-sentence mention in the body - they would make perfect sense if we were discussing adding it to the ''lead'' or creating an entire section or paragraph for it or somesuch; but we're discussing a bare mention, which has a much lower standard. We don't need to have the majority of sources mentioning something just to include a single sentence noting somewhere in the body; we just need enough sources to demonstrate that significant mainstream / non-fringe discussion exists, which it certainly does. --] (]) 08:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

			:Not quite but close, I ] for AJ29 on talkpage requesting implementing this. But otherwise, given the clear consensus above and a motivated editor to summarise Other confrontations a bit better, I'll close this up. ] (]) 12:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per Dovidroth and Mathglot. ] (]) 14:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			::Thank you very much, as a personal note, this led me to read the whole article for the first time, as it is now much more pleasant to read! ] (]) 13:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}

			== RFCBEFORE on a future move ==
	*'''No''' per Dovidroth and Mathglot. ] (]) 16:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			{{closed rfc top\|result=] has been opened by ''']''' with agreed sources. ] (]) 00:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			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. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Thanks for doing this. Should we modify the table so that "both" and "something else" are separate categories? ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' This is extremely important context, and is well-sourced from many reliable sources. The idea that it is irrelevant because breaking news stories don't always include it is absurd on its face- news articles updating on a war do not need to include a history of the conflict. An encyclopedia entry, however, should. ] (]) 17:13, 20 December 2023 (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. ] (]) 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). ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 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" . 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. ] (]) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This is all a very elaborate re-hashing of a distinctly ] exercise. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], ] and generally standard practice ... Now there's a thought! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@], suppose you were to propose a move, do you have a list of sources that you'd use? Can you please post them here?
			::::::And everyone (@], @], @], @] etc), what do you think of a move to "War in Gaza"?''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::We have an incomplete table of news sources, and (thanks to you VR) a comprehensive table of scholarly sources to support the RM. Though either title is fine with me, I personally hold a slight preference for "Gaza war" over "War in Gaza" per consistency with the prior conflicts, but if either one is proposed, I would support it. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@], should we, present in the RM, 3 choices (Gaza, Israel-Gaza, Israel-Hamas) and ask people to give ]s? Or we should ask people to indicate whether they support/oppose on every single one of the choice? Or should the RM only be a binary choice between "Gaza" and "Israel–Hamas"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{re\|Vice regent}} I'd prefer the binary, since it seems like both Gaza and Israel–Hamas are both considerably dominant over Israel-Gaza. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 15:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Thanks for ping VR and no offense but I'm going to decline to suggest sources for fear that a year+ from now, someone will post it as evidence of "consistent non-neutral editing" by me and arbcom will tban me for it as is happening now at arbpia5. I don't think I'll be participating in talk page discussions like this anymore, sorry. Again, nothing personal and has nothing to do with you or this page in particular. ] (]) 20:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			===News organizations===
			:{{ping\|Chicdat}} Thanks for taking the initiative. Note that a major point of contention will arise relating to what is the most recent usage by these RS, so the analysis in the table should probably include this. Also, a point will be raised that the scope is not consistent, so categories should be compared to categories, and text references to text references. But overall, it seems that there is consensus among RS, and in the previous move, to include Gaza rather than Hamas. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			{\| class="wikitable" width="100%"
	* '''No''' This is undue in an article about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. The vast majority of reliable sources do not mention this concept in the context of the war. Even most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip, where there are no Israeli settlements. ] (]) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			! scope="col" width="20%" \|Gaza War
	*:Categorically untrue that {{tq\| most of those making the accusation rarely refer to the Gaza Strip}}. The very first sentence of : "The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it controls (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, ''and the Gaza Strip'') an apartheid regime." In the report on Israeli apartheid, "Gaza" is mentioned over 250 times; HRW has , in the context of the war, discussed Israeli apartheid in relation to Gaza. And from Amnesty International, just this June: "; and in : " is vital as ending the longstanding impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity and securing justice and reparation for victims are essential to prevent recurrence of these atrocities ''and to address the root causes of the conflict, such as Israel’s system of apartheid imposed on all Palestinians.''" These are three of the most prominent sources alleging apartheid, and all of them refer to Gaza; HRW and Amnesty refer to it in the context of the war. So should we, with adequate attribution. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|War in Gaza
	* '''No''', per Agmonsnir. ] (]) 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|Israel–Hamas war
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|Israel–Gaza war
			! scope="col" width="20%"\|Something else
			\|-
			\|




			Le Monde Diplomatique
			\|
			\|


			\|




			\|



			\|}
			===Scholarly sources===
			Here is the table I presented at the last RM.
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			!Engine
			!Gaza+war
			!Israel+Hamas+war
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|]
			\|
			\|
			\|}
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			:"Gaza war" is a bit more ambiguous, and some of those hits could refer to ], ], or ]. "Israel-Hamas war" is much less ambiguous, so it would naturally have less hits. ] (]) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. The notion of apartheid is totally irrelevant here - per Dovidroth, Agmonsnir and Marokwitz. ] (]) 08:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
			::I want to clarify that in each of these cases I filtered to post 2023. Now its possible a source is referring to the ] post 2023, but its rare. For example in google scholar:
			::* - 829 results
			::* - 7 results
			::* - 1 result
			::* - 0 results
			::So as you can see this effects results by <1%. BTW, the previous wars can be referred to as the "Israel-Hamas war" (for example "2014 Israel-Hamas war" or "The Israel-Hamas War") but this is also rare.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I believe this is enough evidence that the current war can be primary topic over all other Gaza wars, and that it is time for you to start an RM and present the opening statement. ] (]) 01:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War ] (]) 01:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Several of the results of the Google Scholar search use "Israel-Gaza War", not "Gaza War". One of the ones on the first page even used "Israel-Hamas War" and simply happened to also mention Gaza in the title! The Google Scholar search you performed, using the terms you typed in, includes all sources that use "Gaza War" ''or'' "Israel-Gaza War", and it is therefore a bit misleading. ] (]) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]@], I deliberately didn't use quotes so as to include "Gaza war" variants like "War in Gaza", "War on Gaza", and "Israel-Hamas war" variants like "Israel and Hamas at war". Before we start the RM, we should decide if including these variants is valid or not. I think it should be as these are very similar wordings. If not, then everyone must exclude variants from their search.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The only valid exception would be to exclude Israel–Gaza War from Gaza War, the rest of the variants are most likely valid. ] (]) 03:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Scholarly sources table with variants===
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			! colspan="2" \|Search query
			!]
			!]
			! colspan="2" \|]
			\|-
			! colspan="2" \|Scope
			!Titles only
			!Titles only
			!Titles only
			!Anywhere
			\|-
			\| rowspan="4" \|Gaza war variants
			\| "Gaza war" only
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| "War in Gaza" only
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| "Gaza war" or "War in Gaza"
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| (subtract) "Israel-Gaza war"
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			! colspan="2" \|'''Gaza war total'''
			!484
			!41
			!11
			!252
			\|-
			\| rowspan="2" \|Israel-Hamas war variants
			\| "Israel-Hamas war" only
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| "Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel and Hamas at war" or "War between Israel and Hamas"
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			! colspan="2" \|Israel-Hamas war total
			!285
			!27
			!8
			!192
			\|}
			@]@] here's the table with "Israel-Gaza war" removed and popular variants included. I included the top 3 search engines that I can think. I'm still trying to figure out how to use PubMed's and .''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			:This is sufficient evidence for me. If you are unable to figure out PubMed, I think Google Scholar, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis are enough. If you are able to include PubMed data, I think it will be similar to the three. There will be a more heated debate on common name in news media, I think Makeandtoss's evidence is a good start. ] (]) 11:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Yes''', per VR and others. —<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> <small>] \| ] ]</small> 10:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
			::@], {{u\|Makeandtoss}}, we need a similar fleshed out table for the news sources. Personally, I think scholarly sources should be given at least as much weight as news sources. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' per VR and WillowCity ] (]) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' - discussing Palestine, in an article this long, without mentioning apartheid in the background information is nonsense. The amount of source material available that discusses apartheid in this context is humongous. If you just Google the word "apartheid", you don't have to scroll for long before encountering mentions of the Zionist entity. --- ]&]]) 06:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. It's not relevant to this article. Apartheid has to do with the West Bank Palestinians first and foremost, since they are the ones who generally commute to and from Jerusalem to work and stuff like that. Gaza was actually given back to Hamas for complete self-determination. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:So it's like a Bantustan then. —<span style="font-variant:small-caps">''']'''</span> <small>] \| ] ]</small> 20:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Regarding the Bantustan analogy, it doesn't work in several respects. The Bantustans were nominally independent, but lacked any actual autonomy. Whereas in Israel, there are Arab members of the Knesset. There are also political parties that represent both the West Bank and Gaza. Unlike the Bantustans, neither Israel nor the West Bank nor Gaza are ethnically homogeneous or enforced for particular ethnic groups. Israel has Christian, Jewish, Arab, Druze etc citizens who all have political and civil rights. In the Palestinian territories, each one has chosen their own leaders; while they haven't held elections for a while, they aren't following a system imposed upon them by Israel. If they were, one assumes, they'd have little Knessets. The Bantustans consisted of black citizens of South Africa who were deported or forced into "independent" places, some of which were not, even in name. You can certainly claim that because of the blockade, Gaza is de facto occupied, but politically, they are not subject to Israel. ] and ] exist, there were no black citizens of South Africa when they were forced into the Bantustans. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:No part of that last sentence is true. ''']''' - 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::See ] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::"Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel" - ]. ] (]) 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Due to the blockade yes, but there's no apartheid in Gaza was my point. It's a separate walled off place where Hamas is in charge. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::So say you. Plenty of RS disagree. And as for "walled off", well... that says it all, doesn't it? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 21:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::Yes, apartheid refers to a working underclass, and I'd accept it may apply to the West Bank, but Gaza is walled off, the settlements there were dismantled, and it's administered by Hamas who haven't held an election since 2006. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::I have never seen this definition of apartheid before, including under the Rome Statute and the ICSPCA, but even if such a definition existed, would it include ] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::Yes, like that. But that ended in 2007 due to Hamas taking over, that's my point exactly. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::::::That is not correct at all, there were Gazan men <s>working</s> permitted to work in Israel (predominantly in construction and agricultural jobs) when the war broke out on October 7. The Israeli government avenged itself on them by stripping them of their legal status, rounding them up, forcing them into cages for several weeks, and ultimately deporting them back to Gaza (with many still wearing around their wrists and ankles). Edited for accuracy. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 01:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::::::::I stand corrected; Hamas's takeover greatly curtailed but did not entirely end the practice. {{tq\|Before the Hamas takeover in 2007, some 120,000 Gazans worked inside Israel. '''Nearly''' all lost their permits when Israel tightened the blockade that year.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::“Occupied by Israel” does not mean “apartheid”. The accusation is a fringe view to begin with and is undue in this context. ] (]) 17:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::It's factually incorrect that it's a fringe view. See ]. ] (]) 12:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Im well aware. Your statement is entirely false on all angles. Not Hamas, not self-determination, not complete. ''']''' - 21:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

			===News sources' prose===
	:: this is because you are defining "mainstream" as "USA" - the world is not the USA. ] (]) 01:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
			{\| class="wikitable"
	{{cot\|bg=darkseagreen\|indent=2.4em\|Bickering among editors addressing each other's behavior and unrelated to the Rfc question.}}
			\|+
	*:{{reply to\|Andrevan}} Much of your discussion above is ]. It is important to note that your own views on whether or not it is apartheid are not particularly relevant. We go by what the ] say, and there are myriad independent reliable sources alleging apartheid. Furthermore, whether or not the designation applies to Gaza or just the West Bank is likewise not relevant. Hamas has clearly indicated (and which we have also included in the article) that provocations in the West Bank were deemed by it a ''casus belli''. ] (]) 12:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
			!scope="col" style="width: 50px;" \|Domain
	*::It's not OR, this is a talk page an an RFC. Don't ] the proceedings. I really don't care what Hamas thinks or indicates or deems. There's no justification that should be added about apartheid as that itself would be ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
			!Country
	*:::You are using your personal unsourced opinion on what apartheid constitutes as a rationale for excluding the accusation. This is clearly ]. The article clearly does care what Hamas thinks, given that Hamas' justifications for the events figure predominately in the background sections. Several of those justifications discuss events in the West Bank, so the distinction between apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza is immaterial. It's not ] as several sources explicitly mention apartheid in relation to the war. ] (]) 00:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			!scope="col" style="width: 150px;" \|Top name
	*::::I don't need to provide sources for all of my sentences on talk pages, JDiala, nor does OR apply to talk pages. I did not say the article should omit Hamas' POV, I said ''I'' do not care. Leave me alone, you're not going to convince me to change my view with these spurious wikilawyering arguments. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			!("the gaza war")
	*::::::With respect to your last allegation of "wikilawyering", I would refer you to ] and ]. Deciding to exclude well-sourced material purely on the basis of personal disagreements with said material is clearly ]. ] (]) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			!<small>("the gaza war" OR "the war in gaza")</small>
	*:::::::You're once again misusing that policy, thus my statement of wikilawyering, which is not incivil when the appropriate in-context description of what you're doing; you don't understand how that OR policy applies, you can't charge me with OR when I haven't even edited anything. I explained why I think apartheid applies to the West Bank, and not to Gaza, due to Hamas taking over Gaza in 2006 and therefore, it's no longer apartheid, but now something different. Still bad, but different. That's throwing you a bone, but the point is that if you want to convince me to change my view, you need multiple high quality sources that say Gaza is an example of apartheid and that precipitated the war. Continuing to bludgeon the discussion after I asked you to leave me alone isn't going to do anything. If you have those sources, you are welcome to present them. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			!("the israel-hamas war")
	*::::::::I will once again refer you to ] and ]. It is strange to me that an editor with such substantial experience believes it appropriate to resort to personal attacks on RfCs. The term "wikilawyering" is clearly an ad hominem attack, regardless of the spin you provide to defend its use. It is likewise bizarre to ask to be "left alone" on a talk page where the point is precisely to engage with others on these issues. With respect to OR: if you argue on the talk page to make an edit X such that if edit X is made it would constitute an instance of ], that is ipso facto an OR violation. The irony here is that your legalistic rendition of the OR policy is more akin to wikilawyering than anything I have said. Most sensible editors realize it is inappropriate to make personal assessments on what technical legal jargon like "apartheid" means without reference to ]. Finally, with regard to sources, and with regard to the Gaza/West Bank distinction, this has been discussed extensively elsewhere in the RfC. ] (]) 00:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			!<small>("the israel-hamas war" OR "the war between israel and hamas")</small>
	*:::::::::You are now the one personalizing the dispute, by bringing my experience into it, or questioning whether I am "sensible." Again, wikilawyering refers to ''your misuse of a policy'' and not to you as an ad hominem. It is not an OR violation for me to use logic to discuss what I presume to be background information on this topic, and if I am challenged on a specific statement that I make, I may then provide support for it with sources, but what I've stated above I believe to have not received any specific such challenge. Other users may then dispute that logic or interpretation if they wish, but it's not ok to say that it's OR, because that's not what we're dealing with. Your comments are a bit out of touch with the norms of a Misplaced Pages discussion. ], I've referenced it a few times. There's nothing strange about me asking you to leave me alone and stop badgering me. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|-
	*:::::::::::The statement " me alone, you're not going to convince me to change my view with these spurious wikilawyering arguments" in response to a criticism of your argument is clearly a violation of ] and ], regardless of how you want to spin it. It is a matter of tone. You have clearly demonstrated yourself to lack the ability to communicate with other editors in a professional way, as indicated by your talk page where several other editors have criticized this. As I've already noted, the irony is that your accusation of wikilawyering would be a more apt description of ''your'' conduct. You are engaging in obvious original research, mouthing your own opinions which are not sourced and in fact flatly incorrect when compared with the actual international law, as a rationale for excluding sourced material from the article. You're justifying this by claiming that you hadn't made an edit yet and you're on a talk page. You are attempting to skirt the ''spirit'' of the ] rule (whose entire point is to ensure that the encyclopedia's content is based on well-sourced ] material) by litigiously hiding behind the fact that this is an RfC on a talk page. In fact, this doesn't really matter, for the reason I mentioned. Promoting decisions based on ] on the talk page is in effect engaging in original research, even if you haven't made an edit proper. Lastly, re: bludgeoning, this is a silly point. I have made far fewer comments on this RfC than many others. The root of the problem here is that you are making incorrect, false, and unsourced claims regarding the definition of apartheid (e.g., that it somehow requires an "underclass"), and personally attacking others when called out on this. ] (]) 04:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|theguardian.com
	*::::::::::::I'm going to ignore most of your circular and repetitive comment and charitably interpret it as a request for a source for the term "underclass" in apartheid. {{tq\|Myanmar authorities’ system of discriminatory laws and policies that make the Rohingya in Rakhine State a permanent underclass}} (HRW) this isn't SYNTH, because I'm not adding to the article. I'm using it to illustrate the use of the term which I am interpreting your comment to be challenging due to the use of scare quotes around it. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|UK
	*:::::::::::::You mentioned a "''working'' underclass" (my emphasis). I should have included this adjective in the above comment, but in any case it was the adjective that you used. The implication here is that that apartheid specifically ''requires'' some form of economic subjugation or economic exploitation. This claim is (1) not true, and (2) even if it were true, would not prove the point here, since Israel does in fact exploit Palestinian labour (e.g., Gazan and West Bank labourers). ] (]) 05:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
	*::::::::::::::I was not implying that apartheid requires economic subjugation. It just so happens that the apartheid in the situation we were describing involves commuting through the border checkpoints. Yes, it is possible to have apartheid without it being a "working" class, but I believe that this is critical to the aspect of the West Bank, it involves labor power relations, and class is fundamentally an economic concept in my conception of it. Regardless, you're going a bit further in my comments than what I said. Apartheid is the existence of an underclass maintained by a policy of discrimination, essentially, in my conception of it, and seemingly described in the above source, and I think applicable to the subset of Palestinians who exist as a class in Israeli society, as opposed to being segregated into a separate walled city with its own institutions. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	*:::::::::Andrevan is right, you do not understand what ] means. You also do not understand what ] means. Ad hominem is an attack on the person, as opposed to an attack on the person's reasoning. An accusation of wikilawyering is an attack on your reasoning, so it is not ad hominem. Please stop it, you are wrong and off-topic. --] (]) 07:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	*::::::::::This is a rather meaningless comment. You are just repeating what he himself said without engaging with my responses refuting his points or elaborating on his points. This contributes exactly nil to the debate. His conduct is clearly ad hominem and a violation of ] when you consider the childish, adversarial tone of his prose ("leave me alone"). Furthermore, as I note, the "wikilawyering" accusation is more aptly applied to him, considering that his argument basically hinges on a tendentious interpretation of ], where he is somehow interpreting the talk-page exception for ] as a ''carte blanche'' to use his own personal, unsourced and frankly incorrect opinions on the interpretation of legal terminology to take a stance in an RfC. Note that ] explicitly disallows " by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles." This is precisely what is going on here with respect to Andrevan and ], where he is trying to hide behind the fact that this is a talk page to justify him bringing up entirely unsourced content in an RfC. This is no different than an editor claiming in a talk page discussion in, say, ], that he personally turned granite into gold and so the page should be changed. Would it be so unreasonable to deem that situation a ] violation? And if not, what rule would you suggest citing in that case to criticize said hypothetical editor? ] (]) 10:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	{{hatnote\|Collapse bickering. ] (]) 11:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)}}
			\|
	{{cob}}
			\|-
	*'''No''' The mention of apartheid in the context of this war is undue and not mentioned in most mainstream sources. ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|reuters.com
	*:Then that still means there are mainstream sources that mention apartheid. Just not "most". ] (]) 12:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|UK
	*::I think what he is saying is clear - it’s not in most sources and thus undue in the context of the war. ] (]) 14:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
	*:::Like Iskandar said, if a source says something, we can relay it. It doesn't matter if it's mainstream or not. Please stop dodging Misplaced Pages policy and being obtuse. ] (]) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	*::::That is contrary to our oath here. Please read ] which will demonstrate that we do not present such content.]] 15:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	*:::Any individual claim X regarding the war which is included in this article will not be included in most published news sources about the war. This is true by definition since this article is by its very nature far more comprehensive than any individual published source. ] (]) 12:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	* '''Yes'''. Rationales for excluding the allegation are bizarre. Multiple ] sources (including all mainstream human rights organizations) allege Israel is engaged in apartheid. This allegation has been brought up following the start of the war and in relation to the war by innumerable sources ]. There is no standard that "most" sources need to specifically mention apartheid in relation to the war for it to be included in the article. This is not a standard used for anything. The vast majority of individual sources will not constitute a comprehensive discussion of the war; it is precisely the job of an encyclopedia entry to synthesize all of these sources. ] (]) 12:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	*'''No.''' We can by all means ''describe'' the nature of the occupation, the activities of the West Bank settlers, the Netanyahu government's enabling of the far right and deprecation of the two-state solution. But labels -- there are many proposed on many CT pages on this site -- always end up like an inkblot that each reader interprets in their own way. And that is the opposite of what good encyclopedic content should achieve. The relevant specific detail is informative. Labeling it apartheid is not. ]] 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|-
	*:Apartheid is not a "label." It is a specific crime with a specific definition under international law which Israel has been accused of. Furthermore, it is not us who are "labelling" it apartheid. The statement is attributed to those making the allegation, not considered a statement of fact. Given the ubiquity of the allegation in ] sources, it seems entirely reasonable to include, provided appropriate balance is given to those who deny the allegation. ] (]) 00:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			\| bbc.com
	*::{{re\|JDiala}} i agree. ] (]) 00:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|UK
	*'''Yes, definitely''' - Include at least some South African sources to support them. Given the current sentiment on the Palestine issue from many South African voices, I think the people who experienced the first named Apartheid would support the comparison. I don't have any specific citation links handy at the moment (and if i open one more tab my browser will collapse), but we definitely should include the South African perspective. ] (]) 00:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
	: Also, '''Search just for "apartheid" and restrict to results since 7 October''' - Any name you give for this war, will be a name only one side uses to refer to this war. But just searching for recent writing about apartheid gives results that are mostly relevant and from a wider range of perspectives. collecting some sources below… ] (]) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	:: Your conclusion is not valid; see response at your discussion section ]. ] (]) 09:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|
	:'''Yes'''. It is not an opinion that Israel practices apartheid in the Palestinian territories it occupies, of which Gaza is one. Whether this features frequently and as prominently in newspaper reportage as beheadings, rape, ovening of babies etc or not is neither here nor there. This is not about newspaper coverage but what the best independent, authoritative NGOs mention as '''background''' to the present conflict. They are the closest thing we have at the moment for the scholarly sources that in the future will form the basis for a detached, analytical account of this particular moment of the IP conflict. I.e.,
			\|
	:<blockquote>There can be no way to address or resolve the continuing crisis in Israel and Palestine, even after the current hostilities wane, '''without diagnosing it correctly.''' The discourse about the way forward needs to be based on the reality on the ground of decades of Israeli repressive rule of Palestinians. Major Israeli, Palestinian and other international human rights groups have found that Israeli authorities are committing apartheid against Palestinians, as has the UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territory and many others. Lama Fakih, Omar Shakir, ] 5 December 2023 </blockquote>
			\|
	:<blockquote>The injustices and violations that are among ''the root causes of '''this''' violence'' must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Civilians will continue to pay a heavy price until Israel dismantles its system of apartheid against Palestinians, including ending its illegal blockade on Gaza. ] 12 November 2023 ] (]) 09:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
			\|-
	*'''Yes''', sufficient sources exist to support the idea that it's a {{TQ\|significant flashpoint in the … background}} and we only need {{TQ\|enough sources to demonstrate that significant mainstream / non-fringe discussion exists}} per Aquillion. We would not expect to find ''daily'' mention of this issue in news articles, since it is inherently a 'background' issue.] (]) 12:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
			\|telegraph.co.uk
			\|UK
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|haaretz.com
			\|Israel
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| timesofisrael.com
			\|Israel
			\|Both
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|jpost.com
			\|Israel
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|palestinechronicle.com
			\|Palestine
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|today.lorientlejour.com
			\|Lebanon
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| aljazeera.com
			\|Qatar
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|france24.com
			\|France
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|afp.com
			\|France
			\|Neither
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|dw.com
			\|Germany
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|cbc.ca
			\|Canada
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|smh.com.au
			\|Australia
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| cnn.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| wsj.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\| nytimes.com
			\|USA
			\|Both
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|pbs.org
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|bloomberg.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|theatlantic.com
			\|USA
			\|Neither
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|washingtonpost.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: cyan;"\|Gaza war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|politico.com
			\|USA
			\|Both
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|thehill.com
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|-
			\|npr.org
			\|USA
			\|style="background-color: yellow;"\|Israel-Hamas war
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|
			\|}

			'''Methodology''': I searched for "the gaza war", and its most common variant "the war in gaza" vs "israel-hamas war" and its most common variant "the war between israel and hamas", for the past one month (to pick up on which direction sources are moving). I used "the" to ensure I was searching in prose and not in keywords or tags. I used google's "OR" operator, but some results don't make sense and you may get different results than me (see ]). To determine what a source's top term was, I first compared "the gaza war" against "the israel-hamas war" and see if one phrase was clearly predominant; if not, I then added their respective variants and tried the test again. If without the variant one was predominant, but with it the other became predominant, I wrote "both"; if all hits <10, I wrote neither.
	*'''Yes''' As I made clear in the "RFCbefore", the original removal by the originator of this RFC was baseless and why I restored it in the first instance, idk why this is even a question, it is sourced and clearly relevant.] (]) 14:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Yes, absolutely''', it's well sourced and it's an incredibly important part of the whole context in these hostilities. — ] ] 22:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. As above. Not for the level of detail in the scope of this article. It's mentioned elsewhere. ] (]) 08:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC),
	*'''No''' per above. ] (]) 03:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''No''', references to this type of ideological discussion are irrelevant on a page about a military conflict, and already receive excellent coverage on specific articles like ]. --] ] 07:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:It's relevant background. I don't know what you mean by describing it as "ideological". ] (]) 07:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Apartheid is a specific brand of racial/ethnocentric ideology that emphasizes both racial segregation and ] (ie political domination of one group by another). Hence, discussion of apartheid as an institutionalized state system (whether in Israel or South Africa) is, by nature, an ideological discussion. --] ] 10:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:@]
	*:Ideology bring irrelevant to armed conflict is a strangely cynical position?
	*:I have been ranting at my friends lately that "all war is just nationalism!" as in all the other bits like Islam or "freedom and democracy" are just disingenuous spin? BUT…
	*:nationalism is an ideology.
	*:] (]) 00:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Ideology is not irrelevant to armed conflict. I'm stating my opinion that a ''nuanced discussion of ideology'' (for example, delving into the Israeli apartheid analogy) is irrelevant on a Misplaced Pages article about an armed conflict, especially one that is already quite bloated with the tactical and strategic military details. --] ] 05:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''No''' I wouldn't object to a mention if it was relevant but it genuinely doesn't seem relevant here, just my opinion, I appreciate this is extremely controversial. ] (''Ping me or leave a message on my ]'') 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:It is very relevant if you know some background in this conflict ''']]''' 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:@]
	*:Among other things, they're currently being prosecuted for genocide by South Africa. It's revant in lots of tangled ways. How is it not relevant? ] (]) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Hi {{u\|Abo Yemen}} I don't even disagree with the assertion I just don't think it's relevant to this article, I do research this conflict a lot currently (though unfortunately haven't been very active recently on here.) ] (''Ping me or leave a message on my ]'') 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''No''': I genuinely just don't think that it belongs. I'm not opposed to changing my mind, that said, Israel has plenty Muslims and from my understanding aren't treated much differently in society and are legally equal. - ] (] \| ]) 01:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

			'''Observation''': Of the 25 sources examined, 13 prefer "gaza war", 7 prefer "israel-hamas war" and 5 are unclear. Every single source uses either "the gaza war" or its variant in large numbers, but the same is not always true for "the israel-hamas war". American and Israeli sources are split between the two phrases, while UK, Europe and Arab sources lean more towards "gaza war".
	*'''No''': It is not directly connected and not more significant compared to other background information. ] (]) 11:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 09:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Perfect analysis VR, well done! I think the community is now better posed to make an informed move decision based on this data. ] (]) 14:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== less biased search strategy for apartheid views ===
			{{closed rfc bottom}}
	Since so many people above are saying "most sources say" based on what Google shows them for what they call the war, I'm attempting a less biased search. Any name you give for this war, will be a name only one side uses to refer to this war.

			== Summarizing proposal ==
	'''logged in to Google''' on the profile I usually use for news etc.

			This still reads like a huge chunk, proposal to summarize from:
	'''Search just for "apartheid" and restrict to results since 7 October''', then just skimming for what is relevant to the war, a bit haphazard, but only ruling out things that don't seem to mention Israel or the war at all. I've not read these in full.
	* top relevant hit ]
	* ] - "Apartheid South Africa reached a tipping point, Israel will, too" - Suren Pillay - Chair in African Studies at the ]<ref>{{cite web \|last1=Pillay \|first1=Suren \|title=Apartheid South Africa reached a tipping point, Israel will, too \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/11/16/apartheid-south-africa-reached-a-tipping-point-israel-will-too \|website=Al Jazeera \|access-date=27 December 2023 \|language=en}}</ref>
	* ] "The argument that Israel practices apartheid, explained" <ref>{{cite web \|last1=Zhou \|first1=Li \|title=The argument that Israel practices apartheid, explained \|url=https://www.vox.com/23924319/israel-palestine-apartheid-meaning-history-debate \|website=Vox \|access-date=27 December 2023 \|language=en \|date=20 October 2023}}</ref> (mostly background aimed at a USA audience)
	* ] interviewed by well known Turkish news site ]. <ref>{{cite web \|title=‘Apartheid settler colonial state’ Israel built on ethnic cleansing of Palestinians: Irish lawmaker \|url=https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/-apartheid-settler-colonial-state-israel-built-on-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestinians-irish-lawmaker/3053165 \|website=www.aa.com.tr \|access-date=27 December 2023}}</ref>
	* ] - "US political scientist ]: Israel is choosing ‘apartheid’ or ‘ethnic cleansing’ - John Mearsheimer on Israel’s ‘punishment campaign’ against the civilian population in Palestine."<ref>{{cite web \|title=John Mearsheimer: Israel is choosing ‘apartheid’ or ‘ethnic cleansing’ \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-bottom-line/2023/12/16/john-mearsheimer-israel-is-choosing-apartheid-or-ethnic-cleansing \|website=Al Jazeera \|access-date=27 December 2023 \|language=en}}</ref>

			"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"
	''' adding "war" to the search '''
	* ] - "Harvard students blame ‘apartheid regime’ for Israel-Gaza war, alumni react" <ref>{{cite web \|title=Harvard students blame ‘apartheid regime’ for Israel-Gaza war, alumni react \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/10/harvard-students-blame-apartheid-regime-for-israel-gaza-war-alumni-react \|website=Al Jazeera \|access-date=27 December 2023 \|language=en}}</ref>
	* ] - "The flames of Hamas, Israel, apartheid, and Palestine" <ref>{{cite web \| title=The flames of Hamas, Israel, apartheid, and Palestine \|url=https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2023/10/09/the-flames-of-hamas-israel-apartheid-and-palestine-.html \|website=The Jakarta Post \|access-date=27 December 2023 \|language=en}}</ref>

			To (three are enough):
	Nothing I spotted in the top few really refuted it, except that "alumni react". <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	: Irtapil, thanks for your search attempt. Unfortunately, this is a textbook case of ]; that is, you searched for the term which you wish to prove as naturally occurring in articles about the topic. This completely invalidates your search, and your results are worthless for determining the outcome of the Rfc. The volume of articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is so large, that you can find pretty much whatever term you want if you search for it, whether it's ''apartheid'', or something else. By the same reasoning you gave here, someone might say that we should add '"New Jersey" to the lead, as I (falsely) "proved" in ] above. Please redo your search using unbiased query terms without the term ''apartheid'' in it, and show your work so others may respond. Thanks, ] (]) 09:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	::There is no standard that a particular claim needs to be in a sizeable chunk of articles for it to be included, as I have discussed at ample length elsewhere. Any individual claim X about the war will not be in many articles about the war. This is simply the nature of current events. Individual news story are inherently not exhaustive. It is not ] as that specifically refers to the exclusion of contradictory information. However, the sentence we have on apartheid in this article in fact discusses the contradictory view. ] (]) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	::: There certainly is a standard that a particular claim needs to be in a sizeable chunk of articles for it to be included, and it is the ] called ]; merely claiming the contrary doesn't make the policy go away. Any search query that includes the term ''apartheid'' in an attempt to determine whether articles about the ] tend to include content about ''apartheid'' or not is an extreme form of ] and completely invalidates any conclusion reached from such a query. If the "contradictory view" is only present in a "{{xt\|tiny minority}}" of sources then it must be excluded, per policy. In Jimbo's words:
	:::* {{xt\|If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.}}
	::: That's quoted at ], is part of ] (which is policy) and exceptionally among policies, it cannot be overridden by consensus but must be followed. ] (]) 07:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	::@]
	::Cherry picking for ''"relevant to the discussion"'' is a bizarre definition of cherry picking. Of course searching "apartheid" produces searches about the topic, that is what a search is for! It was in response to someone ''somewhere'' above {{teal\|<small>(too long to read, and I wouldn't want to "cherry pick" with ctrl+F?)</small>}} who seemed to have searched {{tq\|"Israel-Hamas war"}} (or similar). If I searched "Palestinian resistance against the colonial occupation" I would get a biased sample? But just "apartheid" - or adding just the word "war" - was the least biased possible.
	::And you give a good example of my point, {{tq\| "The volume of articles about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is so large" }} and if you look in that body of work about the "Israel–Hamas war" you get ''"Israel are only at war with Hamas"'' and ''"Hamas are ISIS"'' etc. as the cause? You could read things about so called ''"the Israel–Hamas war"'' for years and not see "apartheid" mentioned.
	::But - before I even added "war" - about half of the things written about "apartheid" since 2023{{nbh}}10{{nbh}}07 were already about the current War in the Levant. I was surprised it was even that low, because I see "apartheid" mentioned quite frequently.
	::] (]) 16:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::: I suspect if I tried New Jersey I would get anti war protesters blaming it for the war? What did you fid? Your link doesn't work so i will have to resort to "cherry picking" for searches about new jersey with ctrl+F. ] (]) 16:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

			"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." ] (]) 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Google is individualized. It shows you pages which, according to their algorithm, you are likely to click on. When I apply the same search, I get lots of Nelson Mandela stuff. With "war", Israel is mentioned in the 8th hit, without war, in the third (because it talks about South Africa supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel). Google apparently gives you <strike>more antisemitic</strike> <small>different</small> pages than me for some reason. Please consult ] to find more reasons why your reasoning is invalid. --] (]) 09:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	::That antisemitism line is very close to a PA; might want to strike it. ] (]) 19:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::OK. I could not find a good euphemism without being dishonest, so I used "different". --] (]) 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::@] "dishonest"? how can you be dishonest about insults and speculation? something like "anti-Israel bias" would have made a stronger point really, over extrapolating to a larger group just makes you sound biased yourself. ] (]) 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@]
	::I got general stuff that too, but I didn't link it, because it was not relevant. I added "war" to make it a bit faster, but a fairly high proportion was already relating to this war.
	::* Did you actually restrict it to after 2023{{nbh}}10{{nbh}}07 like I did?
	::* Did you look past the 8th or 3rd result? If information needs to get past the 8th hit of a search designed not to find it, then we need to cut out most of this article.
	::And I know it personalizes results, that is why I specified I was logged in. But since AryKun already pointed out that your other remark was inappropriate, I'll resist speculating about your results.
	::] (]) 16:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::I am not interested in comparing Google results, it does not help the article.
	:::If you knew that Google searches are individualized and therefore biased towards what the googler likes, it was a really weird decision to call this section "less biased search strategy for apartheid views" and not "more biased search strategy for apartheid views". I will now stop responding to this thread, it does not belong here. --] (]) 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

			:I know it's a technicality, but I'm not too sure about moving all the items under "plight of Palestinians," though it is logical and the reality. In Hamas's document, the items seem to be listed separately. On the other hand, if we read it from a high level, it all does come down to the predicament of Palestinians, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or Israeli jails. ] (]) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::How is this: "Hamas said its attack was in response to the plight of Palestinians, Israel's occupation, blockade of Gaza, and expansion of settlements, and alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque." ] (]) 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::A bit reordering and trimming into: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's blockade of Gaza, policies at the Aqsa Mosque, and occupation and settlements expansion." ] (]) 11:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's all right, but another word in place of "policies" perhaps. Also, I think "expansion of settlements" sounds better from a style point of view. "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's blockade of Gaza, ?policies at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, expansion of settlements, and occupation." ] (]) 07:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Further iterating to:
			:::::ALT1: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's policies, including its blockade of Gaza, actions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and expansion of settlements and occupation."
			:::::ALT2: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's blockade of Gaza, actions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and expansion of settlements and occupation."
			:::::I would personally prefer ALT1. ] (]) 11:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::ALT1. ] (]) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::ALT1. That's an excellent improvement. Good thinking. ] (]) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Implemented, thanks. ] (]) 14:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Lede updates ==

			These need updating, since we are now in early 2025:
	'''refs'''
	{{reflist-talk}}

			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."
	=== Discussion (apartheid) ===

			2- "Over 100,000 Israelis were internally displaced as of February 2024." ] (]) 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	In response to {{u\|Sameboat}}'s question <span class=plainlinks></span> about providing a policy basis for using top Google results as methodology: Policy generally does not specify methodology, it specifies goals, such as mentioned by ] (part of our ] policy, which is one of the ] of Misplaced Pages, and '''cannot be overridden by consensus''', such as by the result of an Rfc). NPOV says this:
	: {{talk quote\|Neutrality requires that ] articles and pages fairly represent ''all'' significant viewpoints that have been published by ], '''in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources'''. <small>(''emphasis added'')</small>}}
	When a niche topic has only twenty-seven sources in total, you can go visit all of them, count them up, and figure out which ones are majority and minority views, and write your article content accordingly. When there are thousands of sources, you cannot do that, and you need some kind of proxy or methodology, that lets you figure out what the majority and minority views are. One such proxy is the results of the ranked search results of an unbiased query to a trusted search engine. If you believe my query was biased, or if you believe that Google is rigging the game and failing to fairly surface results about ''apartheid'' for that query for some reason, that would be a valid way to attack my argument. But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Misplaced Pages editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive. Note that the very next line at ] is this explanatory note:
	: {{talk quote\|The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.}}
	So, you could start by attacking my query, my methodology, or Google search results if you wish to claim that a 100-result survey is not a valid indicator. Even better, would be to come up with a superior methodology yourself, showing that my method was inaccurate, and that your method demonstrates that ''apartheid'' is, in fact, part of the majority (or significant minority) content in articles about the topic. But merely claiming this or that without evidence will not affect the result of this Rfc. ] (]) 21:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

			:I have updated #1.
	:An obvious methodological issue with this is the risk of ] (see also: ]). The current war has been ongoing for two months, so news outlets aren't necessarily going to be rehashing every relevant detail, they'll likely assume a level of baseline awareness on the part of readers. Whether you "sort by relevance" or "sort by date", the first 100 results are overwhelmingly, almost entirely from the last week (at least, they were for me when I followed the link); if that was our metric, the article would be dominated by the IDF's execution of three hostages, Lloyd Austin's visit to Israel, the upcoming UNSC vote, etc. Our content is qualitatively different than a news article; it has to be ] in a way that news stories don't, necessarily.
			:While #2 is already problematic since it lumps displaced Israelis from the country's war with Hezbollah into the conflict relating to the war on Gaza; it is also a year old. I have tried looking for updated figures but didn't find any relating specifically to Israeli communities around Gaza. If someone can find these figures within next two days, we can update them, otherwise this will be removed. ] (]) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Another methodological issue is the phrasing of your search. For example, by searching for the "2023 Israel-Hamas war" you may be excluding or lowering the ranking of news outlets that use other names, such as .
			::Thanks. I would agree that if we want to include displacements from the Israel-Lebanon conflict, then we should include both Israeli and Lebanese, or neither.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:A third question is geographic situation. Depending on your Google preferences, the result may be skewed toward outlets from a certain region (e.g. a noticeable proportion of my results were from Canadian outlets, even though I followed the link you posted). I also got a large amount of coverage from Israeli sources (particularly JPost and ToI), which raises its own issues.
	:A fourth issue is the fact that aggregated Google News results don't filter for reliability, which is a core policy. So I'm getting Fox News stories, blogs and opinion pieces, etc., which are irrelevant to this discussion.
	:A fifth issue is depth of review. You say that you reviewed the search abstract, which is (somewhat, but not really) equivalent to the lead of a wiki article; but we're not talking about putting apartheid in the lead of this article, we're talking about including it further down.
	:So there are a lot of methodological issues arising from this approach; I've never seen this method used to determine notability or due weight. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:In essence, the approach of relying on the "top Google search result" lacks credibility in determining due weight. This is due to the inherent bias in Google's algorithm, influenced significantly by the user's IP or search history. It's regrettable that seeking clarity on your methodology is interpreted as an "attack." (''But attacking it based solely on the claims of some other Misplaced Pages editor unsupported by either policy or data, is unpersuasive''.) If you believe your methodology deserves recognition on Misplaced Pages, consider gaining consensus from the community, perhaps through avenues like ]. Currently, your approach seems to conflict with information from reliable sources, as highlighted by ]. We shouldn't compromise our content based on Google's search results, but we can still use Google when specifically seeking information from reliable sources. -- ] (] · ]) 00:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:As additional reading, please take a look at ]. While not a formal policy or guideline, it provides an in-depth guidance of the appropriate way to use search engines while maintaining neutrality when editing Misplaced Pages. -- ] (] · ]) 03:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:: Show me the data that supports your view. I see a lot of pointing out possible issues (which I respond to individually below) but nothing concrete to really respond to. Regarding recency, ] is an essay, but I'll respond anyway. There are issues with recency to be aware of, and ] (guideline) does warn about the dangers of breaking news:
	::: {{talk quote\|] and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia}}
	:: One way to deal with that is to use a custom time search to build in specific dates and avoid the "breaking" syndrome, so I redid the query restricting results to articles from 14 December or earlier; you can find the results of that search . (These results shouldn't change too much, even if you click again a few days or a week or two later.) I didn't see a single reference to ''apartheid'' in the titles or abstracts of the first 100 web results (not just news results) prior to 14 December. The guideline section ] says:
	::: {{talk quote\|Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.}}
	:: so that needs to be kept in mind, as well. There may be a recentism issue, but if there is, it hasn't been demonstrated.
	:: The point about other wording such as ''Israel-Gaza War'' is a valid one, and that (and other phrasing) should definitely be looked at, to try to get a fuller picture of what the ] are. The pre-14 December web search results for ''Israel-Gaza War'' are <span class=plainlinks>, and there are no occurrences of ''apartheid'' in the top 100 results. The top ten are: , , , , , , , , , </span>, and checking the full text of those ten, ''apartheid'' is found in The Nation, and the BBC article. I looked at #11-20 (Brookings–CPJ) and it didn't occur in any of those. (#18 was a video, I only checked the text and did not listen to the audio.) I did not check the full text of the remaining 80 results, only the title/abstract, where it did not appear.
	:: As far as geographic influence on results, you can mitigate that somewhat by stripping query params "search location" (<code>&gl=</code>) or the "search region" (<code>&uule=</code>) if it appears in the url in your address bar and my query urls are stripped to the bone. (] is okay as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far; in particular, it fails to mention any of Google's proprietary ], including either the search location or the search region; that's a pretty big gap for an article supposedly about searching Google.) Avoiding those params doesn't stop Google from using your IP to surmise your location, but there are web sites or browser extensions you can use that that alter your apparent location. I tried the same query from Doha, Qatar and just eyeballing the results, I didn't notice any major difference; I got the same mix of websites as I did without specifying a location, although I did not try to match them up one-to-one down the whole list of results, and if you felt like trying that to see if there are some subtle differences I didn't notice, I'd be interested to hear what you find out.
	:: It's fine to challenge results and I appreciate your comments which inspired a new set of refined queries that appear to reinforce the same result as the earlier query, but if you merely criticize without offering your own data that support your vote, it all just seems very theoretical. ] (]) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::I believe the crux of the matter is not the adjustment of search parameters to refine Google search results but the use of the "top 100 results" as a justification to exclude a point of view readily found in reliable sources within the subject's time frame. With all due respect, it appears you are introducing a new rule. The burden of proof lies on your side to persuade the greater community (beyond participants of this article) to accept such an evidently flawed method for determining what is due and what is not. -- ] (] · ]) 06:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::: I have no wish to exclude anything, and I am perfectly indifferent to how this Rfc turns out, either with, or without ''apartheid'' in it, as long as whichever way it goes follows Misplaced Pages ]. I've presented evidence that the term appears to be sufficiently rare to meet the use of the phrase "tiny minority" at ] (policy), which says that
	::::: {{talk quote\|Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,}}
	:::: and your conception of who has the onus of providing evidence is backwards: in fact, the ] (policy) is on the person who wishes to include information, not the reverse. Nobody cares what you or I believe, our opinions are unimportant; it's about Misplaced Pages policy, and supporting evidence. I've presented the governing policy links and quotes, and shown to the best of my ability how the unbiased results of several queries pertain to them, especially ]. I have no wish to recycle previous comments or to comment further unless some actual evidence is brought to bear. Thanks, ] (]) 08:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::To begin with, calling the apartheid argument as "undue" (or "minorities view") seems to be more of a personal opinion, supported only by a poorly formulated method. If you maintain that the sources presented by Vice Regent are inadequate, it's fine, and you're entitled to your own perspective. However, relying on search engine results is not a suitable method for determining due weight. If you find it repetitive, we can pause and await the judgment of a reputable, uninvolved editor to conclude this RFC. -- ] (] · ]) 10:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Per capita ==
	==RfC on sexual violence in lead section==
	<!-- ] 05:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1706331686}}
	{{rfc\|pol\|soc\|reli\|hist\|rfcid=6ADD541}}
	Should the lead section contain a few sentences concerning the sexual violence during the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023? ' If so, should the Hamas denial be included? '''Option A''' would be to include a few sentences with no denial. '''Option B''' include with a denial. '''Option C''' do not include. ] (]) 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

			{{ping\|Rebestalic}} I think "rate" is descriptive on its own and adding "per capita" to it is redundant. ] (]) 11:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Can you give example sources for "the Hamas denial"? I saw one interview, but I am not sure if what I saw is what you have in mind. ] (]) 08:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	:I agree including it as it has been a contentious topic that has received notability. ] (]) 04:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	:'''Warning for the closer re: canvassing''': ArbCom has been that this RfC has been canvassed by those {{tq\|asking for proxy edits to promote a pro-Israel point of view}}. While I am not personally aware of the nature or extent of the evidence, or the scale of canvassing, the closer should apply ] with particular care. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

			:Hey {{u\|Makeandtoss}}, sure thing! Thanks for letting me know. ]'''</sup>]] 18:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. ] (]) 11:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Lede summarizing proposal 2 ==

			This summarization is going to be a tough one, proposal to summarize this chunk from:
	===Survey 2===
	{{notavote}}
	* '''Option A''', Failing to include the sexual violence in the lead would violate ]l and ] as well as ].There are 45 million hits when you google "Hamas" and "rape" (without quotes), 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: Title: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced" It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by ] ''While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.'' Note that the denial is in the body of the article, in the relevant subsection.'
	:One point re the denial that needs to be stressed. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, is not followed by a response or denial from Israel, even though Israel has indeed responded to or denied every single element of the lead. Putting in the perfunctory Hamas response to the rapes, and only that response out of everything else in the lead, would be unbalanced and not neutral. ] (]) 04:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)<small> second paragraph added. ] (]) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::Could you list a couple of these 'everything' please. ] (]) 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:: There are 540,000,000 results for "flat earth" with no quotes. The claims are more credible than that, I'm just saying I don't think those figures prove much by themselves. ] (]) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A, will accept B.''' I do not think the denial is helpful, per ], but if it will help this pass I will accept that compromise. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' would accept B as well, but A is a non-starter to me. The 45 million general google hits are completely irrelevant, as we arent going to start counting random blogs and twitter accounts as reliable sources all of a sudden. The USA Today article is relevant in that it reports {{tq\|The Israeli military official said that, just as authorities know that many women were sexually assaulted during the Supernova music festival and at their homes on Oct. 7, "we know they were raped in Hamas captivity."}}, somehow presented as though the USA Today is undersigning that claim from an Israeli military official in the opening comment here, but it does not. The USA Today article also includes {{tq\|Despite this evidence, Hamas has consistently denied accusations it used sexual violence on Oct. 7. It has claimed the allegations are part of an attempt by Israel to distract from its mass killings of civilians in Gaza. International human rights groups waited two months before finally condemning the sexual violence.}} Nearly all the sources that include any accusation of rape includes the denial by Hamas as well, if it is to be included it has to include the denial per NPOV. But why should it not be included? Because the rape charges are almost entirely focused on the ], and the sourcing here in relation to the overall war does not show that it is a prominent controversy for this subject and not the child article on the attack. There are news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", for "rape" "hamas" (many overlapping), nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes ( results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023"). Or to with 78,400 news results. gets 25,900 news results. For the overall topic, this just does not have the weight in coverage to merit inclusion in the lead. For the 7 October attacks? Yes, of course it does. But for the war that is entering its 11th week and not limited to one day in October, this is not a prominent controversy to be included in the lead. ''']''' - 05:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''C'''. The initial reports, endlessly recycled since, were extremely confused, internally contradictory, and endlessly touted despite numerous corrections, or dropping off the radar of serious reportage, over time. We still don't appear to know if the rape incidents reported reflect a Hamas strategy, are attributable to other militant groups, or the general flux of indiscriminate groups ranging over the landscape and wreaking violence. A large number of similar, specific reports about burning, decapitating, ovening babies etc., are now viewed sceptically, and until we have specific forensic evidence of the scale or scope of these reported crimes, any statement formulated to assert, as was done from the outset in Israeli news reports, that this was a systematic aspect of the 4 hour Hamas onslaught on the border communities, will reflect a partisan claim, not an ascertained fact. ] (]) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:This dismissive rejection of overwhelming evidence and testimony comes disappointingly close to the kind of sexual violence denialism that has been deprecated and rejected worldwide over the past few decades.]] 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::This skepticism is warranted. Israelis have already been caught lying about the details of October 7th. The most notable example is the 40 beheaded babies story. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''': this war inside Gaza has been going on for 2 and a half months, the 7/10 attack last several hours. ] (]) 07:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC
	*:The duration of these events is irrelevant to our content policy. It's also false that the sexual violence occurred only on the first day.
	*:The nature of the initial attack and the ongoing treatment of the hostages has received ongoing coverage in RS, and the coverage is increasing as new investigations reveal the extent of the conduct. It also has been cited as enabling Netanyahu's refusal to moderate the intensity of Israel's counterattack.
	*:Pearl Harbor/WW2, Archduke assassinationi/WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Boston Tea Party, etc. were all discrete events the significance of which is not diminished by their brevity. We are continuing to see daily coverage, testimony and forensic evidence, and no credible information to the contrary.]] 15:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::You dont need to badger people and make this an unreadable mess; if you want to discuss somebody's vote do it in the discussion section where they may ignore you at their leisure. ''']''' - 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Pearl Harbour and Archduke were precipitators of a large conflict; the sparks which ignited a fire. They are not really comparable to a handful of alleged excesses that occurred in a military invasion, but which otherwise had no further reaching consequences. ] (]) 05:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C'''. This is a ] issue and a matter of ]. Option A (including "a few sentences") is, in addition to violating NPOV and failing to follow reliable sources (by omitting the denial), totally excessive. The Israeli captives have been a larger story in relation to the war as a whole, and they have a single sentence, which is appropriate; an (as yet unconfirmed and strenuously denied) allegation of something that happened on a single day in the course of an eleven-week war should not be given more prominence. As well, as a matter of BALASP, highlighting these allegations skews the POV of the lead. I don’t want to speculate about anyone’s intent, but I get the feeling that highlighting the events of October 7 is a way to undercut the more prominent aspects of the war as a whole, namely, Israeli atrocities and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In effect, “well, Hamas also did bad things”. But we have a litany of articles about that: ]; ]; ]; articles on individual October 7 attacks. This article is about ''the entire war''. It is not just about October 7. The bottom line is that when news stories about the October 7 attack refer to sexual violence, they include attribution of the claims, and they include Hamas denials. Overwhelmingly, if not exclusively. We can’t independently weigh the evidence, determine it’s credible, and then depart from RS by failing to include attributions and denials. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' The nature and ferocity of the 10/7 attack was the predicate for the Netanyahu government's unprecedented response. The rapes and sexual mutilations have received broad ongoing coverage and increasing investigations and condemnation. No RS treats any denials as serious or credible, so MANDY applies. If mention is to be made of denials, as in option B, we would also need to convey that those denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned. But that would be excessive detail for the lead. Note that WP is ] and the fact that the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials does not tell us what we must convey as an encyclopedia.]] 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:For Israeli atrocities, we generally mention Israeli denials even when they are not credible, eg lead of ].''']''' <sub>]</sub> 00:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:It is factually incorrect that the press currently less frequently mentions Hamas' denials. The recent NYT investigation regarding this explicitly noted Hamas' denials in the article. Furthermore, it is not unusual to include denials of crimes in the lead even when those crimes are generally accepted to be true, especially when said crimes are done by state or quasi-state actors like Hamas. The ] is an example of this. We explicitly discuss Turkish denial in the lead. ] (]) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C'''. Lacking weight for the topic of this article.] (]) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A'''. This is important to understanding how Hamas precipitated the war. Denials are not credible and not worth including. Far more important than the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which was Hamas's desired outcome resulting from the atrocities committed to provoke the war. ] ] 18:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''C'''. but B would be acceptable. The allegations are absolutely a huge flashpoint in coverage of the war, but every RS article I read includes the denials alongside the accusations. ''A'' just doesn't make sense from a ] standpoint. ] (]) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. I don't think the denials should be mentioned, considering that they are given very brief treatment by RS. However I don't see much harm in mentioning them briefly ('''Option B'''). ]<sub>]</sub> 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''C''' It can be treated a major part of the 7 October attack but it is a very minor part of the war and that's what this article is about. The lead is already a bit stuffed. ] (]) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option B''' currently, but am fine changing to Option A if somebody shows that a plurality of reliable sources don't include the denial. It seems like enough do for it to warrant a brief mention. I am opposed to option C; I don't find the arguments in favor of it compelling. We have an article on the topic for a reason; there's an articles worth of sources about it. Enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Polite reminder as well to assume good faith and not to speculate about the intent of editors, don't think that's going to be helpful. ] (]) 04:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:I would like to note that while Hamas denies allegations of sexual assault or mutilation committed '''by members of its armed wing''', it does not deny such acts performed by others who participated in the attack. Therefore, this is not an actual denial of the fact that sexual violence has indeed taken place during the attack. ] (]) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. Including the denial by Hamas would be a form of ]. There is clear, dated, evidence of the sexual violence so mentioning the denials would create a false sense of ambiguity. If people do indeed think that there's enough uncertainty to include the denials then I would be in favor of '''Option C''' as that means that it's a he-says she-says situation that takes away from the main point of the conflict. ] (]) 05:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' per Hawkeye7. The war began with Hamas atrocities that shocked the world and traumatized Israel, and the Hamas denials lack credibility and inclusion would be ]. We don't include Israeli denials in the lead as also observed above. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. This has clearly received significant coverage in Western media. Recent articles in , and reliable news outlets, for example. Sources tend to mention the Hamas denial briefly and only after the allegations have been made in full over several paragraphs, so I think we should keep the denial out of the lead. ] (]) 15:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C'''. The October 7 attack and kidnapping are the events that triggered the current invasion in Gaza. However, the rape accusations have no bearing on Israel's decision for this specific military operation. Including them is more likely to serve Israel's propaganda purposes (]) than an encyclopedic one. -- ] (] · ]) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:(Supplementary comment after someone cited the New York Times article "Screams Without Words" in this discussion.) The NYT paywalled "Screams Without Words" article fails to provide justification for including the rape allegations in the article's lead. Typically, such details belong in an article about the ] itself, not in the article covering the military retaliation that follows. Even for proven (not alleged) systemic sexual misconduct during war, these instances are rarely highlighted in the lead, at least I can't find any instance besides this article. Moreover, the October 7 rape allegations, which happened only in 1 day instead of during this war, only surfaced in November 2023, after northern Gaza had already been heavily bombarded by the IDF. Hence, it's unlikely that the rape allegation influenced Netanyahu's decision to attack Gaza, or "completely eradicate Hamas". While I hesitate to delve into the details of the NYT's "Screams Without Words" article, a brief review indicates a lack of concrete evidence. The article lacks testimonies from the allegedly sexually assaulted survivors, and all Israelis killed in the October 7 attack were hastily buried without autopsy. The allegations heavily rely on witnesses (e.g. "Sapir") testimonies and videos which don't show the actual process of sexual assault, but its "aftermath". All in all, supporters are trying to make a precedent over something lacking hard evidence but being politicized and weaponized. -- ] (] · ]) 14:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::{{re\|Sameboat}} Why would you separate the first attacks? {{anchor\|terrorAttacks}} Or do you just mean that's where the detail belongs instead of the mean page? ] (]) 19:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::@]: I believe my previous comment is quite clear: The rape allegations were not the basis for Israel initiating this full-scale invasion of Gaza; rather, it was the killing and kidnapping incidents. As far as I can see, no reliable sources directly connect the rape allegations to Israel's military retaliation, not even NYT's Screams Without Words.<sup></sup> Instead, these sources primarily focus on the October 7 attack, including Hamas' denial and claim that the allegations serve as a distraction from Israel's war crimes,<sup></sup> and that wouldn't justify option A which rejects Hamas' denial in the lead. If the rape allegations were to be proven true, that would be very disturbing. However, even if one could demonstrate systemic sexual misconduct during Israel's invasion, it would still be extraordinary to include such details in the lead of a war article, regardless of the side implicated in the alleged crime. The exclusion of sexual misconduct (e.g. ] in ]) from the lead aligns with Misplaced Pages's standard format for war articles. -- ] (] · ]) 02:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::@]
	*::I wrote this earlier but it didn't send.
	*::I think the rape narrative is central to this war because of the way it is being used to justify a genocide.
	*::As far a I know there is stronger evidence of more widespread rapes in Ukraine? But they are less relevant to that conflict, because it hasn't become the "We must destroy them because!"
	*::Arguably, we shouldn't amplify the Israeli propaganda narrative, but I don't think not mentioning it helps? We definitely shouldn't call the initial attacks article "Hamas Rape spree in Israel" or such, but it is a prominent issue.
	*::Though I have possibly just talked myself into "not in the lead" of the main article maybe.
	*::] (]) 19:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::@]: <span style="color:#072">''I think the rape narrative is central to this war because of the way it is being used to justify a genocide.''</span> I would like you to cite at least one reliable source which directly use the rape narrative to justify anything related to Gaza's humanitarian crisis. If your goal is to ridicule Israel's petty excuses to collectively punish and expel Gazan Palestinians, mentioning the rape allegations in the lead doesn't help at all, but ruins the balance of the article. -- ] (] · ]) 09:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' as information that is currently both poorly verified and largely tangential to the narrative of the war as a whole, which is the topic. These claims are merely one subset of atrocity claim under investigation and do not require detailing in the lead. Much emphasis was placed by Israel on this material after the renewal of violence in Gaza, but this POV emphasis does not make it of overall due weight emphasis as lead detail: on the contrary, it might violate NPOV to do so. '''Option B''' would likewise be preferable to '''Option A''' in asserting a modicum of balance, but both are less preferable overall as undue in terms of overall weight considerations. ] (]) 01:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A'''. <strike>Those people are Islamists and in favor of forcing women to wear hijabs, because they believe that men cannot be held responsible for their behaviour when they see unveiled women. It would be very inconsistent of them to abduct unveiled women and not rape them, so the accusations are obviously true. Given the coverage, it also belongs in the lead. --] (]) 04:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)</strike>
	*: Fortunately, your personal analysis is entirely irrelevant here. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A'''. Exceedingly well covered topic. And including Hamas's denial would be ]. As per ] below, we should try to use language similar to that of the Guardian. ] (]) 07:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A'''. Widely covered by ], Major controversies must be prominently featured in the lead section as per Misplaced Pages's guidelines (]). I oppose option B for the following reason: The denial of sexual violence in this context has become a fringe view, especially in light of substantial and reliable accounts that have surfaced. For example, according to The Guardian: {{tqb\|Several incidents of sexual assault and rape from 7 October have been documented by Hamas body camera footage, CCTV, material uploaded to social media, and photographs and videos taken by civilians and first responders, according to several people involved in analysing the footage. Survivor and witness testimonies, many from the Supernova rave, describe seeing women being raped before they were shot.}}
	:The language used in the lead could be similar to the one used by the Guardian, that is, attributing the evidence to survivors, witness testimonies and forensic staff.
	:This evidence has resulted in UN Women's explicit condemnation of the sexual violence that occurred. Hamas may deny that its fighters carried out sexual violence, but it is a fact that '''not only Hamas fighters participated in the attack''', therefore this denial is meaningless and misleading.
	:Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that denying or downplaying these heinous acts is not only factually incorrect but also morally reprehensible. Such denial would be a profound insult to the female victims, akin to silencing their voices and negating their traumatic experiences. Applying a ] between the victims and perpetrators in this context not only undermines the veracity of the reported events but also perpetuates a harmful narrative that could further victimize the victims. ] (]) 08:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' - Per Nableezy and Willowcity. ] (]) 11:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' Without commenting on the sourcing: we have a separate article for the October 7th attacks. Details about the October 7th attacks go in the lead of that article, not this one. ] (]) 15:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' as these are ] for the lead of this article, but option B for ] as they are ] there. Many Israeli actions have received more RS coverage, as nableezy points out, but can't be given the space they deserve because of concerns surrounding length. For example, I find that has 95,000 results, or 8x more than which is 12,000 results for me. Will we give 8x more sentences to the starvation of Gazans in the lead as we give to the sexual assault claims? Various other topics not mentioned in the lead all get more news hits than the rape allegations: , , (the plight of cancer patients amidst the war) etc.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:I've got only 13,000 results for Gaza starvation, which would be about the same. Not sure why the discrepancy. If you switch over to plain google results, hamas rape has about 10m more results than Gaza starvation. I also have different results for your other links. Same number for Shifa, but for Indonesian hospital Gaza, only 6800. For cancer Gaza I have the same high number, but I suspect that not all of those results are about this. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' sexual violence by Hamas has been condemned by dozens of leaders, senators, figures etc. A bunch of international media outlets have reported on it, and gotten testimonies. Prosecution already has collected a substantial amount of evidence over the past several months. There is footage, some of it spread by Hamas itself of women bloodied in between their legs and other things. It would be a complete wp:falsebalance to give equal weight to Hamas denial of the actions.<br>I do think the body should include a denial. However the lead should be '''''option A'''''. ] (]) 06:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A'''. Mentioning the topic is especially important because the very extreme violence (not just sexual) of October 7 is what later on shaped the goals, length and the extent of the campaign in Gaza. It is also important in order to understand why the 2023 Gaza War was so different than the ones in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021. Option B might have sufficed but due to the sheer amount of ], I think this is just ]. ] (]) 12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:In other words, "mentioning the topic is especially important because we need the atrocity propaganda to justify an ongoing genocide." Unfortunately for you, Misplaced Pages is not the propaganda arm of the Israeli government. ] (]) 00:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::], ] please argue policy rather than making personal attacks. ] (]) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::Please tone down your sarcasm and accusations, I think it's highly uncalled for. To address the substance, We are supposed to present the facts to the reader and let them formulate a narrative. For example, just as you need to see the Palestinian casualty figure to understand condemnations of Israeli actions, you need to see details of the Oct 7 attack to understand support for Israeli actions. And I think our job is to show these facts. --] (]) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A''' absolutely. It would be such a gross violation of ] to not include it in the lead. ] (]) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option C''' as UNDUE and unreliably sourced. I would accept Option B. The Zionist entity has engaged in a huge information war, despite that many of their wild claims have been found to be fabrications. All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF. It would be a violation of all Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines to include this likely false claim in wikivoice in the lead of this article, let alone without the denial from Palestinians. --- ]&]]) 17:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:“All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF.”
	*:What does attributing it to Zionist mean? Are you referring to Israeli first responders? Could you rephrase?
	*:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181
	*:”The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks.”
	*:https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20231213-evidence-mounts-of-sexual-crimes-perpetrated-by-hamas-during-oct-7-attack-in-israel
	*:“Two months after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day. Prosecutors have little doubt that women were raped, tortured and some of their dead bodies mutilated. Israeli police, who opened a probe in mid-November, say they have gathered more than 1,500 testimonies from witnesses and first responders.” ] (]) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::The BBC is at this stage the government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power running reconnaissance missions over Gaza from Cyprus. As in all cases, we should be seeking reliable, secondary sources that are as ''independent'' as possible. As for the France 24 piece, that says "prosecutors" (presumably Israeli prosecutors) are confident of X - now prosecutors are specifically in the business of making a strong case rather than neutrally and impartially reflecting the facts. Their counterpart would be the defense, which isn't reflected here (if this is in reference to the ICC filing, then we may be waiting some while). In the same breath, the same source notes that the UN investigation is evidently ongoing - so we are still awaiting impartial voices on proceedings. ] (]) 12:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Those are both reliable secondary independent sources, that’s why we use them. Please don’t misrepresent sources, France24 wrote “evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day”. Along with the myriad of others that also report Hamas’ murderous rape spree.
	*:::The argument by some editors that we should ignore reliable sources is ridiculous. The argument that we should ignore Israeli civilians and human rights organizations because they are Israeli is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::Also, the way a reliable source like the BBC turns into a {{tq\|government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power}} because it does not toe a pro-Hamas party line is clearly motivated reasoning. No difference to Trump calling those outlets that contradict him "fake news". --] (]) 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::They’re not misrepresenting anything. BBC (British state media) is saying it’s “seen evidence” which is not the same as saying that something occurred. If a source said they’d “seen evidence” that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians, would you want it included in the lead that Israel is targeting civilians? And would you agree that the statement of every Palestinian civilian or human rights organization is lead-worthy?
	*::::I don’t think people are suggesting they be ignored outright, they belong in the body with appropriate attribution and context. But these accounts are generally filtered through Israeli government sources (prosecutors, police, the military) who have a vested interest in spin-doctoring evidence to fit the narrative of a belligerent to the conflict (one who famously lacks credibility). For example, who knows what kind of editing the video shown to BBC was subject to? How reliable was the witnesses’ perception, how much do they even remember, are they sincere? These are not issues the BBC opines on. The question is not “are Israeli civilians telling the truth”, the question is “are the reports sufficiently notable, credible and unequivocal to justify including in the lead?” The even more important question is, “'''do these allegations tell readers anything about the ongoing 12-week war''', or would focusing extensively on a single day skew the narrative towards one POV?”
	*::::(also, can we all try to keep the discussion to the discussion section) <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Using pejorative slurs like ] isn't an argument and railing against ] (assuming they're saying all Western sources presented here are Zionist) in this discussion isn't one either. The closer should ignore this !vote since they were asked to elaborate on what a "Zionist source" is and didn't. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::The repeated assertion by some that Israeli witnesses, first responders, and human rights organizations are not trustworthy due to their nationality is unacceptable.

			"The war has reverberated regionally, with groups of the Axis of Resistance launching attacks on American military bases, and the Yemeni Houthi movement attacking commercial vessels in the Red Sea that incurred a US-led military operation. Meanwhile, by the end of 2024, a year-long exchange of strikes between Israel and Hezbollah escalated into a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, before pausing after a ceasefire. The crisis also saw the fall of the Assad regime and an ongoing Israeli invasion of Syria.
	Currently on the home page of The NY Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A Times investigation uncovered new details showing a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel” “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7”] (]) 17:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A''', per SPECIFICO, Hawkeye7 and Marokwitz. The cruelty of the 7.10 attack, including the sexual violence, resulted the wide support in Israel to a harsh response. The credibility (or more accurately, the lack of credibility) of the denial should also be considered, as we describe the reality. The denial is indeed a fringe view. I think that option B, if it includes a clarification that the denials are not taken seriously and widely condemned, can also be good, and even give a better perspective, but it will be too long for the lead, so it's better not to write about the denials in the lead at all. ] (]) 18:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) Misplaced Pages is ] and we should include this information (the weight in the media does give it proper DUE weight) and leave out the denial as I do also believe it is "fringe". ] (]) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:You're making a strawman argument, as no one has argued for censoring this, and in fact, many of the Option C !votes specifically point to other places more suitable to mention this. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 04:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Option A''' as per Hawkeye7 and others. With regards, ] (]) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' per Andre. <span style="background: #ffcc00; {{round corners}}">] ] ] ]</span> 02:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' Such details and denials about what happened on the first day of the attack belong to the lede of ].] (]) 05:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

			To
	* '''Option C''' I've been convinced by the argument brought up below by ] and ] would make Option B give ] to sexual violence in contrast to other conflicts. Option A is for me a nonstarter. To include it we would have to adjudicate that Israel's claims are valid, that any rebuttal is invalid, AND that including it is so factual and important that it doesn't even warrant including usual context. I think it would be a flagrant violation of ]. ] <sup>(] \| ])</sup> 17:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:After reading a few rather convincing arguments above from ], the denial from Hamas referring only to their members, any form of option B would have to be very carefully worded. I'm not sure that option B would make much sense in that light. ] <sup>(] \| ])</sup> 21:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option A''' or ''Option B''' per . “Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that <b>sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants who killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians</b>, and took more than 240 hostages that day.” ] (]) 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	Edit: From The NY Times today: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that <b>the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.</b>

			"The war has reverberated regionally, with Axis of Resistance groups across several Arab countries and Iran clashing with Israel and the United States. By late 2024, a year of Israel-Hezbollah strikes led to a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as well as the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria and an ongoing Israeli invasion of the country." ] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.” ] (]) 17:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option C''' It should absolutely not be discussed in the lead. The Zionist state has demonstrably produced false atrocity propaganda regarding the October 7th resistance operation, like the 40 beheaded babies lie, which incidentally the uncritical Western media has parroted. We thus have reasonable suspicion that these sexual assault allegations are likewise fabricated. The lack of forensic evidence (e.g., semen) or pregnant Israeli women is also eyebrow-raising. I understand that Misplaced Pages does regard Western media as ], which I accept and do not contest, so it is reasonable to include the sexual violence claims somewhere in the article. However, I think it is fair for us to exclude it from the lead, given the very real reservations regarding this. ] (]) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:Could you articulate a policy-based reason why we should ignore widespread attestation in the most reliable sources, and why we should ignore eyewitness testimony from Israelis. Your allegation that the evidence of sexual assault is fabricated because it comes from Israelis is not acceptable. ] (]) 01:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) and 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::I never stated we should "ignore" it. I simply asserted it shouldn't be in the lead. Something being reported by a widespread number of sources is a necessary but insufficient reason to be included in a lead. It is also important to note that this legalistic focus on "policies" is contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages see e.g., ]. It is completely sensible for us, as an encyclopedia, to have a greater degree of scrutiny for an entity known for regularly producing bald-faced lies regarding the events of this war. This doesn't mean eschewing such claims altogether, but merely relegating them to the body of the article rather than the lead. ] (]) 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-08/ty-article/israeli-police-collect-eyewitness-testimony-of-gang-rape-during-hamas-attack/0000018b-b025-d3c1-a39b-bee5ef400000 Which entity are you referring to, the testimony of eyewitnesses? I don't like putting words into peoples mouths, but your argument seems to be that not only should we ignore the wide array of highly reliable sources, but we should also ignore all Israeli eyewitness accounts, and first-responder accounts, because you think they're untrustworthy. That position would not be valid. ] (]) 03:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit {{date}}
	* '''Option C'''. Came to that decision having read the arguments of those who have already answered. A is out of the question as it's a breach of NPOV in showing bias towards one side when neither side has any credibility as regards truth. B is a "he said she said" option, which in an article based on a broader issue (where a multitude of more widely covered events that have transpired throughout the war do not make the lede) seems excessive/undue to mention. Therefore C seems the most appropriate option as it keeps to substantiated facts without giving undue weight/balance. It's the most dispassionate option. As a side issue (given it has been used as an argument), media outlets (otherwise reputable on other issues) without verified, independent information can't be used to validate claims either, as western ones have historically had a bias one way, while middle eastern ones have had an opposing slant; what's been new about this current episode of the conflict is more of the masses are not being taken in either way, thus have a more independent/unhindered view of what is happening. ] (]) 01:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Option B''' I think it is pretty clear that sexual assault and rape occurred during the initial attack, which is unsurprising since that's how most wars seem to go. What is unclear is the extent of the assaults, which is why most RS still include the Hamas denial; until this is clearer, the Hamas denial of its armed forces not being responsible should also be mentioned.
	*'''Option A'''. A denial is undue weight for the lede; reliable sources, such as only mention the denials in passing and afford no credulity to them or detailed coverage. Similarly, it would be undue to exclude the tapes from the lede; they are very widely covered and the extent of said coverage is only increasing. ] (]) 23:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

			:I'm looking at it and thinking. One point, though, do we need to include the fall of Assad and the invasion of Syria? ] (]) 10:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Option A''' Yes as the October 7 attack was the core event starting the war, and the brutality of it has been very widely reported so we should report what reliable sources state. The Hamas denial isn't relevant per the aforementioned ]. It's also very important to '''state the course of events as a fact in wiki-voice'''- often in these articles editors have been adding wording such as "Israel reports that Hamas carried out sexual assaults occurred on October 7" rather than the direct factual wording of "Hamas carried out sexual assaults on October 7". Reliable sources are very clear that the mass sexual assaults did unfortunately happen and the wording needs to reflect this. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 14:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
			::I don't have a strong opinion about this specific point, but it surely is directly connected to the regional reverberations part of this war. ] (]) 10:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agreed. Regarding the whole section, I must say that I can find little to improve because you've strained it down to its essentials, and indeed, there's not a word more that can be severed without losing meaning. Only, a slight stylistic change in the Israel-Hezbollah sentence:
			:::"The war has reverberated regionally, with Axis of Resistance groups across several Arab countries and Iran clashing with Israel and the United States. By late 2024, a year of strikes between Israel and Hezbollah led to a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as well as the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria and an ongoing Israeli invasion of the country." ] (]) 18:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Much better, yes. Though of course, this does not exclude the possibility of further trimming this part in the future if deemed necessary. I will wait until tomorrow if anyone has further input before implementing this change. ] (]) 08:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, it's quite modular, in that we can cut out certain parts, if necessary in the future, without affecting the rest. ] (]) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Implemented accordingly. ] (]) 10:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Much improved. Tackle paragraph three next? (Which I think will be a nightmare.) ] (]) 11:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I have updated and trimmed it a bit. Hesitant to do more to avoid giving misleading equivalency between the one day of 7 October 2023, and the 461 days since. Let's leave it for now. ] (]) 12:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Trimming the October 7 section ==
	*'''Option C'''. The lead is overdetailed in many places. The article does not explain whether or how the scale of the sexual violence during the October 7 attack factors into Israel's decision-making. ] (]) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

			{{ping\|AndreJustAndre}} This article should be a broad overview of the relevant issues. With that in mind, I don't think we need to specify every kibbutz affected, and we ''certainly'' don't need a list of the types of people taken hostage. Can you please explain why you think this information needs to be included? Thanks, ] (]) 22:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' or '''B''', I wholly endorse arguments of Messi R9 R10 CR7 Thiago LFC and WillowCity. Sexual violence - and particularly organised, weaponised, sexual violence - was a notable feature of the ], particularly against Bosniak women, but it isn't mentioned in the lead, nor was the scale of its occurence reliably established at the time. At the present moment, the scale and extent of sexual violence on October 7th is unknown - and largely unknowable - and information about it has been highly weaponised, despite little coming from competent forensic authorities. Editors here are tending to argue that because ''some'' 'horror stories' are ''probably'' true, then ''all must be'' true. Two sad facts are that sexual violence is a normal feature of most wars and that weaponising of atrocity stories is nearly as common. ] (]) 13:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

			:Especially since this article is not the ]. ] (]) 22:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Option A''' So many words here for the obvious thing: the evidence is very precise. Legitimizing the denial of the claims of sexual violence of women in this context is against any liberal and feminist thought. The only way to include claims of denial can be in the context of bashing those who deny - similar to mentioning Holocaust denial. ] (]) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
			:] was Oct 7 and the hostages and the various operations that day, so I think it's not undue weight. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::See, ]. Misplaced Pages is not here to uphold liberal and feminist thought. (For the record, I hold both liberalism and feminism as noble causes). ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 04:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
			::A date can't be a casus belli, and arguably, Hamas had one of those as well, for their attack, that aside, hostages just need to say how many, no idea what "various operations" means exactly but some summary like that too, right? ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' this best represents the current ] about the brutal attacks. ] (]) 18:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::The ''date'' isn't the casus belli but the events of that date. What I reverted removed some details of the attacks on the kibbutzim. If Hamas' casus belli should be mentioned too it can be, is it not already? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::We don't need to list every single attack that happened on that day, we can just say that various attacks occurred and highlight the most important ones. Similarly, we don't need a sentence describing who the hostages were. We can describe the attack that started the war without these specifics, and the article on the October 7 attacks still mentions them, so I don't see why they need to be included. ] (]) 01:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping\|AndreJustAndre}} Can you please explain why you think we need to describe the location of every single massacre on October 7, instead of simply summarizing? ] (]) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I don't think I said that, QuicoleJR, but I do think some mention of the invasion of the kibbutzim as a ''casus belli'' is merited, and I think your removal was overly extensive. It doesn't need to name all the specific operations but I think some mention of the kibbutzim should be retained. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{ping\|AndreJustAndre}} I agree that the invasion of the kibbutzim certainly warrants mention, I just disagree on the importance of the disputed content. I don't believe that this overview article needs to list all of the kibbutzim that were attacked and the number of casualties in each. I believe that we would be better off simply saying that it happened in multiple kibbutzim and describing the most notable ones (Re'im and Be'eri) with more detail. The more detailed information would be retained in the October 7 article. Judging by your reply, you seem to be arguing that every kibbutzim that was invaded should be mentioned by name. If that is correct, I would like to know why. If I am wrong, please let me know. Thanks, ] (]) 21:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::No, I didn't say that, QuicoleJR. I agree that "aying that it happened in multiple kibbutzim and describing the most notable ones with more detail" is acceptable. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::It doesn't sound like you actually disagree with the change you reverted. If you don't have any objections, I am going to restore the original edit. To be clear, I will only be restoring the summarization related to listing the kibbutzim, not the other disputed edit regarding the hostages, which I am fine with keeping as the status quo. Thanks, ] (]) 22:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{ping\|AndreJustAndre}} Forgot to ping. ] (]) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::OK on the hostage edit, but regarding this revert , I disagree with the removal of the text mentioning that they were kibbutzim and the mentions of the notable kibbutzim, instead adding "at several locations." I believe it should specify that the locations were kibbutzim and name the most notable ones, as you said. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::OK, as to your first point, would it be better if I changed "locations" to "kibbutzim"? As for the second point, the new version names the most notable two (Re'im and Be'eri) in the following sentences. If there are any other kibbutzim that you think need to be mentioned, please tell me which ones and why. Thanks, ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Yes, that would suffice, thank you. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::{{done}} ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I think mentioning ] might be worthwhile ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::{{ping\|AndreJustAndre}} Could you please add the content? The source previously used to support mentioning it doesn't provide enough context to support a section, so a new source would need to be added. I'm not sure what source that would be, but I do agree that the ] should be mentioned. ] (]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I also agree that we shouldn't give unnecessary details in that section. I hope that a similar filter would be applied to the parts of the article dealing with the war in Gaza which includes lots of individual attacks atm. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Discussion at ]==
	* '''Option A''' per Marokwitz. The topic is widely covered by mainstream media, including the thorough examination of The New York Times published lately. It is one of the major controversies related to the attack, and as such it should be mentioned in the lead per ]. Hamas denial, as suggested in Option B, is not helpful here, and may be considered fringe view regarding the vast coverage of the sexual violence by so many ]. ] (]) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
			] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 04:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
	* '''Option A'''. It would be a gross failure of ] not to include the sexual violence in. Based on the ] it is very clear that the sexual violence isn't some isolated actions but it's clear that it's very related to the conflict at hand. If the RFC is made in October, there are no clear references about rapes, but at this moment we have seen multiple references about the sexual violence - and we can't ignore it. The fact that Hamas saying that "it didn't happen" shouldn't stop us from taking the information from the reliable sources - where all sources agree that it happened. ] ] 12:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	* '''Option A''' ] (]) 13:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Variants names for ]}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 05:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Lede bit ==
	*'''Option A''' with great obviousness. We do not need the plaintive, ]ish denials of Hamas, a terrorist organization, over what they did or did not do. A terrorist organization is not a reliable source even for itself. We go by what actual sources say about them. ] (]) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:@] very good point. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	*Leaning '''option C''', oppose option B: This article is about the whole war, and there is a different article for the events of 7 October. It is proper that the lead of the latter should include sexual violence (it does currently). It is also proper that the section of this article on 7 October includes it (it does currently). But I don't think it needs to be in the lead. If it ''is'' in the lead, however, there's no reason to create false balance by including a denial by the perpetrators (per ]). Although I don't think it should go in the lead, many of the option C arguments above proceed from the conviction that sexual violence didn't happen, which is a deeply problematic assumption given the clear weight of evidence, and I would hope that arguments for C based on that logic be discounted by any closer. ] (]) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

			Personally I think this should be removed from the lede: "Torture and sexual violence were committed by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli forces". ] (]) 12:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' with a caveat. The lead has a serious problem: it omits even mentioning the atrocities by Hamas in Israel, which were the reason and the ''casus belli'' for the war. It was not merely a "surprise attack" as framed in the lead. That should be mentioned in one-two phrases, which would also include the mentioning of sexual crimes by Hamas as the key element of the atrocities. Option "B" is not viable because the denial by Hamas belongs to WP:FRINGE. ] (]) 16:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. This is the reason the war started. Calling it a "surprise attack" is whitewashing. It was one event but without it, the war wouldn't have happened. More specifically, most news articles cover the violent rapes as one of the causative factors. The reliable sources presented here overwhelmingly consider the rapes to a) be important and b) have happened. Denying this would be like including ] in the lede to the article on ], like "millions allegedly died in genocides". Comments like Nishidani's boil down to "well reliable sources say that there were mass rapes but I don't think their standard of evidence was high enough". That's not how Misplaced Pages operates, we are supposed to summarize the consensus of reliable sources and not inject our own burdens of evidence to say the New York Times/BBC/The Guardian didn't do a good enough job. This argument that there's not enough evidence to make these claims would only hold if reliable sources agree that there is not enough evidence. Nableezy touches upon this by citing a single USA Today article that doesn't endorse the Israeli claims (but doesn't deny them either), but Drsmoo, Marokwitz, and Ficaia provide several other sources that do agree that Israelis were raped by Palestinians/Hamas. Nableezy also brings up various counts of news articles to try to rank the importance of various issues. This is the ]. We don't know how many of those news sources are reliable, the engine miscounts a lot, etc etc. It's not as useful evidence as searching reliable sources such as the NY Times or the BBC which heavily cover the rapes. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''': This is primarily an Israel claim with no evidence (admitted by Israeli press) like many other extraordinary claims they routinely make. It is due in the article, but it is hardly a notable enough aspect of the conflict to be included in the lede. ] (]) 13:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Hmm, no. ] (]) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I don't have a view on the best option, partly because the lead will hopefully evolve organically overtime per ], so I'm not sure an RfC matters much in practice at this stage. But I wanted to say something about the various arguments being used to exclude a Hamas denial. I don't find them very compelling. Setting aside the obligation to follow RS and the fact that many include the denial, because that is what RS do, I wonder whether the MANDY, FALSEBALANCE, UNDUE, NPOV etc arguments might be missing the point a bit. This is just an encyclopedia after all and the lead is meant to summarize and inform. If there is reporting by RS that X's actions likely included instances of Y, and we say that, the fact that X denies it rather than says nothing is in itself informative. Including it tells the reader something about X. Is this case substantially different from something like the ] lead? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 07:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' per above, particularly the first reply. ] (]) 03:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' As pointed out by other edtiors, it was much smaller than the other atrocities and grievances. It was not fully discovered until Israeli retaliation had already started, so it cannot be a reason for the retaliation. A few sentences would be completely UNDUE for the lead. If we must mention it, at most only add the words "sexual violence" to an existing sentence. ] (]) 11:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

			:@] why? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Discussion 2===
			::A lot of things are happening in this war like use of human shields, tunnel warfare, carpet bombing, etc; not everything should be mentioned in the lede as summary. ] (]) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Regarding the completely made up claim that the denials {{tq\|are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned}} and {{tq\|the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials}}, sources to this day include that Hamas denies the accusations of rape, the overwhelming majority of sources that refer to any claims of rape or sexual assault include the denial. The most recent one I am aware of is writing about the Israeli military saying they know hostages were raped includes the denial. Such a series of unsubstantiated assertions as made in that comment should have evidence provided for it or it should not be taken seriously at all. ''']''' - 16:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::It is a strong part of the overwhelming horror at Hamas's actions that gave the Israeli government such a casus belli and widespread support by the Israeli public and international partners. Its relevant IMO. ] (]) 12:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Yes and the denial is in the body of the article. No one is arguing that the denial should not be in the body of the article, only not in the lead. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, has drawn a response from Israel or a denial. But such denials are not mentioned. Putting in the Hamas denial, and only the Hamas denial, would be unbalanced and not neutral. ] (]) 17:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
			::::So long as the information provided is accurate and verifiable, it should remain. It is one of the catalysts (for good or for bad) why the war has lasted as long as it has. I see no compelling reason to remove this information from the article but am open to futher opinion. ] (]) 19:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::What accusation by Hamas against Israel is included without a response? ''']''' - 17:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
			:::@] so it seems that information should remain, but it can be rephrased with the other things you mentioned. "{{tq\|Torture and sexual violence against the opposing side was committed ] and ]; Palestinian civilians have been used as human shields ] and ].}}" ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Nableezy, you keep acting like Hamas and Israel deserve to be treated as 50 50 equal players on every question, and what we do for one hand we must do equally for others. It's not a good model for NPOV or life or justice. Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. Hamas is a small group with a small quasi-territory that launched an attack against significant odds, alone, with no support, and is basically an international pariah due to the atrocities during that attack, and we don't need to act like it's possible that they didn't happen or that they weren't terrible, or that whatever denials issued by Hamas are credible, unless some credible academic or journalistic source does so. We also shouldn't act like those events didn't precipitate this entire war.
			::::My point was in arguing for less of this kind of information in the lede rather than more. ] (]) 11:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Israel is a large, well-armed, wealthy and powerful state backed by the US, UK, France, Australia, and basically every Western and English speaking powerful country, under quite a bit of scrutiny and being accused of all manner of things from apartheid to genocide, and we should absolutely treat those as complex both-sides type issues inasmuch as there are people debating them who are reliable (though, in my view, the genocide allegation goes too far and is inaccurate). On some issues yes, there's a complex narrative and we must balance the views of Palestinians versus Israelis, each group has separate factions, such as Fatah, or the different Israeli groups that range from Meretz and Labour to Likud to Blue&White to Shas and Yisrael Beteinu. And no, there are not credible allegations that Israelis are raping Palestinians, not like there are of Hamas. So we don't need to act like these things are the same. The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists. So not every atrocity needs a response. We should simply cover them as the majority of sources do, and not try to both-sides every issue.
	::::The point is to describe in the lead what the majority of yes, Western, yes, English-speaking, sources think are the most pertinent issues. Yes, there have been widespread calls for a ceasefire and widespread reports of indiscriminate civilian deaths in Gaza. We do not try to include Israeli denials of that or whatever weak PR Israeli spokespeople put out about it trying to spin or downplay those massive civilian deaths. Because that wouldn't be credible, and it's not edifying. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::As much Hamas is a small group with limited international support, Israel is also a small country with international pariah status by some metrics. What else would one call UN general assembly votes where all but three other countries agree with their position? Both entities have credibility that is in the dirt on the global stage due to the unacceptable aspects of their conduct, and the relative weight and/or credibility of either in any conflict scenario is of equally little weight relative to impartial and independent secondary, reliable sources. ] (]) 02:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::You're mostly right except for matters of perspective and a few important aspects that are distorting. Israel is a small country geographically, worldwide. But relative to Gaza, it's quite large. About 60 times as large by land area, a little under 5x as large by population. More importantly, their relative power dynamics. And the 3 other countries are pretty large in terms of that. As far as the UN votes, you're right. Most vote for a ceasefire or to condemn Israeli settlements. My point was about the relative power dynamics at play. Israel is a state and it has to abide by things that states have. Hamas, not so much. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::NPOV requires that we feature all ''significant'' views; scaling said significance is a trickier matter. My point was that within the context of their globally parochial conflict, the relative weight of Israel/Hamas pales alongside their equal partiality as combatants, and the primary views of either are little more than POV commentary short of validation by independent, secondary analysis. ] (]) 02:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::'The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists.' Sure, so Hamas went and raped peace activists all along the border.
	:::::To repeat, we are caught up in the furor of reports from 7-8 Oct of rape, mutilation, beheadings, burning babies. rare later reports tell us forensic doctors and police are sifting through these reports meticulously and exhaustively, but that so far we have no statistical evidence other than an indication from interviews with hostages who have been returned that slightly under 10% reported experiencing some form of sexual molestation.
	:::::This is what Hadas Ziv, policy and ethics director for ] stated 10 days ago, guardedly>-
	:::::<blockquote>“What we know for sure is that it was more than just one case and it was widespread, in that this happened in more than one location and more than a handful of times. . .What we don’t know and what the police are investigating is whether it was ordered to be done and whether it was systematic.” Sam Mednick ] 15 December 2023 </blockquote>
	:::::That means that we have some sparse facts of sexual violence befalling a number of the several hundred civilians, and extensive allegations that this was systematic and specific to Hamas policy. Not enough for the lead, ''as yet.''] (]) 11:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq\| Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before.}} you mean like displace 2 million people, kill 20,000 in 10 weeks, starve a civilian population? And when you think something goes to far and is innaccurate that means we shouldn’t include it? Genocide accusations have a ton more coverage than rape accusations, but you think one of those should be included unanswered and the other just brushed aside? Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then. ''']''' - 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Well, no. That's happened before, and worse things have happened before. In fact actual genocide has happened before, with 6 million Jews exterminated by Nazis, many LGBT and Romani, etc., or other documented genocides such as the Armenians. As far as the genocide accusations they certainly don't have more coverage or at least not by much, and I haven't seen that source survey. There's also a legal definition of genocide not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people. So, no, it's not the same, it's a false equivalency. The rapes have documentary and photographic evidence. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::That happened in Gaza? Was it Hamas? As far as source survey: results for "genocide" "gaza" "israel" "2023" vs for "rape" "hamas". Do you hear yourself on {{tq\| not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people.}} You are saying we cannot accuse Israel of a crime (genocide) because of living people and special rules, but we can accuse Hamas of a crime (rape) because reasons? ''']''' - 19:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Because that event has been <s>proven</s> shown more likely true than not"]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span>] by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. So to act like it's still in doubt or deny it happened or downplay it is problematic. Whereas genocide has a number of legal elements that haven't been shown. Apartheid, as I said, is defensible, and arguable, and I might agree that it exists in Israel. The West Bank settlers are also violating international law and have been guilty of several illegal and atrocious things. We don't need to dance around them. If there's clear evidence and nobody can really dispute it except for a basic denial, it should be treated as more likely than not if that's what the sources support. Of course, ] and ] demand balance, but balance isn't, "include the denial of everything that someone/group is accused of." Balance means reading all the sources, balance them out, and distill the mainstream positions in a proportionately accurate way. If 75% or 95% of sources agree and you discount the remaining 5 or 25% for some reason (such as ] or a contradiction or the fact that the claimant is a terrorist group with poor credibility on that particular point), that's how I balance it out. ] and ] exist to avoid giving too much platforming to ideas that are not mainstream. The idea that the rapes didn't occur is exactly that kind of flat-eartherism in my view. Whether genocide is occurring is debatable at best, but I'd say that the elements aren't there. We don't need to debate that though, because it's a larger topic and doesn't belong on this page. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::Im sorry, but youre <s>just making things up</s>exaggerating the evidence and the certainty of the sources. There is no video footage or photographs or documentary evidence, there are eyewitness accounts and there are denials. You can believe the same organizations that made up a baby in the oven or 40 beheaded babies if you want, but please dont misrepresent what the evidence is here. There are no videos, that is not true. And 75-95% of sources do not agree that this happened. Because they dont say it in their own words that it happened, they say who has said it happened and what evidence they have presented for it. They also say who has said it did not happen. You can and others can misrepresent what the sources actually say, but Ive read them and I dont need to just pretend that this misrepresentation is accurate at all. You can say Hamas is a terrorist group with poor credibility, and my response is Israel as a state is an established liar, over decades and in this conflict, and if you want to believe everything they say you can do that, but I dont think that is appropriate for a serious source to accept as fact the claims of a party engaged in active armed conflict and who has provably lied over and over again. And neither do the sources who relay Israeli accusations as Israeli accusations. ''']''' - 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::I've not misrepresented sources. {{tq\|In one photo, a burned body appears to project anguish. In another, a woman lies naked from the waist down, her underwear hanging from her leg. In interviews, first responders haltingly describe finding naked female corpses tied to beds and survivors recount witnessing a gang rape at the music festival...Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes, ZAKA, an organization that has been repeatedly found to have manufactured acts of barbarism like burning a baby to death in an oven, has made these reports. Yes, there are eyewitnesses saying they saw rapes. There are no videos of sexual assault or rape, and no photographs of sexual assault or rape. Your own source repeatedly attributes the accusations to Israeli military and government sources. ''']''' - 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::They're photos which are evidence of rape. They're videos of young women being kidnapped, and videos showing the aftermath of rape. Arabic documents telling Hamas how to say "take off my pants." You can argue whether this evidence was "made up" or "manufactured" but the fact remains that you claimed the evidence didn't exist, and that ''I'' made it up, which is incivil. No, I read it in NBC News, an apparently reliable source that is not reliable enough for you. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Yes, Im going to believe the military that presented a calendar as a terrorist schedule on what they found. Yes you absolutely made up that there {{tq\| has been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred.}} and despite your asking an admin to chastise me for it I have no problem repeating that. There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim. They have said that there is a body of evidence that increasingly suggests that it did happen. You are the one claiming that this has been proven by video, and that is false. ''']''' - 23:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Fine, substitute the word proven with "substantiated to show it is more likely than not," it's still incivil to say I made it up. You can quibble on the semantics but that's not going to take away the civility violation. You can believe it was all made up. That's your prerogative. But you can't tell me that ''I'' am making it up. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::If you have to substitute something that completely transforms your statement to resemble the truth then your original statement was not true. If you feel I’ve been uncivil you can discuss that on my talk page or report it. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the article so why don’t we focus on the article here? ''']''' - 23:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::'''"There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim" - Nableezy'''
	::::::::::::::::Andre provided you a reliable source saying that they directly saw and reviewed photographic evidence that rape occurred. NBC News is on the reliable source list, so it's a reliable source. They said they saw photographs of naked bodies strongly implying sexual violence happened. They did in fact make such a claim. Unless you're going to try to say that NBC is not a reliable source then what you've said here is obviously false.
	::::::::::::::::"Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre." - .
	::::::::::::::::I'd just like to hear some type of policy based justification as to why we should ignore this. Do you have an argument from ] or ]? If you're going to say that 75-90% of sources conclude that rape did not occur (or more weakly, that they don't conclude that it did occur), then where is your list of sources that you looked at to come to that conclusion? I'm just kind of hesitant to take that at face value given the quote I started this post with. ] (]) 23:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	::{{outdent\|14}} What they say is that this suggests rapes occured, not that it proved it. And there is no video. And no, I have not said sources conclude rapes did not occur, I say they have not yet concluded rapes did occur. And the sources are those like NBC who are still reporting it as an accusation, not a proven fact. ''']''' - 23:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::There is video evidence; to be clear there is not video evidence of an in-action rape. There is video of young women being kidnapped, such as ]. There is video of the interviews as well. See the BBC {{tq\|Video testimony of an eyewitness at the Nova music festival, shown to journalists by Israeli police, detailed the gang rape, mutilation and execution of one victim. Videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack, and photographs of bodies taken at the sites afterwards, suggest that women were sexually targeted by their attackers. Videos filmed by Hamas include footage of one woman, handcuffed and taken hostage with cuts to her arms and a large patch of blood staining the seat of her trousers. In others, women carried away by the fighters appear to be naked or semi-clothed. Multiple photographs from the sites after the attack show the bodies of women naked from the waist down, or with their underwear ripped to one side, legs splayed, with signs of trauma to their genitals and legs.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Sure, there are videos of violence against women, and there are videos of testimonies. That is not video proving rape. This is getting in to the weeds a bit, suffice it to say I do not think there is no evidence, I objected to the claim that the sources say the evidence proves anything, or that there are videos proving it. As far as the interrogations, what NBC says is {{tq\|NBC News could not independently verify the authenticity of the interrogation videos released by Israeli officials. Officials declined to provide unedited versions of the interrogations.}} ''']''' - 00:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::'''"There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured"''' is what you said, not "There is no video evidence that has proven rape occured". Do you consider photos of naked bodies of Israeli's killed by Hamas militants proof that they were raped? I'm not sure why Hamas would be undressing women them after killing them without sexually assaulting them, but if you have some theory on that I'd be happy to hear it.
	:::If you could, just let me know what your standard of proof for inclusion here would be. What exactly would you need to see, specifically, from a reliable source before you'd be fine including a brief mention in the lede of what seems to be a prominent topic in the reliable sources about this war? ] (]) 00:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Misplaced Pages. ''']''' - 01:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::If it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries, we can mention it in the lead. Of course Hamas's denial should be mentioned in the body of the article, but it is undue in the lead. ] (]) 08:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Reliable sources concluding something occurred is the bare minimum requirement for saying something occurred. If you think that {{tq\|it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries}} removes that requirement then you should re-read ]. ''']''' - 14:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::There are conflicting reports of videos existing. The one report that I personally somewhat trust (wouldn't count for wiki, just someone who claims they saw the early videos) describes "a German woman" at the music event. It described something disrespectful, but not a rape. A lot of videos have been described but never surfaced, and the stories have been distorted in repeated retellings, because most people do not want to watch that stuff. If Israel know of any video evidence they need to give it to an expert third party who investigates war crimes, not just describe it in the media. ] (]) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::As has been mentioned, there are reliable sources stating that these rapes occurred. 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Can you give them as specific citations please, ping me? Like is being being said below I've mostly heard it as "Israel says". The day became a violent mess, so all types of violence seem possible, but all the specific evidence I've seen is weak or biased. ] (]) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::No, they report that Israel has said this and that eyewitness accounts have said this. They have not concluded that they have occurred. Attributing accusations and denials is not concluding the veracity of either. ''']''' - 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::And to add to the above, weighing the evidence for yourself and then engaging in independent fact-finding is ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 15:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping\|WillowCity}} That is not what is meant by ]. Please review the policy detail at that link. Also, as stated on ], {{red\|'''There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation'''}} P.S. I love your user name.]] 16:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::: I have reviewed the policy on several occasions, and I would refer to the second sentence: {{tq\|do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source}}. In this case, combining summaries of Israel's evidence from ''The Guardian'' (and/or other sources) to reach the definitive conclusion, and state in wikivoice, that sexual violence occurred. According to Dovidroth, RS {{tq\|are stating that these rapes occurred}}; but the sources, to my knowledge, have not said so definitively; they attribute the evidence to sources within Israel and note that the claim is denied by Hamas.
	::::::::::As well, I certainly do not dispute that users are allowed to state their belief regarding what occurred, but our individual beliefs (as legitimately expressed on a talk page) do not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS such that they should be included in a given article. (Also: thank you for the compliment!!) <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 16:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::That is absolutely not what SYNTH is. First of all, it doesn't apply to talk page arguments. Secondly, see ]. Synth is not any synthesis, it's only an original novel synthesis that doesn't appear explicitly. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::(1) SYNTHNOT is an essay, not a core policy; (2) I’m saying that it would be SYNTH if it appeared in the article, which is the issue here and why it’s being discussed on a talk page at all; (3) see above, using an article’s discussion of the evidence to state, in wikivoice, that sexual assault did occur is absolutely synth, because it’s {{tq\|an original novel synthesis that doesn’t appear explicitly}}. It would be like if I cited a source that said “experts allege that Israel’s prosecution of the war satisfies the legal definition of genocide” based on XYZ evidence, to state, in wikivoice, that Israel is committing genocide. That would be taking the source’s content a step further than the source itself is willing to go, i.e., original research/synthesis. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::That's not the topic of the RFC. The RFC is should there be a few sentences, with or without denial, explaining the sexual violence. The exact language should hew closely to the sources, not synthetically, but exactly as framed in the reliable sources, with attribution as attribute. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::If we're hewing closely to RS, and discussing the issue exactly as framed by them, then Option A should be written off, because RS overwhelmingly if not exclusively refer to the denial. It is also unclear from the wording of the RfC whether Option A would mean stating the allegations as fact; some !voters seem to be suggesting we should, and I am explaining why that would be synthesis. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 23:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::The RFC doesn't prescribe a specific wording. No RFC can obviate the need to abide by V, RS, SYNTH, etc., so regardless of what comes out, we'll need to make sure that the wording in the article is properly couched and qualified to be accurate to the sources - the RFC doesn't touch on that. If Option A succeeds, the statements will be included without denials, but they will still need to hew closely to the original source. Option B will include the denial, Option C will exclude altogether. Sounds like you might be leaning Option B, which to me isn't a bad outcome, but I can't make your !votes for you. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Thanks for clearing that up. Just for the avoidance of any doubt, my !vote remains Option C, as a matter of WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::'''"Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Misplaced Pages" -''' @]
	:::::I get where you're coming from, and I can understand where some your frustration here after fully reading a lot of the talk page.
	:::::I might be misreading the room here (chime in if you think I am), but I don't think anybody is arguing for including a "statement of fact"? I'm reading the options as adding something the allegations of rape by Hamas militants, as it is a prominently discussed topic in the sources currently. If we're going to make a statement of fact that "sexual violence was committed by members of Hamas", then we'd need reliable sources saying definitively that sexual violence was committed, on that I 100% agree with you.
	:::::If you'd argue that we need sources definitively saying that rape occurred to include something like "evidence/allegations of sexual violence by hamas militants, which hamas denies" (except not so poorly worded), then you'd also have to argue that we need RS's definitively saying that "Israel committed X war crime" everytime we say "Israel has been accused of INSERT WAR CRIME HERE". I don't think you'd argue for that right?
	:::::Just one final thing; I also don't think that to make a statement of fact we would require video evidence, or any evidence in particular from the sources. If a plurality of major reliable sources say that rape occurred definitively, then we could say that as a statement of fact. That seems to be the position clearly endorsed by ]; we <u>"represent ''all'' significant viewpoints that have been published by ], in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources"</u>. If an overwhelming majority of sources said that rape occurred, then it'd be fine per NPOV to just say that rape occurred as a factual statement. We wouldn't start analyzing the validity of their conclusions; given how divided editors are here on their views doing that would kind of just invite us to throw out each other's sources everytime and just start nitpicking them. Those are basically my thoughts here; I think I've said all that I really have to say and am going to step back from this conversation. It's getting unreadable as is. ] (]) 19:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests. And yes, the same is true for war crimes. I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either. ''']''' - 21:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::'''"I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either."'''
	:::::::I think you missed my point there. I'm referring to this in the lede: "leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water." We don't require the majority of sources saying that "We've proved that Israel used starvation as a weapon" to include that. We just need sources discussing the accusations. Similarily, we wouldn't need a source saying "We've proved that Hamas militants raped Israeli women during the attack" to say "There have been accusations of rape by Israel, denied by Hamas" or something to that effect.
	:::::::'''"Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests."'''
	:::::::My final paragraph was more just trying to make my position clear that we wouldn't need the sources to provide or discuss any evidence in particular, as long as they say it occurred we can say it occurred. If an RS said it occurred solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony that they reviewed, then we could say it occurred. I took issue with your statement that you'd need a source saying there was video that proved it, as that isn't really needed per NPOV. Just explaining what my last paragraph was actually a response to. ] (]) 23:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Yeah, I agree with most of that, the issues I have here are twofold. A, I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article. But here, I dont think it has the weight. Second, I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. Your beef with my comment was about my responding to a claim that video has proven rapes occurred. I was challenging that here, because that is not true. I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it. Because that is what was being offered as justification for including it without a denial. And that remains untrue. ''']''' - 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::'''"I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article."'''
	:::::::::I get where you're coming from there Nableezy, I'm kind of leaning towards the side of it being a prominent enough controversy in the war ''in general'' for it to merit a very brief inclusion (with the denial) not exceeding a sentence in the second paragraph? The one that starts with "The war began"? I certainly don't think it deserves several sentences on it, that would be undue.
	:::::::::The main reason that I currently think it deserves a sentence is that we mention the water topic in the third paragraph ("leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water."), and that controversy has been discussed less in the RS's than the rape allegations (just doing a google search I see far less RS's discussing it than I do the rape allegations).
	:::::::::So if the articles "prominence of a controversy" threshold allows that controversy (about accusations of Israel using hunger/water as a weapon) in the lede (per the MOS, lede should summarize prominent controversies), then shouldn't it also allow a more prominent (in terms of how often it comes up in the RS's) controversy in the lede?
	:::::::::That's kinda where my heads at right now.
	:::::::::'''"I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. "'''
	:::::::::Strongly agree.
	:::::::::'''"I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it."'''
	:::::::::Thanks for the clarification, glad we can agree on that. ] (]) 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::Also, FWIW, someone ''has'' tried to insert those statements about the summary executions into the article several times. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, they inserted that Israel was said to have done such things and eyewitness accounts said such things, and ] despite the OHCHR also documenting the killings. They did not include that it happened as a fact in our narrative voice. ''']''' - 23:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::::Yes, to be clear, you are correct, and my prior message should have explained it uses the word "allegedly," (]), and "reportedly," and ascribes it to both a confirmation on an official Twitter account, and to witness accounts circulated by media. It was removed with a rationale stated of NOTNEWS, as it's quite thinly sourced to a recent AJ piece and a Democracy Now piece, aside from the SELFPUB/PRIMARY tweet. So, I personally agree with the removal, and you are correct it was not ''as a fact in wikivoice,'' and I wasn't trying to lazily imply that it was. But does it have WEIGHT - I say no. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Casualty figures ==
	::::Fortunately, since we’re not a court of law, we don’t have to weigh circumstantial evidence and determine whether it definitively supports the inference Israel wants us to draw. I’ve said above, the opinions of individual editors do not matter, it matters what sources are reporting, which is that (1) Israel and Israeli sources have made allegations (2) Hamas denies the allegations and (3) Israel has produced evidence that they view as supportive of their position. I’m not aware of any independent, external investigation confirming Israel’s view of events as fact. More importantly, I'm not aware of a preponderance of independent RS treating them as fact or omitting the denials. And whether or not it happened (which is not the subject of this RfC) none of this addresses what is really the core question: whether the sexual violence claims are necessary to understand (and specifically, to summarize) <u>the entire war</u>. This issue didn’t come to international attention until earlier this month, and RS prevailingly discuss it in relation to the October 7 attacks, not in relation to the war as a whole. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
	* To address the argument that we should include these claims because the October 7 invasion was “ferocious” or “shocking” or “traumatic”: our purpose here is not to validate trauma. We’re here to discuss a war. The argument that sexual violence is necessary to understand Israel’s response is, frankly, bizarre, because (1) Israel was absolutely pummeling Gaza weeks before they investigated these allegations; and (2) sexual violence does not justify unlawful collective punishment. This story is not necessary to understand the war as a whole, it may be necessary to understand October 7 and the ''ex post facto'' justifications of Israeli atrocities, but this article is about neither of those things. If we devote a few sentences of the lead to events that have not yet been verified by independent, external sources, we are effectively saying that Israeli allegations are as or more important than the deaths of ''8,000 Palestinian children''. Child mortality has received vastly more coverage (i.e., 180,000 search results on Google News, if that's a worthwhile metric, compared to the numbers identified by nableezy above for sexual violence), but it receives only a single clause in a single sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead. This is the very definition of a BALASP issue and the reason BALASP is part of the NPOV policy. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 17:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''"B or C (but)"''' - '''If''' included in the lead (undecided on that) we '''should probably include the denial''', it is a "they said", not a fact, but that's sufficiently communicated by describing it as a "denial". (Out of interest, but I doubt are sources? 3 other groups also claimed the attacks as a whole, did they deny the sexual violence? Were they asked?) '''The overall level of evidence''' should also be discussed - I have avoided reading too much graphic detail, but there does seem to be debate - but that belongs in the body. Alternatively, '''instead of the denial''', we could put a general '''these claims were disputed''' in the lead with refs citing Hamas and any notable third parties. The body should also contain a fairly strong statement about how (depressingly) this is '''ubiquitous in war''' because that '''points to the plausibility of the claims''' (verges on synth, but very important context for someone who might be unfamiliar with how horrible war is). ] (]) 05:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) edited ] (]) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:If anything, the tragic ubiquity of wartime sexual violence weighs ''against'' inclusion in the lead of this article. I would note, to the extent this matters, that including sexual violence so prominently in the lead would depart markedly from most other wiki articles on wars. Sexual violence is not mentioned in the leads of the articles on ], the ], the ], the ], the ], the ] and ] Chechen Wars, the ], the ], the ], or the ]. Wartime sexual violence is either notably alleged or extensively documented in all of these conflicts. It is tragic in every case, not just when the victims are Israeli or the alleged perpetrators are Palestinian. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 16:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::To reinforce your argument, ] (1937-1945) doesn't mention ] (aka "forced female sex slaves for foreign army", a hotly discussed topic in China and Korea even in 2023) in the lede either. Searching its talk page and archives, no one debated over its inclusion in the lede at all. -- ] (] · ]) 11:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	:: Bombing and shooting are ubiquitous, we don't leave those out of the lead? And the comment about ubiquitous hours in the body. ] (]) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::Because bombing and shooting are fundamental aspects of any military operation. Rape is not. Excesses unfortunately occur in wartime, and rape is one such excess. This does not mean it's significant enough to include in the lead. I also feel that the highly charged, emotive nature of a rape allegation in the lead will undermine ]. ] (]) 04:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
	* '''B but specify who denied it''' - Reflecting on my previous answer. Specify which individual(s) denied it, not just "Hamas". The guy who denied it (if we are thinking of the same denial?) was in Qatar when it happened. We shouldn't be talking about Hamas as if it is a single individual or a hive-mind. If more than one person denied it then specify as succinctly as possible "Hamas leaders" or "spokespersons outside Gaza", etc. The denial is relevant to whether it was part of the plan, but says very little about whether it happened. (For the sake of declaring my bias, my personal opinion is that it was not part of any faction's plan, there's negligible evidence of anything systematic, but they created a chaotic situation where some sexual violence, and other horrible things, were almost inevitable. If there's a last minute open-invite for "let's invade Israel" a city of 2 million will have at least one ] / ] / ] who will join in.) ] (]) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
	* As I sort of said before, to me there is a lot of ambiguity in WHO did it. There were 4 factions who claimed the attacks, and one of the small secular factions is arguably more violent than Hamas, but no reliable sources say which faction ended up where. There are also controversial reports that some non-militant criminals showed up opportunistically. (Which obscenely are being spun as "it was civilians, so kill all civilians!" would you bomb ] just because ] was there?) ] (]) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

			Note that a peer-reviewed Lancet scientific paper has that Palestinian causality figures are most likely an undercount by at least 41%, which has received extensive reporting by RS. ] (]) 12:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hat\|We get it, you don't agree. ] (]) 21:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)}}
	*:It'd be like writing a story about the Iraq and Afghanistan war without mentioning 9/11 or bin Laden. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::It would be like writing an article about the war in Afghanistan and not including box cutters on one of the planes in the lead of the article on the war. ''']''' - 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::That comment, unconstructive for this page, is also deeply offensive to every volunteer editor on this site who cares about gender issues of denial and entitlement.]] 21:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

			:Not to be pedantic, but the Reuters headline here ]: "Gaza war death toll could be 40% higher, says study". Instead it should say "could be 71% higher". When we are going from the "real" figure to GHM figure, we'd subtract 41%, but when we are going from the GHM figure to the "real" figure we'd add 71%.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 20:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	: What is going on above? I used the reply button but my comment has appeared in a boy that is dated for the day before yesterday??? ] (]) 06:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Iskandar323}} How about summarizing it this way?
			::From: "Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been reported killed, over half of them women and children, with thousands more dead under the rubble. The Lancet has estimated a total figure of 70,000 direct deaths due to traumatic injuries."
			::To: "Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, over half of them women and children, and tens of thousands more believed dead, trapped under the rubble or unreported." ] (]) 10:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The Lancet study does not actually include those under the rubble, so that would be a misleading summary. I don't see the need to blend the Lancet analysis into other things. It's got a very narrow and precise scope and definition. It also isn't saying that's the total number of dead, just those dead from direct traumatic injuries. ] (]) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping\|Iskandar323}} It is mainly because they are within same idea in two different sentences; also I think there is no need to attribute the Lancet. To avoid the implication you mentioned; "dead" could be replaced with "killed" for example. ] (]) 09:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's correct that the Lancet is a very authoritative source, and this is the first peer-reviewed study of the numbers, so it is doubly authoritative. Even so, I think attributing the statement is quite worthwhile until the dust has settled around it in the media. It has already been picked up a lot, but we will know in a week or so whether anyone opens to question its methodology or attempt to pick holes in its premises. If not, the attribution can go; if so, the material is suitably treated in-text. In terms of your specific combo phrasing, I'm afraid I don't really like the way it takes a very rigourously quantitative source with specific figures and turns that into just "tens of thousands" in a vague context. That just seems sloppy. Your proposed summary makes it so that the Lancet study may as well not even exist, which is the opposite of what my attributed phrasing is doing, which is broadcasting that fact far and wide. ] (]) 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::How about: "{{tq\|"Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, mostly women and children; thousands more are dead under the rubble, and The Lancet estimates the true death toll may be 70% higher.}}" ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That sort of works, but it should probably be {{tq\|"... estimates the true death toll due to traumatic injury to be (at least) 70% higher."}} – since the study is specific and I don't think includes those under the rubble, which would be extra. This also doesn't include indirect deaths from starvation or disease, which the article alludes to in noting the previous 186,000 estimate in the Lancet correspondence. ] (]) 13:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Instead of "traumatic injury", how about "directly killed" since that is more accessible to the reader. So something like:
			:::::"...over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been directly killed, mostly women and children; thousands more are presumed dead under the rubble, and The Lancet estimates the number of direct deaths may be 70% higher. These estimates don't include indirect deaths (due to disease and famine), which may be times higher." ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, I can definitely get on board with that. ] (]) 14:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I support that wording, and inserting "mostly civilians" as suggested below. Well supported by the sources. I'm trying to think of a better wording, as "may be 4 times higher" seems to imply "up to 4 times higher" when actually the source implies it may be much more, but the above wording is still OK and I haven't thought of a better wording. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{groupping\|Per above\|Iskandar323\|Makeandtoss}}, also please consider adding "mostly civilians", as there does appear to be a consensus of sources at ] that 75%+ are civilians.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Casualties in infobox ==
	::It's an admin's hat for offtopicking comments. I'll move it. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

			The casualties section of the infobox is presently being used to give a detailed breakdown of casualties in the war. This is contrary to ] where the infobox is to summarise key facts from the body of the article. The infobox is not suited to such detail. Whether the numbers reported can be represented as a ''fact'' is another issue, as is the process by which these figures are arrived at through a collation from sources. A collation process assume that the reports identified are complete and without duplication. Also, in an ongoing engagement, any figures are not stable. Consequently, the casualty reports should be removed from the infobox. A consensus to this effect was reached for ]. There is a casualties section in the body of the article and the TOC directs the reader to that section. ] (]) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	New investigation and independent confirmation from The NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that <b>the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.</b>” <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) Revision as of 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	:On the other hand, much of the initial reportage, univeresally circulated for weeks, came from ZAKA. For which see The Short String, ] 30 December 2023 ] (]) 05:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
	::That’s an opinion piece in a source considered at RSP as biased and with no consensus on reliability. Plus, I don’t see the relevance to the article from the NYT? ] (]) 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
	::Mondoweiss is a far-left publication that publishes op-eds saying the attacks were justified. It should not be relied upon for facts. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] I must say I ''was'' surprised to see the NYT prominently feature ZAKA's Yossi Landau in their piece. To my mind he's completely discredited as a reliable source. He is the "ZAKA volunteer" referred to in Haaretz (he is mentioned by name in one of the embedded videos) who was responsible for ''numerous'' lurid, false reports. See also by ] and others. ] <small>]]</small> 10:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

			:@] are you proposing there be no casualties in the infobox, if so, I disagree. Otherwise please state your proposal. If we must simplify, I'd rather leave in the casualties for Gaza and remove those for other parts like Lebanon etc.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== References from above ===
	{{reflist}}

			::Unless the casualties can be simply summarised, they don't belong in the infobox (per INFOBOXPURPOSE). If you disagree, then on what P&G basis? ] (]) 21:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	== RfC on genocide accusation in lead ==
			:::We could maybe put the detained and displaced numbers in a hidden section like the one the Egyptian casualties are currently in, since these are not technically casualties and losses, and maybe remove the Egyptian casualties altogether. Direct death and indirect deaths could be made more concise at the top with bracketed ranges, 47,000-70,000, and 186,000+, respectively. That would reduce the size. ] (]) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The place for detail is in the body of the article. Large hidden sections create accessibility issues for mobile users as the dropdown doesn't function for mobile devices. We are also back to the issue of presenting detail in the infobox for which it is not intended per INFOBOXPURPOSE. ] (]) 05:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ]'s death ==
	<!-- ] 09:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1707210089}}
	{{rfc\|pol\|soc\|reli\|hist\|rfcid=FFB6CF3}}

			I removed this from the article back in December, but apparently it was added back on January 1st. I still believe it is not important enough for this broad overview article, and should be mentioned in more specific articles, such as the timelines. {{ping\|Monk of Monk Hall}} Why do you believe that this individual poet's death should be given a paragraph in this article? ] (]) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	Should allegations of genocide be mentioned in the lead? There are four options in my mind. {{Ordered list \|list_style_type=upper-alpha

			:Well first of all, I believe there is only a sentence in this article about Alareer, not a paragraph. To my understanding, Alareer's death is one of the most notable civilian casualties of the war. His killing has had extreme significance in pro-Palestinian protests around the world. Buildings have been occupied and libraries created in his memory. A video of ] reading his poem was watched millions of times. Alareer's book recently made the NYT bestseller list. There are far less notable people mentioned in the article, like Israeli colonel ]. Since I added Daxa to the article, I have never seen anyone try to remove him despite the fact that there is no consistent basis to leave him in the article while removing Alareer. I think this article should be fairly detailed even if that means it is long and for the most part, I think that short mentions of notable individuals in this article enhance its quality and accurately reflect the weight given to them by the sources we use. If Alareer were not mentioned here, this article would be minimizing his importance in comparison the sources and the public's memory and those are important aspects of what we ought to hope to capture in writing for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	\|Mention that Israel is accused of genocide.
			::@], I hope we can come with a more or less objective criterion. I don't know why, for instance, Ehsan Daxa is mentioned and ] is not. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I agree, it should not be given a paragraph, rather a single sentence (not two as we currently have it). We can also make it part of a sentence like "Israeli operations have killed prominent artists in such as Refaat Alareer,..." IIRC he's not the only prominent artist killed in Gaza, and the killing of artists as a category has been subject to RS coverage.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think the second sentence was/is needed to explain his notability, but I agree with the idea of organizing the article more thematically in general, in which case the mention of Alareer could be shortened and moved to a section about notable civilian deaths. If the ceasefire announced today holds, I think it will become much easier to write about the war as a historical rather than a current event, and we can clean up the timeline and present information more thematically. ] (]) 17:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Date variety? ==
	\|Mention that Hamas is accused of genocide.

			Over at ], there was ] that changed "7 October" to "October 7," ''de facto'' ending in consensus that the entire article's ] should be changed from day-month-year to month-year-day, based on a preponderance of reliable sources — Arab, Israeli, and international. In the interest of cross-topic consistency, I'm asking here if people would agree to change the DATEVAR on this article (and other related articles) to MDY based on this conclusion. ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	\|Mention that Israel and Hamas are both accused of genocide.
			: Both Palestine and Israel use DMY format according to our ] so we should retain that format. ] says to "should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country". Maintaining date format consistency across articles is not important. ] (]) 05:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Requested move 17 January 2025 ==
	\|Make no mention of genocide at all. }} ] (]) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

			{{requested move/dated\|multiple=yes\|current1=Israel–Hamas war\|new1=Gaza War\|current2=Gaza War\|new2=Gaza War (disambiguation)\|protected=Israel–Hamas war}}
	===Survey (genocide accusation in lead)===
	{{notavote}}

			*] → {{no redirect\|Gaza War}}
	*'''Option D''' - Wiki is supposed to be low key and not a propaganda tool. The claims about genocide are important, but definitely not in the lead of the article. It is about the war, not about political claims. ] (]) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
			*] → {{no redirect\|Gaza War (disambiguation)}}
	*'''Option C''' In the case of Israel, accusations of genocide have been serious enough for south Africa to formally accuse Israel of committing genocide by taking the claim to the ].
			If supporting, please indicate whether you prefer "'''Gaza War'''" or "'''Gaza War (2023–present)'''".
	*# https://www.reuters.com/world/south-africa-seeks-international-court-justice-genocide-order-against-israel-2023-12-29/
			*]: Either "Gaza war" or its variant "war in Gaza" (or both) are common among every single news source below, including Israeli sources. By contrast, "Israel-Hamas war" or its variants are no longer used at BBC and Al-Jazeera; the Guardian and Haaretz are both 10x more likely to use "Gaza war" than "Israel-Hamas war". Scholarly sources somewhat prefer "Gaza war" (even after we subtract "Israel-Gaza war" from the results). (Side note, ] requires us to consider names "close enough to be considered variations of the same common name")
	*# https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-01/ty-article/.premium/state-officials-fear-hauge-could-charge-israel-with-genocide-in-gaza/0000018c-c1a9-d3e0-abac-d9a9acd80000
			*]: most major modern wars are simply named after the main location: ], ], ], ] etc. Where we have two names, they are both countries: ], ] etc. "Gaza War" is consistent with these, but "Israel-Hamas war" is not as Hamas has never been a country.
	*:At the same time, only talking about Israel could spark talks of neutrality. But since there have been just as many people ready to accuse Hamas of genocide, there are rs that talk about this too. One eample is: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-actions-are-war-crimes-could-constitute-genocide-international-law-experts/ ] (]) 10:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
			*], both "Gaza war" and "Israel-Hamas war" have previously been used to refer to other conflicts (eg, for "2014 Israel-Hamas war"). Previously there has been consensus that this current war overshadows all previous wars to be the ] (see ] and ]). "Gaza War (2023-present)" is more ], but "Gaza War" is slightly more concise.
	*:''Times of Israel'' is not a neutral source in this matter (especially that the paper, and its owner, have an overtly right-wing agenda – see the article). — ] ] 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			*]. Significant POV issues were identified with "Israel-Hamas war" ], and "Gaza War" solves that. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)<small>The move request was modified to indicate the fate of the existing ] page as per .''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Option C''' A significant number of legal scholars and professionals have indicated that what is taking place is genocidal in nature (both for Israel and Hamas). Further, there is an ICJ case brought forth by South Africa against Israel. Lastly, as a point of comparison, note that the term "genocide" is used in the lead to the ] article as well. The Israel-Hamas war is significantly worse with respect to genocidal rhetoric used by leaders and the magnitude of the civilian suffering. ] (]) 10:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
			{{User:Vice regent/gaza war usage}}
	*'''Option C''': As well as being shown by their actions reliable sources clearly document enough statements of genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government and call it that. Hamas has shown genocidal intent so it can be included as a counter even if there's no way for it to carry any such intention out, certainly not in the current war. The issue has become widespread and important enough for inclusion in the lead. ] (]) 10:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' per above. Whether or not genocide occurs is a salient feature of war. ] (]) 10:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''~~Option C~~''' ~~per~~ ~~above~~. ~~The~~ ~~most~~ ~~sensible~~ ~~option~~ at ~~this~~ ~~stage~~. ] (]) 12:21, 2 January ~~2024~~ (UTC)		*'''Support''' Strong consensus has been established in favour of the move among primary sources and secondary sources with the tables provided. Gaza War reflects the main locus of the war which has seen numerous belligerents and spillovers. ] (]) 10:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per this well-formatted nom. It's about time this gets moved. Also, will the belligerents in the infobox be changed from Hamas being against Israel to all the Palestinian factions? ''']]''' 10:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option D''' - As above; this is not the place for it. ] (]) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support.''' The numbers speak for themselves. At this point, leaving "Gaza" out of the title would be a glaring omission relative to sources; failing the test of neutrality; and in light of Gaza being the primary location of the war. ] (]) 12:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option D''' - It's standard for partisans in a totalizing ethnic conflict to hurl the term "genocide" at each other. Doesn't automatically merit inclusion in the lede without e.g. actual criminal prosecutions.
			* '''Strong support.''' During the last meaningful move in August 2024, there was a general agreement for a change away from Hamas and towards Gaza based on RS coverage, but there was disagreement on which version exactly. Half a year later, sources (RS in particular, and among scholarly references as well) have clearly converged to using Gaza as demonstrated by VR’s data analysis above in a way that is compliant with WP’s policies and guidelines. ] (]) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	] (]) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Strong support''' – thanks so much for this VR, as your data demonstrates Gaza War as common name and primary topic. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 13:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''': This is incorrect. There is an ongoing case in the ICJ, as the article itself states (in the body). In general, I recommend doing the most basic amount of research on the topic before hurling accusations at others, especially for topics as sensitive as this. ] (]) 06:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			* '''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''', as I'd like to see how it is referred to if or '''<u>after</u>''' the ceasefire takes effect. {{teal\|edit: also, y'know, the RM two weeks prior}}''']]''' 13:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option D''' Far from significant enough at this stage to include these dueling charges in the lead. ] (]) 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' people undoubtedly come to Misplaced Pages looking for clarity/information, and we're well equipped/trusted to provide an accurate summary of the political discussions happening with detailed wikilinks where necessary. ~ 🦝 ] (he/him • ]) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option D''' I don't think the accusations have been sufficiently noteworthy to justify inclusion in the lede. The accusations would need to feature far more prominently in the reliable sources for me to support adding it to the lede. Especially since we're not including things like the accusations of sexual violence by Hamas against Israeli civilians, which has been discussed far more in the reliable sources than these genocide accusations have (my point being that if that doesn't meet the prominence threshold for inclusion in the lede, then the genocide accusations shouldn't if we're applying the same threshold). ] (]) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' This comparison is not quite accurate in my view. The Hamas sexual assault allegation is to the ] article what the genocide allegation is to the ] article. The sexual assault allegations pertain to only a single day in the conflict (October 7th), and indeed they ''are'' mentioned in the lead to the article for that single day in the conflict. The relevance of the sexual assault allegation to the war in general (which has lasted for 3 months now) is less clear. However, the genocide allegation does in fact pertain to the entire war. ] (]) 06:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. Extremely well sourced, including legal positions of South Africa and a number of respected international organisations. On the other hand, genocide accusations against Hamas are not widely circulated outside of Israeli government mouthpieces – unlike with regard to Israeli policies, no expert international sources describe Hamas as carrying out a genocide of Jews. — ] ] 20:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Option A'''. Not only is there the by South Africa, but so have , , , , , and , to name a few. I'd say that's enough for inclusion. In fact, some information could be copied over from the ] into this page and placed in the lead. It would be relatively easy to do.] (]) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option D''' is my personal preference. There are accusations against both Israel and Hamas . My personal preference is not to mention it in the lede. Hamas might have had a genocidal intent but killing one thousand people out of several million is not a genocide. Likewise, Israel might have considered an ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip, but it doesn't seem to be likely to happen atm and it's not the same as genocide anyway. I suggest waiting at least a few months until we have something more definite. ]<sub>]</sub> 14:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option Misplaced Pages is not a democracy''': Lede serves as a summary of the body, including any prominent controversies, per guideline ]. A vote, or survey, or any other phrasing will not get around this guideline; what is mentioned in body must be mentioned in lede. However, the 7 October genocide section suffers from extreme examples of synth and sources closely related to the subject, in which information is combined to make an argument not necessarily related to the war. While the Israeli campaign genocide section is well-sourced and has an ongoing ICJ court case. The latter claim clearly has more merit and it should not be made equivalent with the former one when these sections are summarized in the lede. ] (]) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C or D'''. A and B are obvious non-starters - read the articles ] and ]. Both articles have good sources, and both accusations need to be treated the same (although Hamas has explicitly announced their intended genocide beforehand many times and Israel has done no such thing). --] (]) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Disagree in strongest terms. Israel has been accused of ''carrying out'' genocide. Per the linked article, Hamas has been accused of having "genocidal intentions" (John Kirby), "genocidal ideology" (Israeli diplomat), and similar, however no serious source has stated that the 7th October attack was tantamount to genocide. No, the two sides cannot and should not be treated on a par. — ] ] 20:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Reality check: They have not been {{tq\|accused of having "genocidal intentions"}}, they actually said themselves that they have those intentions. You know, like that Hitler guy of whom people said he did not actually intend to do it? Hamas has little attacking power, of course they cannot actually achieve it - at the moment. But there should be a consensus among non-denialists that the intention is there. --] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Read the linked articles first. The survey is about ''genocide'', not about Palestinian politicians chanting "Death to Israel", etc. You'll need extremely strong sourcing to claim that Hamas's policy was to kill every single Israeli. Unlike in case of Israel, which has been accused of indiscriminate killings of Palestinians over years. — ] ] 00:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::{{tq\|kill every single Israeli}} - somebody just recommended {{tq\|I suggest you first read the legal definition of ]}}. Maybe you should apply definitions consistently to both sides. But actually, {{tq\|you are going on the path to extinction}} , even with context, is not very different from {{tq\|dann würde das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa}}. But all this is off-topic. The point is that both genocide accusations are important enough for the lede. So one of them has a bigger megaphone than the other? So what? --] (]) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Sorry, I don't speak German nor do I intend to learn it. However, politicians can say whatever they want (Israeli politicians have also sometimes called for the extermination of Palestinians). What matters is whether policies leading to this have been developed/enacted. We need evidence of ''intent'' beyond political speeches. As far as we know, there have been no policies enacted by Hamas that would aim at the extermination of the Jews; while there's ample evidence that the Israeli policies, over years, have been made with an intention to destroy the Palestinian nation. You will find ample sources in the two articles you linked above. — ] ] 14:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::I !voted, and you disagreed. I said that Hamas actually has genocidal intentions instead of just being accused of them, you disagreed at first, but then, when it became clear that you were wrong, moved the goalposts from intentions to actions. I could point out that "destroying a nation" is what defines anti-Zionism, but this leads nowhere, and I suggest we stop. This is moving towards ], so EOD. --] (]) 12:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option A'''. Israel has been accused of genocide in a damning 84-page filing at the UN's highest court; these types of ICJ proceedings have been instituted quite rarely since the 1948 Convention. This is an extremely notable development in the context of the larger war. In contrast, the October 7 genocide claims have been trotted out by Israel and its ally, the US, as a form of ] which should not be lent any further credence. The disparity in coverage, the disparity in legitimacy, and the ] issues of this approach should be obvious. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>] 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''it is genocide''' - I think it would be wrong to say "accusation" because that implies a lack of credibility, but I cannot think of a better word. Possibly just "credible accusation". ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Are you saying that you have sources saying that every Palestinian in the Northern part of Gaza, which is controlled by Israel, is either dead or in extermination camps? Or are you saying that the article should be based on your opinion, in violation of ]? --] (]) 12:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::I suggest you first read the legal definition of ] before posting such dumb comments. Obviously, Irtapil did not say so, it's just you using a ] argument, which amounts to manipulation in a discussion. — ] ] 00:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Be civil ] (]) 12:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Strongly against this proposal. Whether or not an accusation is credible is wholly subjective, and it is not Misplaced Pages’s place to make that judgment. And if that judgment had been uncontroversially made (lol) by secondary sources, we would have to report that the accusation has been interpreted to be credible, or something similar: ] (]) 08:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::That is what I meant with my {{tq\|Are you saying}} comment above - "it is genocide" is classic POV pushing. --] (]) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:I think ] should be used instead of "accused". So "x, y, and z stated that ..." ] (]) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option A''' Israel is being taken to the International Court of Justice over this and there is the ] documenting these accusations over time (as opposed to the half baked accusations against Hamas which have only appeared as a result of recent events). ] (]) 13:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Not half-baked at all. We have whole articles on Misplaced Pages documenting the indiscriminate slaughter and torture-murder of Israeli civilians including children, as well as the numerous statements of genocidal intent, advocacy, and celebration from Hamas. People seem to have forgotten Oct 7 already. ] (]) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C or D.''' I agree with Hob Gadling that A and B obviously against the body of the article. A and B would violate ]. ] (]) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' Notable accusations against both sides. --] <small>]]</small> 19:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''option D''' preferred as these accusations are secondary to the conflict and come from others. I would compromise on option C. Any other options (A or B) are showing serious bias. ] (]) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option D''', per Chuckstablers, Hob Gadling, and Graeme Bartlett. ] (]) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option D for now''' Too early at the current time. Option C might be worth later, but for now best to wait.] (]) 14:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
	:: But the accusations themselves, credible or not, both already have an impact on the war.
	*'''Option A'''. With South Africa garnering sufficient support from various countries to file a genocide claim at the ICJ, specifically targeting Israel's conduct during this war, there is simply no reason not to mention the genocide accusation against Israel in the article lead. I also want to address some users here for supporting the rape accusations against Hamas while avoiding the genocide claim against Israel. The latter is evidently more relevant than the former for this article, which focuses on a war spanning more than three months, not the single-day incident which sparked this war. ] (] · ]) 00:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Option C ''but'' ''' if is ''essential'' to have '''some sense of scale''' - a neutrally worded clear comparison - such as total number of deaths in the same sentence, or a prominent mention that only one case was brought to the ICJ. '''If that doesn't work, then A.''' ] (]) 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''A''' Mention that Israel is accused of genocide. ''']]''' 12:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

	* '''A''', ~~with~~ ~~attribution.~~ As in the ~~organizations~~ "X, Y, ~~and~~ Z ~~stated~~ ~~that~~ ~~Israel~~ is ~~commiting~~ a ]. ] (]) 13:51, 13 January ~~2024~~ (UTC)		* '''Support''', I always thought it would the title "Gaza War" was better, or maybe "2024 Gaza War" to distinguish from the 2014 Gaza War. ] (]) 16:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Oppose''' – This is not a war against Gaza, but rather Israel fighting Hamas. Too many RS specifically say this is "Hamas" and not Gaza, such as , and , a very pro-Hamas source, with "{{tq\|Israel-Hamas war: Hospitals facing ‘totally catastrophic’ situation}}. , a very pro-Israel source, legit has a category for the "{{tq\|2023-2025 Israel-Hamas war}}" news articles. No, this is not the "Gaza War", this is the Israel and Hamas war. Not enough RS for "Gaza war" over "Israel-Hamas war". '''The ]''' (] 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option C''' Seems to me that A and B are non-starters for Misplaced Pages, especially given the content of the article. D would be an alternative. ] (]) 12:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' Gaza War is now the common name of this war. ] (]) 18:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Same reasoning as my !vote at the ], that, as the current lead sentence states, it's {{blue\|An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups}}. "Gaza War" is too generic IMO, considering we have a ] disambiguation page. There are also ] issues with making this war the primary topic. ] (]) 19:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC) {{small\|added, ] (]) 14:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*<s>'''Procedural oppose''': Didn't we just go through this discussion two weeks ago (in the ])? —⁠ ⁠] (]) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
			*:It was closed within 3 days due to lack of prior discussion and resulted in consensus to ] to start this RM. ] (]) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::OK. I withdraw my remark. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 05:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nomination. ] (]) 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per nomination, especially consistency with previous wars. but I think the years should be included in the title to distinguish from the other Gaza Wars ] (]) 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support Gaza War (2023-present)''' This is the fifth war fought between the people of Gaza and Israel, it's not a good idea to have a non-disambiguated name. But yes, any change is better than the name that implies Israel is fighting solely against Hamas (despite the overwhelming majority of the dead being civilians, which has been true for over an year now) and the great majority of sources do not use. ] (he/him • ]) 01:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per nomination because the reasons given by {{reply to\|Vice regent\|label=VR}} are pretty strong and I have yet to see any rebuttals to them that are half as convincing. I would have preferred ] for the sake of ] but I'll settle for ] if the former receives less support. ] (]) 02:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. As a previous supporter of the current title back in the day, it's clear that the common name has shifted since 2023 to Gaza War/War in Gaza. Reasoning outlined in nomination is sound. We need a year disambiguation, but I would like to see the years eventually be in front of the name: 2023–2025 Gaza War rather than Gaza War (2023–2025) to be in line with ] and etc.] (]) 03:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Malformed''' The proposed target, ], is in use as a disambiguation page. The proposed move does not address the fate of the existing page. One might ''assume'' this might be retitled {{no redirect\|Gaza War (disambiguation)}} or {{no redirect\|Gaza war (disambiguation)}} but ] applies.
	*'''C''' or '''D''' for now. Things can change and evolve. Maybe Israel will take Hamas to the ICJ. ] (]) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
			:The proposal does not address the issue of capitalisation of ''war'' per ], ] and ] and a review of Google news shows that ''war'' is not consistently capitalised - ie it should not be capped. The nom's evidence consistently refers to ''war'' in lowercase but the move is to ''War'' (uppercase) and is inconsistent in that respect. This then raises the question of capitalisation at the disambiguation page and for other page titles with the phrase ''Gaza War'' as part of the title (eg ]). A search of Google scholar also shows that the ''Gaza war'' of 2014 is not consistently capitalised in sources. As for the other articles listed in the nom's rationalisation of ], the actual title is ]. We have other titles: ], ], ] etc. ''War'' is not consistently capped in ''X war'' when used as a title and, while it might often be done it is likely on an assumption rather than a survey of usage in sources.
			:On the assertion of ], the was for an RM for ] to ], in which the latter was a disambiguation page (now ] and there is no article except the subject article that uses the phrase ''Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip'' - ie there is no actual article for which disambiguation is require. The resulted in the move from ] to ]. Again, there is no other article using ''Israel–Hamas war'' in its title for which there is an ''actual'' need for disambiguation. In each case, the ostensive justification for removing the ''year'' disambiguation is ]. While PRIMARYTOPIC was mentioned in these discussions, it was largely done in a way that shows a {{tq\|understanding of the matter of issue}} (per ]). This case is not comparable because there is an ''actual'' need to disambiguate from other titles using the same base name but with disambiguation by year - eg ]. ] becomes a significant issue/question in respect to these other titles of the same form. In referring to these other discussions as establishing PRIMARYTOPIC they are not comparing ''apples with apples'' and a conclusion it does is ''non sequitur''.
			:{{U\|Vice regent}}, the devil is in the detail. ] (]) 04:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::RMCD Bot has notified the affected page of this move request from the start, see ]. ] (]) 06:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Strong support''' So overdue. Look at the ultimate results of the last proper consensus towards the end in which almost everyone wanted the page title to be moved, in addition to most verifiable sources using that name. The current title is no longer the common name. ] (]) 06:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			* '''Support''', per nomination. Furthermore, Hamas isn't the only militant group fighting Israel, there's also ], therefore the name change is appropriate. ] (]) 09:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Blue areas in map do not represent Israeli-controlled areas ==

			* '''Oppose''', as the opening paragraph says "It is the fifth war of the Gaza–Israel conflict since 2008" (and unfortunately there will likely be many more in the decades to come), thus it doesn't make sense to call this particular[REDACTED] page The Gaza War. Plus moving this page will also necessarily force the removal of the disambiguation page that is currently at ] to instead go elsewhere, which is not right because the most natural place for it is at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Greetings, fellow editors. I'm hoping to open a discussion on whether or not the legend in the map is actually supported by RS. For those who are unaware, the only source for the blue and red areas denoting "control" within the Gaza Strip has been the daily-updated map of ] since the first days of the Israeli invasion.
			*:Closer should be aware that some opposes merely oppose the title without years and silent on the title with years. ] (]) 22:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''': The current title isn't perfect, but it is better than this proposed change.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 14:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Elaborate please as this sounds like an ] argument <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::As other people have said, the current title is more specific. "Gaza War" is rather vague. The main combatants in this war are Israel and Hamas, not the people of Gaza who undoubtedly suffered.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support:''' Since the outset, the absence of an identifier for the main geography of this conflict has been conspicuous in the title, and standard usage in RS has gradually shifted to address this, as demonstrated in the evidence presented in the RFCBEFORE discussion. This is in addition to the obvious precision issues with the current title, which actively elides over the fact that various other Palestinian groups have been involved. I am fairly neutral on the use of the date to disambiguate, since there have been other Gaza wars, but this one already looks to have eclipsed the others. So this page move could either immediately occupy the base term, displacing the disambiguation term, or it could use the date for now and leave the matter of the primary topic to a subsequent discussion. ] (]) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong oppose'''. The sources using the term "Gaza War" ''for the most part'' are using it as "the war in Gaza". Not as if "Gaza War" is the actual name of the war. As others have stated, there have been ''multiple'' wars in Gaza, and so the current title meets the most ] without requiring disambiguation, which would be required for "Gaza War". I personally suspect that sources a decade from now will likely refer to this as "Hamas War" or similar, because it distinguishes it from prior Gaza wars while making clear who the war was against. But that all said, the current sources do not support "Gaza War" being '''so much of a COMMONNAME to merit moving'''. I have issues with how the methodology is being done for the numbers in the BEFORE - for example, no context is considered. Saying "the Gaza War" is a lot different from saying "the Gaza War (meaning the war in Gaza, not naming it the Gaza War)". The distinction '''cannot''' be made through searching for the term - context is important. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 21:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:] says, regarding {{tq\|common name}} that "{{tq\|Slight variations on the name, such as changes in word order, count as the same common name. For example, World War II is often called the Second World War; they are close enough to be considered variations of the same common name.}}" Even if we exclude "war in gaza", it should be easy to see in both tables that "Gaza war" is more common than "Israel-Hamas war".''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 00:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::War in Gaza and "Gaza War" are not "slight variations". They are not merely a "change in word order", they are a completely different meaning. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' it’s been long enough, and the term “Gaza” is being increasingly used in news headlines than “Israel-hamas” ] (]) 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	The problem lies in the legend on ISW's own map. Rather than "Gaza Strip under Israeli control," its blue areas represent "Reported Israeli Clearing Operations," a term which is explained by this footnote:
			*'''Strong oppose''':'''"Israel-Hamas War (2023-present)"''' is most appropriate. Wider participation is important in these discussions; closing them rapidly discourages that. Speaking of which, inviting wider participation in a revisit of ] is warranted. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			* '''Oppose''' All of the wars between Israel and the Palestinians in the last 2 years have been in Gaza. News sources are calling it the Gaza War because thats where its located and its a reasonable moniker for real time updates, not because its an encyclopedic name. News sources are also calling the war in Ukraine that, rather than the Russo-Ukrainian War, which is more apt and accurate. This article is about a war between Israel and Hamas, which started when Hamas invaded Israel in 2023. It did not start as a land war over Gaza, or anything else that "Gaza war" would suggest. The current name should remain. ] (]) 12:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{small\|ISW-CTP's "Reported Israeli Clearing Operations" layer uses the US military's doctrinal definition of clearing which is an operation that "requires the commander to remove all enemy forces and eliminate organized resistance within an assigned area." Clearing operations frequently take weeks and sometimes months to complete}}.
			*:{{tq\|"News sources are calling it the Gaza War because thats where its located and its a reasonable moniker"}} – two good reasons to move and quite literally why it is encyclopedic. ] (]) 14:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'm guessing you'd support changing the page about World War Two to be called "The War" since that's what it was called by newspapers at the time? The fact that news sources have a shorthand for a current event does not make it a proper name for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::No, because unlike in the central tenants of your point about, that doesn't contain the location and isn't a reasonable monikor. You've already provided your own answer. ] (]) 14:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:No, it is not {{tq\|1=a war between Israel and Hamas}}; Take a quick look at the infobox to know who else is fighting <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 14:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Oppose''' While the war occured in Gaza, that by itself does not describe what occured. It appears from news reports from day one that this conflict was between Isreal and Hamas. As previously mentioned by others, there have been other Gaza Wars and the current title conforms with ]. Finally, this war is significant and far different than previous wars or conflicts in Gaza given its length, the amount of death and destruction that has occured on both sides. For these reasons I would strongly oppose changing the title. ] (]) 19:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''' – When I search news for "Gaza War", I find it referred to mostly other ways, and where it uses this phrase, war is not capped. Best to leave it until things settle down. ] (]) 21:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			* '''Support''' Most sources say Gaza War and for those that may argue the title is too vague we can disambiguate it by putting the year in the parentheses. ] (]) 23:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	My argument is that clearing operations, as defined above, do not equate control, a term which is not used in the source to begin with.
			* '''Support''' per arguments above. Prefer "Gaza war (2023-2025)", without capitalizing "war", based on arguments above, but other variations of the name are also fine. Given that there is currently a ceasefire I think we can't assume the war will necessarily restart, and if it does and lasts into another year the title can be adjusted. Can be renamed to "present" if/when there is fighting, if the year becomes outdated. If it had already said "present" we wouldn't necessarily have to rename it as soon as a ceasefire starts, but it seems wrong to me to name it "present" during a ceasefire, as if Misplaced Pages is implying the war will necessarily restart; however even if the new name has "present" I'd rather rename it than not. The name proposal and some of the comments above were posted before the ceasefire started on January 19. (ed.: To me, the phrase "Gaza war" seems to mean a war in Gaza or a war about some or all of the territory of Gaza, not necessarily a statement about who is fighting.) <span style="color:Blue; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Most sources use the term Gaza War.] (]) 07:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Support''' Gaza war is used more. I prefer ]. ''']''' (]) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' ], since that is what most sources seem to use. See ] for precedent. But between "Israel-Hamas War" and "Gaza war" (with or without capitalization), I would support the latter. Gaza is the most common way to identify this war, so any variation of that would be preferable. ]<sup>]]</sup> 17:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Oppose'''. ] is not the only thing we use when moving pages. There are also considerations like ]. We cannot use an obscure title like "Gaza War" when that can refer to many other things as well. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:What about ], which is pretty unambiguous? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Oppose'''. We have already discussed this multiple times before. Even in 2022. I don't know what is the difference between this debate and the one two years before -- ] (]) 02:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Could you link to the 2022 discussion on ]? ] (]) 10:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::6/9/2022 was a real tragedy 😔 <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 11:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

	] (]) 08:12, 12 January ~~2024~~ (UTC)		* '''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Partially support''' per ] as mentioned by nom. Other names like Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel-Gaza conflict, Gaza war, or similar variations are commonly used in RS and could also be used. However, at present the title is just not commonly used. Whilst the current title is distinct it just isn't used outside of Misplaced Pages. Some editors have made an argument that titles with the word Gaza are a misnomer, but variations of the conflict including Gaza are used more commonly in English language sources than Hamas. That argument also seems to be borderline arguing semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@]
	:Good point. Israeli control doesn't make sense for blue given that blue extended way into Southern Israel during the initial attacks and doesn't now.
	:But does anyone else have a map? Or do you just mean we need to clarify the key? (I'd figured it's an over simplified "one side says" and not pair much attention to it.) ] (]) 09:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@]
	::All I'm looking for right now are alternative labels to "Gaza Strip under Israeli control," but the question of whether or not we continue using the ISW map as the only source is something that should also be open to discussion. Editors have raised valid concerns here and on the file's talk page at Commons about how ISW's map doesn't seem to account for reported IDF withdrawals from places like ] and areas deep in the heart of Gaza City.
	::] (]) 09:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@] We should probably remove the map pending more accurate labels. ] (]) 08:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] Maybe this calls for an RfC to get input from more editors. ] (]) 09:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' There are two good reasons to make the name change. For one, RS tend to prefer using the name Israel-Gaza War and variations thereof. If Misplaced Pages must go along with what RS’ say then this seems to be the way to do it as it has a majority. Secondly, the war was not just between Israel and Hamas. Many other organisations part of the Palestinian-Joint Operations Room (the PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, PRC, etc…) took part in October 7th and fighting in and around Gaza. As a result, I believe it makes sense to make to make the change ] (]) 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Add United States and United Kingdom with Israel. ==
			*:The sourcing methodology used by VR is flawed, because it doesn't use the official search functionality of many websites. This causes an issue, because Google search totals aren't accurate per ].
			:The Wall Street Journal's (listed as using "Gaza war") official search shows 223 mentions of "The Israel-Hamas war" versus 204 for "The Gaza war"., putting it in the "Both" category instead of "Gaza War"
			:Likewise, VR's Google methodology says Al-Jazeera has used "the Israel-Hamas war" 0 times, but using their official search results shows "Israel-Hamas war" being used 100 times. It doesn't provide detailed breakdowns on usage, but this invalidates Google here.
			: Reuters, listed as heavily favouring Gaza war in VR's table, according to their official search used "Gaza war" 8030 times versus 8958 times for "Israel-Hamas war". This would put it in "both" category
			: CBC, listed as heavily favouring the term "Gaza war", only used it 289 times versus 1865 for "Israel-Hamas war".
			*:On another note, ] is not a reliable source based on previous RSN discussions. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Responded .''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::To add onto the COMMONNAME argument, here are showing that "Israel war" is by far the most popular search term over "Gaza war" or "Israel Hamas war". <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Your above link shows "Gaza war" is more popular than "Israel-Hamas war". "Israel war" lumps up the results from this war, and ] or ] and ] and ] and ] etc.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Specifically, I'm not convinced "Gaza war" is the unambiguous ] for the war that began in October 2023. It is undoubtedly the most significant of the Gaza wars, but I don't think "Gaza war" alone can unambiguously refer to the most recent conflict. That leads "Gaza war (2023–present)," which fails ] to "Israel–Hamas war." Because of this, and the fact that both names are very prevalent in reliable sources and can both be argued to be the ] — though I do concede that "Gaza war" is more common than "Israel–Hamas war," even if I disagree that "war in Gaza" is equivalent for the purposes of COMMONNAME arguments — I think the current title's slight COMMONNAME deficit does not overpower its advantages in CONCISEness and ]. ] (]) 01:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:"Israel-Hamas war" = 15 chars, "Gaza war (2023–present)" = 21 chars, and eventually we'll have "Gaza war (2023–2025)" = 18 chars. 15 vs 18 characters is not a big difference. There are also NPOV concerns with "Israel-Hamas war" mentioned above.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Per nomination. - ] (]) 05:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Discussion===
	Recently the US and UK launched a military operation against the Houthis. What more would it need? They are clearly a part of this war now. ] (]) 12:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
			*Important to note that this move request, as have previous ones, is being subject to ] . ] (]) 08:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{u\|Vice_regent}}, probably you'd want to add "Gaza-Israel war" (3 Google scholar hits) and "Hamas-Israel war" (36 hits) to the totals in your table. Also, note that the last pages of Google Scholar results shows mostly newspapers and think tanks. For example, page 36 of allintitle:("gaza war" OR "war in gaza") has the Guardian, Haaretz, Foreign Affairs, etc. Hopefully it affects both options similarly. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Good call, I'll likely do that for google scholar first and its easy to do. If I get time, I'll do it for the news searches too, but its more work.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Re {{u\|Chess}}'s above. For the news source prose search I specifically limited to the last 1 month in google search options. It is true that Al-Jazeera used "the Israel-Hamas war" back in 2023, but now it seems to almost never use it; that shift is significant. Likewise, even if we use WSJ's own search engine, we get for "the Gaza war" (and variants) vs for "the Israel-Hamas war" (and variants). So the result that WSJ favors Gaza war would remain the same. Regarding Reuters' search, I'm not finding it to be accurate (many of the results it gives for "the Israel-Hamas war" don't have that term in the prose). Regarding CBC, there is no option for either OR operator or to limit the search results to last month, but we can sort by date. So for Dec 2024 and Jan 2025, the Gaza war total is 18 ( + ) vs Israel-Hamas war total 12 ( + ). The problem here is that CBC search is an undercount as doing a google search shows more hits over the same time period (verified by clicking the link and doing ctrl+f). So while google search has its issues, I think its better than the search engine of most websites.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{re\|Vice regent}} I would say that's a significant limitation, because the war took place in Israel during the first part and is currently taking place in Gaza now. I'd like to see something more long-term than "here's some recent news articles from the past month". <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] given that many RS have shifted away from "Israel-Hamas war" term, the best way of measuring that is by limiting results to the past month (or 2). Also, google search itself says it might get unreliable when results are >400, not to mention, it becomes near impossible to manually verify when results get that large; hence quoting results in the thousands becomes less meaningful. Also, even the Oct 7 attacks mostly took place inside what is known in Israel as the "]" so the "Gaza" terminology seems much more accurate than "Israel-Hamas".''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{re\|Vice regent}} What you're proposing is, essentially, ]. I would weight far less on primary sources (of which contemporaneous news articles are) and far more on secondary sources. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::That isn't the meaning of that guideline. The conflict as a whole is not breaking news at this stage. It is an understood thing with common terms. His methodology is simply accurately depicting where the language has shifted to long-term. Current news language usage reflects where the common terms for the conflict have shifted. ] (]) 04:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::It is not ] but ], which provides "extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change." ] (]) 12:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{re\|Chess}} A good example here is the article on the ]. Its original title, ], was based on the initial sources on the event. Over the next couple of months, sources shifted to use "offensive" rather than "incursion" as the conflict changed in scope. This article is similar. During and directly after October 7, sources (even very pro-Palestinian sources like ]) predominantly used ]. However, as the conflict changed from symmetric warfare in Israel to the fighting in Gaza, sources switched to using ] over time. With that in mind, we should be looking at recent sources because it helps determine what exactly is more used ''at this moment''. In the Kursk case, a move might have failed because the initial body of sources referred to it as an incursion rather than an offensive. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 12:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment.''' In response to the argument that this is a war between Israel and Hamas, I think if one looks deeper, it is not so simple. We've got two different categories being put on the same level: a country on one side, and a group on the other. Fair enough. However, why not call it the "IDF-Hamas war" or "Likud-Hamas war" for increased precision? (Of course, I'm not suggesting that.) There seems to be a mismatch where, on one side, the government and army are being abstracted as ''Israel'', but on the other side, the territory's government and military wing, ''Hamas'', is being used instead of ''Gaza'' or ''Palestine''. This is illogical and inconsistent. There is probably a term for this fallacy but I can't remember it. What's more, Hamas was not the only group fighting. ] (]) 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Should the United States be added as a belligerent to the infobox? ==
	:Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/1/12/us-and-uk-launch-strikes-against-houthi-rebels-in-yemen ] (]) 13:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Yes they should be included, this is direct military involvement supported by the sources. ] (]) 13:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Include''', as well as Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands. I was against including the US until yesterday. Now the situation has changed. — ] ] 15:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@] @]
	::UK and USA yeah, but the whole list s
	:: seems excessive, there's about 20, most aren't even sending a ship, some aren't even sending men. Threshold for main page should be at least a ship? Iran isn't even on it.
	::<small>(But maybe I'm biased, I'm Aussie and I want those 11 blokes to come home and stay out of it. Shame us in a tiny footnote at least?)</small>
	::] (]) 08:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::IMO, only those countries should appear whose military is actively taking part in the ongoing hostilities. — ] ] 09:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' Much longer discussions than this opposed any third party inclusion. This change cannot be made so early into a new discussion. It is also false to say that U.S. and U.K. are belligerents alongside Israel since they conducted an operation to secure ] in the Red Sea. Seems like synthesis to me. ] (]) 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::When you revert next time, please make sure you revert what you are objecting to (the addition of the US and UK), and not indiscriminate reversions of everything.
	::The infobox clearly separates the US and UK from Israel by saying in Yemen, which Israel hasn't engaged with so far. There is no synthesis. ] (]) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::It's not easy for an editor to check which of your subsequent edits are regarding the dispute when you make 18 changes in an hour. Maybe save the page less often instead of accusing me of indiscriminate reversions. ] (]) 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::The U(K/S) were disrupting a blockade that was explicitly aimed at Israel, and explicitly in support of Palestine. Also, near the start of the war the Houthis boarded the ] flying flags of {{flag\|Yemen}} and {{flag\|Palestine}} (a vast improvement on their usual banner). In that hijacking and the current attacks they are not asking for cash like most Red Sea pirates and hijackers, their demand is that Israel stop attacking Gaza and stop blockading Gaza. ] (]) 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@] @]
	::Third column for indirect support? In Yemen is a place not an alliance. Hezbolah are clearly on the same side as Hamas et al. despite location.
	::The Houthis are explicitly doing it for Palestine.
	::The effect of the USA thwarting them is to let Israel keep doing what they're doing, but the motive is speculation. Their priorities are broken (protecting economy vs protecting humans in Gaza), but i kind of agree direct support for Israel is ambiguous.
	::I don't want to set a precedent for "enemy of my enemy" grouping, incase real non-imaginary ISIS show up. (They are everybody's enemy, so … everybody's ally? That will obviously go wrong?)
	::So, third column for indirect involvement? I think there's a way to add horizontal lines within columns too?
	::] (]) 09:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::This whole argument seems like ] to me. ] has clearly stated that it's goal is to keep maritime traffic open in the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. It has nothing to with those countries militarily supporting Israel in its conflict against Hamas, or the ]. ] (]) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:the question is becoming trickier. Are the UK and the US neutral? If we take "A term used to designate either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, '''as well as their allies actively cooperating'''; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a “neutral." it is a bit up in the air what "actively cooperating" means, I have to say that I am coming round to the view that the US is doing that.] (]) 17:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::If this literal definition was to be used, then the US has been a belligerent from the moment it brought its warships to the region which was right after the hostilities began. — ] ] 19:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Hmm, that seems passive rather than active. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Blinken sits in at the Israeli war meetings. ] (]) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Here's in late October "Biden has made the U.S. an active “co-belligerent” of the Israeli government’s vocal demolition of the 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza".] (]) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::...and we should care about his opinion being anything but his personal opinion because? --] (]) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@]
	::I agree we should stick to explicit active collaboration.
	::I think the USA motive is clear, they constantly do farsical games "for freedom of navigation" that are clearly aimed to show antagonism to a rival or support an ally. Usually it's aimed at antagonising China.
	::
	:: '''
	::''BUT''', that's still speculation, like I was saying above, I don't want to start a trend of implied support by "enemy of my enemy".
	::Or when things go comletely to hell we'll end up with an ISIS + Al Qaeda + Palestinian nationalists + who knows side all "on the same side" because they're all attacking Israel.
	::so at least add another column, or at least a line to show clear separation.
	::] (]) 09:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Include''' The United States and the United Kingdom are clearly belligerents in the Red Sea Theater of the war. They have engaged in open hosilities with the Houthis. The Houthis have stated the objective of their campaign is to disrupt israeli trade, and that their attacks are directly in support of Hamas as part of the war. Israel has already taken part in combat operations by shooting down Houthi drones and missiles and has deployed a Saar 6 class corvette to oppose the Houthis in the Red Sea.] (]) 18:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I agree there is a larger regional effect here, and it should be added to ] however I would strongly oppose adding it to the Infobox at risk if being ] and cluttering it further. I already see it's a sea (no pun intended) of belligerents when Israel, Hamas and maybe PIJ are the most relevant.
	::Economically and indirectly militarily course Iran, US, UK are vital.. ~ 🦝 ] (he/him • ]) 19:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@]
	::The Houthis are team Hamas, but the USA are only directly team Israel by supplying bombs to them and lurking in their doom sub. Israel vs Houthis vs USA is three sides. ] (]) 09:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	To avoid confusion, I think it's better that this discussion is moved to the infobox template talk page. ] (]) 19:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' for the reasons stated above. The US and UK and specifically acting to protect shipping, not to deal witht the Hamas-Israel issues. ] (]) 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' They are definitely involved, but beligerents in these type article means actually fighting in the action. For instance in ] we don't have the \|US and the UK or China and North Korea or Iran. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	::The US and the UK are "actually fighting", the US fought a battle against ] and then today have directly bombed Houthi forces twice. If shooting and bombing people isn't "actual fighting", then what is? The US, North Koreans, etc. have not directly attacked anyone in Ukraine, that is the major difference.] (]) 02:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::The Houthi aren't beligerents in this either any more than Egypt is when it stops arms reaching Hamas. ] (]) 09:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Egypt hasn't engaged in any actual combat, the Houthis have, that is the difference there.] (]) 16:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Against ships. One can eiher take the view the ships have nothing to do with the war, or else that they are doing a blockade stopping the means of war. Something I'm sure the UN would approve of if some great power wasn't involved and something Egypt actually does to Hamas. Either way they're not belligerents in the war. ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' for the reasons stated above. The US and UK and specifically acting to protect shipping, not to deal with the Hamas-Israel issues. ] (]) 09:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' US and UK are not involved in the fighting between Israel and Hamas. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Why, are the ships attacked by Houthis part of the fighting between Israel and Hamas? This argument makes no sense. {{ping\|Ecrusized}} ] (]) 11:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::They are not. Houthi missile and drone launches against Israel are. ] (]) 12:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::{{ping\|Ecrusized}} That's not true, the article clearly includes them as part of the war, as seen by this summarization in the body: "Iranian-backed militias attacked American bases in Iraq and Syria, while the United States and United Kingdom engaged in conflict with the Houthi movement in Yemen over its attacks on ships in the Red Sea it claimed were linked to Israel." If Iranian-backed militias attacked American bases and international ships in Red Sea as part of the war, then certainly the "response" is also part of that very same war, or at least connected enough to it to be included together. ] (]) 13:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::I don’t know why you are telling me this. I am not responsible for what someone else might have added to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Not sure why Iran is relevant. Those supplying weapons are not counted as belligerents. If those Iran backed militants have attacked American bases how does that make any of them belligerents in this war? ] (]) 21:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::By the way I'm not saying the US and UK are not dinvolved in the war. They definitely are. Biden in particular has given Israel carte blanche to use the aordinance it has supplied in any way it wants. I'm just saying I don't think they have become active belligerents yet so they can't be put in the infobox. At most they are proxy belligerents like Iran. ] (]) 10:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

			The infobox shows there are a 100 US troops deployed in combat in Israel. The two cited sources for the 100 number have this to say:
	*'''Oppose''' ] actions are routine and the connection to the Israel-Gaza War is tenuous. ] ] 23:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

			{{tq\|"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed <u>in combat</u> in Israel during the current crisis."}}<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/</ref>
	*'''Oppose''' not seeing any mainstream news talking about the American War or the British war in the Levant. ] (]) 07:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

			{{tq\|"The United States is sending an advanced missile defense system to Israel, along with about 100 American troops to operate it, the Pentagon announced on Sunday."}}<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html</ref>
	*'''Oppose''' seems obvious that US and UK action to protect international trade in the Red Sea has nothing to do with support for Israel and everything to do with simply protecting international trade in the Red Sea. ] (]) 03:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

			I was going to add the US as a belligerent to the infobox as a bold edit, but since this is a very contentious topic I figured I'd ask here first for thoughts/input from other editors. ] (]) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:NO! Then we'll end up with forked discussions. ] (]) 09:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

			:Oppose since the troops -if I’m not mistaken- were sent to operate interceptors targeting Iranian missiles, which are a different conflict from the one here relating to Gaza. ] (]) 21:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Requested move 12 January 2024 ==
			::If you look at the infobox, it lists 100 US troops on the side of Israel. I just think it's weird to have US troops on the side of Israel in the conflict's infobox but not have them as belligerents. ] (]) 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
			:::None of these US forces fight against Hamas in Gaza. Otherwise, one would need to include all US battleships in this area, etc. ] (]) 23:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
			::::If those 100 troops are part of a different conflict, should they be removed from the infobox? (Or should the area warships be added?) —⁠ ⁠] (]) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I wouldn't say they're part of a ''different conflict'', but they aren't a ''belligerent'' in the conflict. It's possible to be involved in a conflict without being a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That sounds like WP:OR, as the cited source says US troops are deployed "in combat". ] (]) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Belligerent has a very specific definition. Combat troops ''only operating in a supportive role'' are not belligerents. As another example, if the US sent medics to the border of Ukraine (or even into Ukraine) to help bolster their healthcare system (ex: due to losses of doctors who were conscripted into combat), that does not make the US a belligerent in that war. Similarly here, the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems. They are not making the ultimate decisions on how they are used. They are acting in a supporting role, not a belligerent role. I will end by saying thank you to TurboSuperA+ for recognizing this will be contentious and bringing it here rather than just making the edit - we all do better when we communicate rather than just making changes that we know will be contested :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems."
			::The WP:RS is quite clear that US troops are there to ''operate'' the missile defense system.
			::{{tq\|"about 100 American troops to operate it"}} and {{tq\|"The move will put American troops operating the ground-based interceptor,"}}
			::{{tq\|"Components for a terminal high-altitude area defence (Thaad) missile system, alongside a crew to operate it,"}} and {{tq\|"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system"}}
			::Therefore the troops aren't sent there to train and maintain, but to actively "operate" the system. ] (]) 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Operating a missile defense system is not a belligerent. Helping an ally defend themselves from missiles while not actually engaging the enemy yourselves is the opposite of a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] "Combatants are persons who are authorized to use force in situations of armed conflict" It would appear the US soldiers are authorized to use force. The only thing is that the 'enemy' they are authorized to use force against is most likely Iran or Hezbollah, not the Palestinians. This is why I suggest not conflating the ] with the war here.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*My very best wishes is correct that none of these US troops are fighting in the Gaza theatre. Which is why the United States could be added to "Allies in other theatres". But I think the better option here would be for this infobox to only focus on the Gaza war, and we should not have "other theatres" for either side.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Support addition to "Allies in other theatres" similar to Iran. ] (]) 10:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'd also support this. ] (]) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}

			== Trim Review ==
	The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' to ]. There's a clear consensus that moving is needed to fix the year in the title. I see a consensus in favor of ] over ]. ] (]) 02:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 02:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
	----
	{{requested move/dated\|Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)}}

			@] performed a trim, from 14500 words (480K bytes) in 18 January 23:00 to 11000 words (350K bytes) in 19 January 04:00. I took a cursory look at all their edits for an hour, I think it is reasonably carefully done.
	] → {{no redirect\|Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)}} – The war has now extended into 2024 for two weeks, so the current article title using only "2023" is contrary to standard naming practice on Misplaced Pages: we would only use "2023" as the year disambiguation if the war had ended in 2023. The standard policy for disambiguation of multi-year wars is to include the years in parentheses after the war name. Compare with ], ], etc. For context, there was a ] which ended up very complicated thanks to discussing three separate issues at once (whether to change "Israel–Hamas war" to something else, what to change the year disamguator to, and whether year disambiguation is needed at all). It was closed with the result being to retain the "Israel–Hamas war" form of the title but with no consensus as to the other topics, and there is an ] about the title following on from that RM. This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible: a clearly incorrect title shouldn't be left in effect long-term on a heavily viewed page. It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 20:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

			I picked one of their edit that removed 4.5K bytes, which I see as representative of how the trim was carried out. Please explain your approval or disapproval with that edit.
	=== Survey (move) ===

			Edit summary: {{tq\|merge paragraph to enforce ] size guidelines; again, this top-level article, per ], is not the place to detail minutiae of individual attacks unless notable themselves}}.
	* '''Support''' A logical and reasonable proposal. Second choice: ]. ] (]) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)<small> added second choice] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Support''' For the reasons stated above. I would also support simply naming the article as "Israel-Hamas war" with no year as a description as a second choice. ] (]) 02:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::@]
	*::When I search for sources using "Israel-Hamas war" I get things like the pro Israel lobby group ], and only a bizarre little assortment of any other resources. ] (]) 04:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Israel–Hamas war''' (Without disambiguation): Only name. The article Siege of Mariupol is not called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of the Battle of Mariupol (1919). Per ], disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per ], concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. not only is there still no other article titled ''Israel–Hamas war'', but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the ] (Such as ], ] and ]). Also ''{{No redirect\|Israel–Hamas war}}'' redirects to this article. ] (]) 20:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:but there have been previous wars between Israel and Hamas. ] (]) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::It is true, but ], ], and the ], but it did not disambiguate the three articles I gave as an example. ] (]) 21:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:@] but that is an Israeli propaganda slogan that is not used in most unbiased sources. (Though al Jazeera, who tend to have a pro Palestine stance, seem to be doing some targeted ] aimed at it, because when I search using "Israel-Hamas war" I get 60% Al Jazeera. ) ] (]) 04:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::@] The discussion is about disambiguation, not the generic name. ] (]) 09:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support ] proposal''' Israel–Hamas war without disambiguation per the above comment, about the invasion of Poland, Russian invasion of Ukraine and Soviet-Afghan war. ] (]) 21:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support Israel–Hamas war''' without disambiguation per ], and particularly because of Parham's comment that {{tq\|Poland has been invaded several times, Russia has invaded Ukraine several times, and the Soviet Union has had other military conflicts in Afghanistan}}, yet those respective articles do not have a year in front of their article's title. ] (]) 21:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - I am becoming more sympathetic to the argument for excluding the year entirely, but in any event we have to deal with the current title becoming factually incorrect. ] (]) 22:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Agreed. I don’t think including the year is necessary, but at a minimum it should not just be titled 2023. ] (]) 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - The "Israel-Hamas" designation is grossly inappropriate and we should not move the page without fixing that. People looking for sources to write the content are searching using "Israel-Hamas war" and finding a very biased subset of the resources available. e.g. see above re relevance of apartheid. ] (]) 04:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. I prefer without the disambiguation, per ] and ], but I would also support the proposed as more accurate than the current title. ] (]) 04:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' I continue to believe that Israel-Hamas is an unacceptable name for the war and the discussion close was premature. However, I'm fine with deciding the date issue for now, and I also believe that either way there should be the date included. ] (he/him • ]) 05:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:I will say that this should not be taken as an endorsement of using the name Israel-Hamas, I do not believe the article should be titled that and believe Israel-Gaza is the only way to avoid a NPOV violation. However, when it comes to the date issue I'm fine with the change on principle. ] (he/him • ]) 22:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', as it's factually no longer 2023, and the war is still going on. ] (]) 07:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Oppose:''' I would prefer ] with a separate article titled ].</s> ] (]) 09:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::The discussion is about disambiguation, not the generic name. ] (]) 10:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::No, the discussion is about whether to rename the article to ] or to something else. There are no reasons to avoid discussing the larger issues with the article name in this thread. ] (]) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': move to '''Israel–Hamas war''' (without disambiguation) per ], ] and ]. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 10:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support this title without disambiguation''', there is only one war with this title, unlike for example, ], noting that the current title is subject of ongoing discussion and without prejudice to any other RM discussing that. ] (]) 10:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support without disambiguation''' Yes there are the 2008-2009 and 2014 Israel-Hamas wars, but this is much better known than either one using this name; the others are Israel-''Gaza'' wars. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 12:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support without disambiguation''' – It is concise and identifiable enough without the disambiguation. ] (]) 14:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Support without disambiguation''' - Being concise is important and upon further research I don't see a need for a date. ~] (], ], ]) 20:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' with disambiguation, oppose without it. The change is reasonable to reflect that it is now 2024, but I do think that in ] that we want something to disambiguate from the 2014 conflict and that it will be better to keep this consistent with similar articles. — ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:#What is the guarantee that this article (of course, if it is not changed to Gaza war or something like this) will not be the main topic in the long run? The article Russo-Ukrainian War may not be the main topic in the next decades, but there is no need to disambiguate it at this time.
	*:#The titles of the articles ] and ] were not disambiguated because of the words "The" and "Theory". The title of this article is also different from other articles (], ] and etc).
	*:#{{!xt\|it will be better to keep this consistent with similar articles.}} See ]
	*:] (]) 23:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' any form of "Israel–Hamas", '''support "Gaza War"''' (or "War in Gaza") with year. As attested by multiple reliable sources, Israel has attacked all of Gaza Strip, including civilian structures; their constant mention of Hamas is only war propaganda, whereas Misplaced Pages article titles must be neutral much more than popular. — ] ] 22:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''': re: "their constant mention of Hamas is only war propaganda" is absurd.
	: Hamas governs the area
	: Hamas built the terrorist infrastructure being used in the war
	: Hamas built their terrorist infrastructure for the war in civilian areas to use Palestinians as human shields
	: Hamas planned the mass murder and sexual violence against Israeli civilians on Oct 7
	: Hamas initiated and is directing the terrorism and war they planned
	*:Hamas is central to this conflict. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 23:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Why writing all this nonsense? Just accept that international wars are '''against states''', not against governments, ruling parties, militaries, offices, or other non-state entities. When you attack a ], you attack a state. Claiming that you only attack its ruling party is bollocks. Propaganda for idiots who have no faintest idea about the basics of international law. — ] ] 19:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Two things: avoid overly harsh language as this is a CTOP; and what basis does your argument have in policy, i.e. ]? Are RS calling it "Israel-Hamas war" or "Gaza war"? Remember ]. ] (]) 02:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::By your reasoning, unless you consider Gaza as a sovereign state, shouldn't you be insisting on calling it a war against ''Palestine''? ] (]) 19:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:The discussion is about disambiguation, not the generic name. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support move to ]''' without disambiguation, per ]. Links at the top of the page are sufficient. There is no other ] either. ] (]) 01:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support with disambiguation''' I think retaining the disambiguation is helpful because it adds clarity to the timeline vs other wars between them.] (]) 01:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' At this point, my perception is that the title still reflects the common name. ] (]) 09:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:The COMMONNAME is actually just "Israel–Hamas war", without the year. ] (]) 06:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Per nom. ] (]) 12:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' with disambiguation.
	*# Example (2023–present)
	*# xample (2023-2024)
	*# 2023_Example
	:Are my preferred order of preferences... ~ 🦝 ] (he/him • ]) 21:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move to ]''' per what I have been saying for months (since the conflict started). Glad to see more users are finally thinking the same thing. "Israel–Hamas war" is the widely agreed-upon term used by the vast majority of publications and style guides, including: , '''', '''', '''', , , '''', '''', , '''', , , '''', '''', '''', , , , , '''', , '''', '''', , etc. For the record, there were also a few outliers: the , '''', and '''' use "Israel–Gaza war"; '''' calls it "War in Israel"; , '''', and are deliberately ambiguous. But it is clear that the overwhelming majority of sources have settled on "Israel–Hamas war". Secondly, ] is not ambiguous; it already redirects here. Similar to ], there is no other article whose title contains the phrase "Israel–Hamas war", so ] and ] apply. Preceding the term with "2023" was already an unnecessary disambiguation, but it could have been passed off as part of the name. However, placing "2023–present" in parentheses would indicate that there is a need for disambiguation, when there is in fact no ambiguity. It is irrelevant that there may have been other Israel–Hamas wars as long as no other article is titled "Israel–Hamas war" {{em\|and}} is demonstrably as notable as this ]. ] (]) 05:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support without disambiguation''' - I think disambiguation is unneccessary, as media covers with the name without it. ] (]) 20:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' no brainer. The war is ongoing and it's no longer 2023. ] (]) 02:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' with disambiguation. Some of the contributors here seem to have incredibly short memories, but this isn't the first conflict in Gaza or even the first state of armed conflict to ever exist between Hamas and Israel. --] ] 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:But none of them were called "Israel–Hamas war". There is no ], so how can this title be described as "ambigious"? ] (]) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Israel–Hamas war''' (Without disambiguation), per what Parham wiki said. – ]] 10:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:<del>In addition, I think it would be more accurate to call it the Israel-Hamas war since the war was officially declared by Israel against Hamas, not Gaza. Gaza is the name of a region and not a country.</del> – ]] 10:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Nevermind this previous statement I have now discovered that <nowiki>]</nowiki> is called a<ins>s</ins> such. But I still support Parham's position. – ]] 10:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Seems to me that there's been enough conflicts in the Gaza area that some form of disambiguation is required. See e.g. ]. ] (]) 13:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:But the key point is, none of them are titled "Israel–Hamas war". That title actually already {{-r\|Israel–Hamas war\|redirects here}}, and there is no ]. If there is no other article that shares this title, then it is by definition not "ambiguous", and no disambiguation is needed. "2023 Israel–Hamas war", and "Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)" should be tagged with {{tl\|R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. This is very similar to ], which dropped the year for the same reasons I have outlined. ] (]) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' if disambiguation is required then I much prefer (2023-2024). I am more sympathetic to other users' arguments for no disambiguation and support simply '''Israel-Hamas War'''. ] (]) 16:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	**Disambiguation is not needed, because there is no other article with the base title "Israel—Hamas war". ] (]) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Move to ].''' It seems pretty obvious that Hamas isn't the only Palestinian force involved in the conflict, as other parties in Gaza are also involved. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:This discussion is only about disambiguation of the current base title, there will likely be another discussion about the base title in due course (see section ] below). ] (]) 10:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' This conflict is continuing into 2024, so changing the article's title to include the current year makes sense. <span style="font-family:times new"> ]</span><sup class="nowrap">]</sup> 15:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' because to make things simple, the war is still going in 2024. ] (]) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', the war is ongoing. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' If anyone considers this bludgeoning I will promptly redact this post, but I would like to point out that ] redirects here. Thus unless the redirect is disambiguated, this page should logically be moved to that title, since there is already a consensus that this is the primary topic. ] ]  ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 12:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' '''''Israel–Hamas war''' (without disambiguation)'' --] (]) 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support ''Israel–Hamas war''''' (without disambiguation) per ], ], and Parham wiki; and per the results of some search tests; see ] below. ] (]) 22:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' ] without the year. The majority of reliable sources use this name to describe the war. It is unambiguous so there is no confusion on other articles. ] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Wouldn’t “israel-Palestine war” be better here considering not only is the war in the Gaza Strip not just against Hamas and considering the deteriorating situation in the West Bank? ] (]) 07:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) <small><small>moved here from Move header at the top, by ] (]) 07:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)</small></small>
	::No. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank neither invaded Israel nor deploys its police/army against Israel, and Israel is not attacking the PA (which is already in its pocket) but rather assisting settlers in the violence and expropriation of land which has been characteristic of that territory for some decades. ] (]) 08:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	=== Discussion (move) ===

			Before edit: {{tq\|An ] in Nuseirat refugee camp killed at least 18 people.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=13 September 2024 \|title=Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff \|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn400rm68o \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name="theguardian20240912">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=12 September 2024 \|title=Six Unrwa workers among estimated 18 killed in Israeli strike on Gaza school sheltering displaced \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/12/idf-airstrike-gaza-school-nuseirat-refugee-shelter-six-un-unrwa-workers-among-dead \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB \|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Mccready \|first1=Alastair \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Marsi \|first3=Federica \|last4=Siddiqui \|first4=Usaid \|last5=Varshalomidze \|first5=Tamila \|last6=Jamal \|first6=Urooba \|date=11 September 2024 \|title=Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18 \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/11/israels-war-on-gaza-live-deadly-attack-on-al-mawasi-prompts-global-outcry?update=3173185 \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> In September, an Israeli strike on a home in Nuseirat refugee camp killed 10 Palestinians.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Rowlands \|first1=Lyndal \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Siddiqui \|first3=Usaid \|last4=Motamedi \|first4=Maziar \|last5=Najjar \|first5=Farah \|date=16 September 2024 \|title=The Wafa news agency is reporting that several children and women were among the 10 Palestinians killed in the Israel's attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp. \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/16/israel-war-on-gaza-live-children-among-10-killed-in-gaza-city-attacks \|access-date=16 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Rowlands \|first1=Lyndal \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Siddiqui \|first3=Usaid \|last4=Motamedi \|first4=Maziar \|last5=Najjar \|first5=Farah \|date=16 September 2024 \|title=At least 10 Palestinians killed and 15 wounded in another Israeli attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/16/israel-war-on-gaza-live-children-among-10-killed-in-gaza-city-attacks \|access-date=16 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> An Israeli air strike on Zeitoun school in Gaza City killed at least 21 Palestinians.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Rowlands \|first1=Lyndal \|last2=Rasheed \|first2= Zaheena \|last3=Jamal \|first3=Urooba \|last4=Siddiqui \|first4=Usaid \|date=23 September 2024 \|title=Most victims of Saturday's school attack were women and children: Rights group \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/23/israels-war-on-gaza-live-israel-reportedly-planning-north-gaza-siege \|access-date=23 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=21 September 2024 \|title=Israeli attack on Gaza school sheltering displaced Palestinians kills 22 \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/21/several-killed-in-israeli-attack-on-gaza-school-sheltering-displaced-palestinians \|access-date=21 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=21 September 2024 \|title=IDF says airstrike targeted Hamas command room in a Gaza school; Palestinians say 10 killed \|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-drone-strike-targeted-hamas-command-room-in-a-gaza-school-palestinians-say-10-killed/ \|access-date=21 September 2024 \|work=]}}</ref> Israel returned 88 bodies to Gaza in a container truck, providing no personal or location information where the victims had been killed. Nasser Hospital health officials refused to bury the bodies until they were identified.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=25 September 2024 \|title=Israel sends unidentified bodies to Gaza as Palestinian officials demand answers \|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-unidentified-bodies-war-gaza-palestinians-answers-rcna172645 \|access-date=28 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> An Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter in ] killed at least 15 Palestinians.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=26 September 2024 \|title=Death toll from Israeli airstrike on Jabalia school surges to 15 \|url=https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/149667 \|access-date=26 September 2024 \|work=]}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Mohamed \|first=Edna \|date=26 September 2024 \|title=Israel's military confirms attack on Jabalia school \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/26/israel-attacks-lebanon-live-72-killed-in-latest-wave-of-israeli-attacks \|access-date=26 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref> Israeli forces bombed two houses on the Nuseirat camp, killing at least 13 people.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|first1=Alastair \|last1=Mccready \|first2=Urooba \|last2=Jamal \|first3=Edna \|last3=Mohamed \|first4=Usaid \|last4=Siddiqui \|first5=Tamila \|last5=Varshalomidze \|first6=Farah \|last6=Najjar \|date=30 September 2024 \|title=At least 11 killed in Israeli attack on central Gaza \|url=https://aje.io/ohd77t?update=3212664 \|work=]}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Mccready \|first=Alastair \|date=1 October 2024 \|title=Death toll rises following Israeli attack in central Gaza \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/10/1/israel-attacks-lebanon-live-israelis-launch-ground-operation-in-lebanon \|access-date=1 October 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref>}}
	Current support level as I write seems strong enough that this discussion section might not be necessary, but nevertheless I prefer to have some data behind any decision I make in a formal discussion, so I went ahead with it. I did some search tests to see what they reveal about the proposed move question. The results appear to support "Israel–Hamas War" without any addtional qualifying terms such as year.

			After edit: {{tq\|An ] on 11 September killed at least 18 people.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=13 September 2024 \|title=Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff \|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn400rm68o \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name="theguardian20240912">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=12 September 2024 \|title=Six Unrwa workers among estimated 18 killed in Israeli strike on Gaza school sheltering displaced \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/12/idf-airstrike-gaza-school-nuseirat-refugee-shelter-six-un-unrwa-workers-among-dead \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en-GB \|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Mccready \|first1=Alastair \|last2=Rasheed \|first2=Zaheena \|last3=Marsi \|first3=Federica \|last4=Siddiqui \|first4=Usaid \|last5=Varshalomidze \|first5=Tamila \|last6=Jamal \|first6=Urooba \|date=11 September 2024 \|title=Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18 \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/11/israels-war-on-gaza-live-deadly-attack-on-al-mawasi-prompts-global-outcry?update=3173185 \|access-date=12 September 2024 \|work=] \|language=en}}</ref>}} ] (]) 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	The tests purposely don't mention a year, in order to see whether titles that include the core title of "Israel–Hamas War" also mention a year (or some other term), or do not. Results from two searches appear to show that only a tiny number of results mention a year.
			{{ctop\|title=References}}
			{{reflist-talk}}
			{{cbottom}}
			:As noted in the edit summary, this trim was done to enforce ] size guidelines per ]. As this topic has a huge number of child articles, I chose to retain only mentions of events that have dedicated child articles of their own, showing their comparative notability, or when they were directly relevant to high-level topics. In the case of the above paragraph, the ] is the only incident, as far as I am aware, to have its own article, and thus mention of it was retained in this top-level article. The article-wide trim has received positive review from users CommunityNotesContributor and Pachu Kannan on my talk page; further comments or constructive criticism are of course welcome. ] (]) 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That is not a good trim. I count 165 victims of Israeli attacks in the top paragraph. That number has been reduced to "at least 18". ] (]) 15:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I completely disagree. The number hasn't been reduced to "at least 18", that's a complete misrepresentation of the content. The summary of the ] remains "at least 18". It bares no reflection on the remainder of September's '''undue details'''. If you want to summarise that there were 165 victims in September, then go ahead, create a note with your calculations using the references provided. However, given it's been months and nobody bothered to do this, despite issues with the page size for months, and a maintenance template to boot, these overly specific details were better off removed entirely to uphold ] style guidelines. Apart from the reference to the child article, none of the other details are relevant to the summary of the ] in question, this is why there is an entire article dedicated to the specifics, that includes a detailed breakdown of September 2024. Expecting editors to be making over-complicated summaries due to the laziness of others is completely unreasonable. The issue is that the paragraph breached editing guidelines that are '''not negotiable''', if editors want to add summaries they are more than welcome. Thanks. ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::For anyone watching, I styled this review to solicit approval or disapproval on the general methodology used to trim, but of course feel free to comment on anything related to the trim. ] (]) 17:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Endorse trim''' per comments above. TLDR is that it is not the responsibility of the editor trimming content to child article summaries to summarise every single detail included when upholding said guidelines, that are not negotiable. It is instead the responsibility of editors contributing content to adhere to editing guidelines, failure to do so and others should act accordingly. IAR does not apply here. ] (]) 16:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*At a first glance, this is a good faith effort to improve the page. But the lead is missing the stated goals by Israel for the war, i.e. to destroy Hamas and return their hostages. They apparently failed to accomplish their first goal (the Hamas remains in charge in Gaza) and are partially completing their second goal right now. ] (]) 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			**{{u\|My very best wishes}}, these are stated in the second sentence of the second lead paragraph. ] (]) 22:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Indeed, it is there. I missed it. The lead is written in a such manner that an occasional reader (who does not edit this page) would immediately focus on the alleged atrocities committed by Israeli forces, rather than anything else. One of tricks here: we do not know how many Palestinians were actually combatants, and of course a lot of civilians will be killed during any urban warfare. But the presentation implies that the Israeli forces were targeting civilians just as much (or a lot more) as Hamas when it was killing their people during the October 7. This is because the lead dedicate a lot more space to the Israeli "atrocities". The Israel is looking 1000 times worse than the terrorists from Hamas. This is not true, but a reader will definitely get such impression after reading the lead. ] (]) 22:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Naturally, the lead will use more space to describe the Gaza war, which occupied about 470 days, and indeed, more used to be said about the events of Oct. 7, 2023, but was trimmed in the recent summarising. As for the Palestinians that were killed, it is already known that a lot more than half were women and children, and therefore civilians, and surely, all the remaining men of that number couldn't have been fighters. To a large extent, the Gaza Strip has been reduced to WW2-style rubble, so the army that did this destruction, along with the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, intentional or not, will certainly have image problems at this point. ] (]) 05:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Misplaced Pages isn't about making one side or the other look worse, we go by what ] say. ] (]) 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Ceasefire ==
	The first test I tried was <code></code> and looked at 87 results (Google claims 240 results for that page, but I see only 87). Other than daily reports (e.g, #7 CNN's "January 17, 2024 Israel-Hamas war") very few titles have a year in them; the only one I see is #57: "" from the House of Commons Library.

			{{ping\|AirshipJungleman29}} Thanks for rewriting the lede in a proportionate way, which better reflects the events of the war.
	The second test was similar, but uses three 'intitle' terms, to elicit titles that may have the same terms as in "Israel–Hamas War", but in any order, and conceivably with other terms mixed in. For example, if there are highly relevant published articles with the title "Hamas–Israel War" or "Gaza War between Israel and Hamas", the second test would find those, whereas the first one wouldn't.

			As for the war to have concluded, I think this is premature. A ceasefire is by definition: a temporary suspension of fighting; a truce. This ceasefire, which Netanyahu himself had yesterday that he had the support of both Biden and Trump in viewing it as temporary, consists of two phases, with the first having started a few hours ago, and negotiations for the second to start in a few weeks leading supposedly to an end of the war. So the war has not finished officially yet, and the first phase is not being viewed as having been a permanent arrangement. The war should still be described in the present tense. ] (]) 14:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Test two was this: <code></code>, and the results were very similar to the first test. Britannica at result #26 was the first to use any type of date, and uses (even though it was updated on 18 Jan. 2024). The only other results for test 2 that included any type of year, included it only as part of a full date, such as CNN's "January 17, 2024 Israel-Hamas war" at result #4, and result #55: 'Daily Recap: Hamas - Israel War November 1st, 2023'.
			:I am satisfied with that reasoning, and will self-revert. ] (]) 15:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. ] (]) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Edit request from ] ==
	These two tests do not address whether "Israel–Hamas War" is a more common title in reliable sources than "Israel–Gaza War", or any other wording. Both tests are aimed strictly at the move question, i.e., in test 1, whether titles in reliable sources that contain the expression "Israel–Hamas War" do or don't also contain other terms like a year or range of years; and in test 2, whether they contain those words in any order, along with year or other terms. Neither test is designed to answer a question about the most common name; a separate investigation would be needed for that. But within that caveat, they appear to demonstrate support for the Move question. ] (]) 02:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
	</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	== Concerning POV Pushing and False Narrative ==
			I would like to request that... (the status section for the front page should be labeled as “ceasefire” until the ceasefire ends. This is in accordance with the recently-reached agreement.) . ] (]) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> possibly already done now ] (]) 01:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Second edit request from ] ==
	I've made a number of recent edits to avoid Misplaced Pages stating a claim based on news reporter opinion pieces as a fact. Wiki editors on this page have pushing a narrative that "The scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history." based on those sources. But the sources, whilst reliable for news reporting, and not genuine military historians nor reliable peer-reviewed or scientific evaluations.
			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
			In the fourth paragraph of the entry, it states "Various experts and human rights organizations have characterized the events in Gaza as genocide. A case accusing Israel of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,...." This should be changed to "Various experts and human rights organizations have characterized the events in both Gaza and Israel as genocide. Cases accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,..."

			This change is supported by multiple references and necessary for balance, and neutral point of view.
	The language is vague, and misaligns to the sources.

	I suggest this sentence be removed entirely as it frames the conflict with an unclear context and relevance to other war zones. There have been and continue to be undoubtedly severe conflicts this century - Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and other parts of the world. Many of which have higher death/casualty tolls, are more widespread, and associated with crimes against humanity that based on factual numbers go well beyond the current atrocities in Israel and Gaza.

	We need to stop the POV pushing on this article, and keep to properly sourced and evidenced encyclopaedic content, not opinions.

	] (]) 07:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

	:I have no interest to play your game of goalpost shifting or misrepresentation (''not genuine military historians nor reliable peer-reviewed or scientific evaluations''). The Washington Post article does cite experts, including former UN human rights officer, to reach the conclusion about the scale and pace of the destruction in Gaza. This discussion is so stale but I must repeat, if you can't find a countering argument from any reliable source, you can't present the statement as a partially (or narrowly) accepted POV, this act in itself is your POV pushing. -- ] (] · ]) 07:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::The WP article itself is evidence against the ridicious claim made within this Misplaced Pages article. As I explained on my talk page to you already, the WP article only compares a very small number of conflict on a limited basis, limited to just recent 21st century conflicts from the last 15-years. I'm not challenging the OPINION posted by the WP, I'm challenging how it's reflected on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::"'' article only compares a very small number of conflict''" is your own original research. I also urge you to maintain honesty and consistency. On one hand, on your own talk page you wrote that "''don't interpret an OPINION as fact''"; now you claimed that "''I'm not challenging the OPINION posted by the ''". If you want to be pedantic and replace "recent history" (which is directly quoted from AP News) with "the 21st century", feel free to do so. However, please avoid subtly introducing words that may make an unchallenged statement sound like a biased point of view. -- ] (] · ]) 08:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::It's not OR. I'm merely reading the source and referring to what the source itself says. Like for example, the source specifically refers to 21st century... Have you even read the source? ] (]) 10:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Have you read other sources cited in this statement, the one by ], a reliable source, which specifically uses the term "recent history"? -- ] (] · ]) 10:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Does the article define "recent history"? It's vague, and certainly not something can be translated to a factual statement. It's largely, if not entirely, based on a small number of opinions alone. ] (]) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::@] @]
	:::::21st century seems like a very reasonable definition of "recent". Mosul and Grozni (1999?) ended up looking similar, but it took a lot longer? But today I heard someone saying Gaza was worse than even Dresden. ] (]) 09:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::and FYI my edit DID use the language '21st century'; but it was instead replaced with weasal words and fluff because a comparison on conflicts from 2013 to 2024 apparently represents, literary, the entire "history of modern warfare" to some people. Ludicrous. ] (]) 10:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Mind you, the Associated Press article also made comparisons going as far back as World War II, according to the US military historian ]. I have trouble fathoming where your claim "not genuine military historians" originated. -- ] (] · ]) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Sure, in reference to Pape's assessment ''"destroying about 40-50% of their urban areas, said Robert Pape, a U.S. military historian. Pape said this amounted to 10% of buildings across Germany, compared to over 33% across Gaza, a densely populated territory of just 140 square miles (360 square kilometers)."'' We know Gaza is a small dense place. The comparison seems to be between the Whole of Germany vs Gaza. Yet in the same sentence when comparing like-for-like, Urban areas, according to Pape, 40-50% of urban areas were destroyed vs only 33% in Gaza. Which seems to run counter to the argument. If anything, it's evidence to an argument that destruction of the Gaza is '''less significant''' (being only 33% destroyed) than that of the destruction of urban areas in WW2 (destroyed 40-50%). ] (]) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::This comparison constitutes your own original research. We are quoting directly from the reliable source. If you disagree with the sources, please cite a counter reliable source. Additionally, using the WSJ article below as a counterargument is both misrepresentation (the WSJ article mentions nothing about structural damage, instead citing a medical expert whose statements were entirely about human casualties) and synthesis (the article is not a direct response to the 'most destructive war'). -- ] (] · ]) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::The sentence in the Misplaced Pages article is '''not '''a quote from the source, nor is it a quote from a source within the references sources. Your statement is blatantly false.
	::::::::Additionally, I haven't done any OR, my comment merely extracts the claimed data, verbatim, from the source. Noting one number, 33% (Gaza) is less than another number 40-50% (WW2 Urban Areas) is not ], it's just math. ] (]) 10:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::@]
	::::::W
	::::::
	::::::What is a tangible example of something doing not damage faster?
	::::::in terms of speed of civilian destruction it's possibly third after Nagasaki? Or 4th if you include the destruction of a dam in the Chinese civil war. ] (]) 09:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:I believe 'claimed to be ' is inappropriate and it should be said in Wikivoice unless some reliable source disagrees. It is said as fact by those sources rather than opinion and is sourced to experts. A counter to that is to find sources that disagree. One could instead try and show it falls under ] or ], but I don't think that will get any traction! ] (]) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Would offer this: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/comparing-gaza-death-counts-to-those-in-other-wars-dont-bcc3a780
	::For consideration. ] (]) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::This WSJ article solely about the unreliability of death toll data during military conflict is irrelevant. The statement which cites the Washington Post and Associated Press is also about bombing campaigns and the resultant destruction of civilian structures such as schools, hospitals and churches. -- ] (] · ]) 14:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Utterly disagree - in fact I think you are intentially misinterpreting the WSJ article and cherryping one aspect (one example used) rather than the substance of the article. The WSJ article is largely about the inherent unreliability of numbers at war time, especially historic ones with few or sole sources. It draws specific reference to those from Hamas/Gaza, and other conflicts. It uses casualty estimates (not just deaths) as '''one''' example and cautionary tale, but is not specific to death tolls alone. It quotes Dr. Amir Khorram-Manesh, a lecturer in surgery and disaster medicine at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg. “It is a component of the ‘fog of war’ where the uncertainty of every aspect of battle is confusing, unknown and often inaccurate.” ... likewise this could logically be applied without any WP:OR to the destruction of Gaza being compared to . There is no evidence to support that the news articles or independent claimed expert assessments, such as Pape, are in anyway accurate or factual. There are undefined metrics which allow for creative licence and interpretation to specifically fit one's narrative - there is however no tangible evidence to support the comparison of Gaza bombing to other ALL significant bombing/structural damage campgains - especially given the vast number of such campaigns in Modern military history. ] (]) 19:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Not a good idea to come in so hot in ARBPIA. It starts fires.
	:If you want another opinion (I don't care what the article says), which you can ignore if you like...
	:* Including the information as an unattributed statement of fact using Misplaced Pages's narrative voice is not ideal because the statement is only summarizing the personal assessments of a small sample of domain experts (sampled by Misplaced Pages editors). They are biased views, albeit from sources biased by their subject matter expertise, the kind of good bias an encyclopedia needs. Things like 'has been described as' might be better.
	:* Trying to dilute the statement with weasel words to balance it with some imagined but absent alternative views is not ideal. If there are contrasting views, people who don't think it is "among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history", other domain experts published by RS, sample those too. If there is provable sampling bias, why not call it sampling bias rather than POV pushing, or pushing a narrative etc?
	:* It doesn't really matter whether editors agree or disagree with the assessment, it's just about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".
	:<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 10:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I agree with your last point wholeheartedly, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I'm seriously concerned that other editors are not doing that. I'm not saying just because someone has a Palestinian flag in their user profile that they are biased, but a history of repeated biased edits... then yeah. Editorial Bias is likely. ] (]) 10:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::If you are concerned with the behavior of other editors, this is not the place to deal with it. First, said editors talk pages, then AE if not satisfied. ] (]) 10:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::I tend to look at articles in detail when I view/edit Misplaced Pages rather than broadly across many different articles. I should've clarified my comment are specific to this Article and some it's frequent editors. Thus why I assess it appropriate to raise on the article's talkpage. Happy to discuss further. ] (]) 20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::My understanding is that Misplaced Pages does not require individual editors to be neutral in their editing. Systemic bias and skewed sampling of all relevant RS is accepted and I'm not sure I can remember anyone being sanctioned for it. Rather, there is an optimistic belief that policy compliance for an article will emerge and self-assemble over time thru countless interactions like a beautiful sand dune. Reality seems more like given the relatively low number of active editors as far as I can tell. Anyway, I guess my point is that there is little to be gained by complaining about things like intent and systemic bias in the way editors sample the set of all relevant sources and summarize them because anyone can be a part of fixing content issues. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 11:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::As I'm sure you already know, Misplaced Pages has long had a difficult time with ]. You've probably experienced it a lot and as we know fixing content issues is extremely difficult / near impossible when there is a concerted group of biased editors (and/or administrators) that push a particular narrative on an article they are interested in. You usually end up having to try to drag in neutral editors from RfCs and alike to help resolve the problem who then themselves have to deal with an extant majority who seem more intent on making things difficult rather than resolving the content problem(s). It's unfortunately cumbersome and inefficient. ] (]) 20:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree with your points concerning the lead but I also believe that there is no point in complaining about the general thrust of this and other I/P articles. Sure there is a problem, and it's a big one, but it will not be cured ''here''. ] (]) 14:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	* There is a rather good discussion here but I don't see any counter POVs to "''the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history''" backed by reliable sources. This is while I already made a self-revert in order to respect the ongoing discussion. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:The whole statement is vague: what does "severe" mean in this context? what is the time period of "modern history"? The sources define neither, in fact the sources don't actually support the wording at all! The sources do the opposite. The sources largely refer to 21st centary conflicts for comparison or they specifically refer to destruction of civilian infrastructure (i.e. hospitals) - although I note Israel challenges whether the Hospitals are being used as military facilities which also complicates things. ] (]) 20:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*This is just incorrect. You claim that no "military historians" verified this claim when in reality the cited AP article quotes Robert Pape. Worth noting is that this isn't even a requirement per se, as for current events Misplaced Pages always leans more into journalistic sources than scholarly academic sources, but even this dubious complaint of yours is false. ] (]) 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Exactly, but now both scholarly and journalistic ones are supporting the statement. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Pape's statements are considerable different to what the news article claim, and what the sentence within this[REDACTED] article claims. Pape stated: ''"Gaza is one of the most intense civilian punishment campaigns in history,”'' and ''“It now sits comfortably in the top quartile of the most devastating bombing campaigns ever.”''. That's vastly different to a blanket statement of ''"the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history"''. But what it is very clearly, is yet another example of wiki editors cherrpicking facts to suit a false narrative. ] (]) 19:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::This carping about editors cherrypicking and false narratives is getting tiresome. ]. ] (]) 20:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Happy to evidence my cherry-picking claims you think I haven't. Please let me know. ] (]) 20:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::This is one of the heaviest edited articles on WP, which editors are you referring to, all of them? Which editors are cherrypicking, all of them? Which "narrative" is false? ] (]) 21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::I've been reviewing several of the sources used and have noted that the claims they are supposedly referencing are either misaligned / miquoting / cherrypicking or presenting opinion as fact (or all of the above) often to support a one-sided narrative that favours a particular perspective or opinion rather than a fact. The false narrative I'm referring to is the presentation of one-sided / biased (or likely biased) opinions as facts. I don't have the personal capacity to write about all of them - other than to identify there's a clear problem here - and doesn't take long to notice it unless you just ignore the sources. ] (]) 01:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	<- Maybe there is common ground to be found in the 'scale of destruction' part of the article by focusing on empirical data, the numbers, rather than opinions about that data...things like the ongoing . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 08:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	:I am no so sure about it. This appears to be a classic case of the ] when we already have reliable sources supporting the statement. However, we are being compelled to make a compromise for an opinion that is poorly supported by the opponent's original research. -- ] (] · ]) 08:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::To clarify, I'm not suggesting removing information cited to reliable sources (and I haven't looked at the validity of Aeonx's statements about misalignment), I'm suggesting perhaps refocusing efforts on adding empirical data for a couple of reasons. It might be something you can all agree on, objective facts. And, for me anyway, whether Aleppo, for example, was not as bad or worse is kind of beside the point. It's bad. How bad is it? There are numbers, absolute rather than relative values/assessments. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 09:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I have made no original research, moreover it's absurd you are claiming I have done so given I have not even proposed to add anything to the article let alone some aspect of ]. Your accusations against me are unfounded and wrong.
	::The compromise I proposed, through edits already (reverted), was to either attribute the claim to make it clear that it's an opinion, or very specific to the reference source.
	::My originally proposed wordings were as follows:
	::1.
	::2.
	::3.
	::But honestly, now I just think the entire sentence should be removed as doesn't align to the references.
	::] (]) 10:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Another point worth noting, is under the Scale of Destruction section, the wording is specific to buildings ''"The scale, extent, and pace of destruction of buildings in the Gaza Strip ranks among the most severe in modern history."'', whereas in the lede it's not.
	:::I'm concerned with the vagueness of "ranks" (ranks where 1st, 10th, 100th, 1000th?), against what metric (scale of destruction, extent? pace?), replacing ''"modern history" ''with ''"21st centary"'' seems the be most appropriate fix to the vagueness over the comparison time period. ] (]) 10:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::I am not sure what you are complaining. Before you got yourself involved in this particular dispute, the statement has consistently been maintained as "''destruction in Gaza is '''among''' the most severe''" in the article lead after it was added by @] on Jan 2nd. This phrasing avoids ranking it as the absolutely top class in the hierarchy of damage to infrastructure in modern military conflicts. -- ] (] · ]) 13:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I'm arguing the whole sentence is vague, misaligned to sources, and editors, your self included are pushing a false narrative by stating opinion as fact.
	:::::Your argument here only seems to add more vagueness.
	:::::What is "absolutely top class"? What is "the hierarchy of damage to infrastructure"?
	:::::How is
	:::::"modern military conflicts" defined? What time period/years? ] (]) 19:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::All I see is that you're cherry-picking what is otherwise a neatly presented statement, suitable for the article lead, which should be a brief summary of the details in the following sections. Simultaneously, you are directing endless personal attacks at disagreeing editors. As I mentioned earlier, I am fine if the time frame for comparison is narrowed down to the 21st century. What I can't tolerate is your attempts to discredit the sources by referring to them as 'someone' or 'some news reporters,' ignoring the fact that they cited experts on the matter. Your own comparison, which still falls under synthesis, is not backed by any reliable source. No reliable source has stated anything close to '33% (Gaza) is less than another number 40-50% (WW2 Urban Areas).' Whether your math is correct or not doesn't matter to Misplaced Pages. Not a dime. -- ] (] · ]) 02:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::If you feel personally attacked then I apologise, that's not my intent. Whilst I did question your motivations and neutrality to help frame my responses and understanding.
	:::::::News reporters claiming people they interview are experts doesn't necessarily make them so.
	:::::::Generally, expert opinions are only established as reliable when they are eventually published and peer reviewed, preferably in a high impact factor journal. That process takes time. So we are often left with news reporting as a poor second best.
	:::::::There were plenty of "experts" that were reported by news agencies for the COVID pandemic that turned out to be completely wrong. It's not for Misplaced Pages to agree nor accept with news agency assessments of expert credibility, nor acknowledge their opinions as fact.
	:::::::Misplaced Pages should generally only state that particular individuals, who may be established in recognised profession, i.e. Political science or military history, have given their opinion with such background. Anything more is largely unencyclopaedic, or worse POV pushed puffery. ] (]) 10:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:You need to be reasonably specific about problems rather than complaining about POV pushing and saying it's easy to see and if you don't you're just ignoring the sources. ] (]) 10:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Just dealing with a single issue in the lede is already time-consuming. I'll move on to the next significant one this one is resolved. But feel free to look into, picks a few sentences at random from each section and look at the sources for it - that's how I went about it. ] (]) 10:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	* I think that it would be more useful if you could cite sources that you feel disagree with the current wording, or identify problems with the existing ones. Because they seem high-quality and seem to support roughly what we say currently. Going over each for possible phrasings that could be used to tweak what we say:
	:* says that: {{tq\|The Israeli military campaign in the Gaza Strip has been unlike any other in the 21st century.}} ... {{tq\|The evidence shows that Israel has carried out its war in Gaza at a pace and level of devastation that likely exceeds any recent conflict, destroying more buildings, in far less time, than were destroyed during...}}
	:* says that: {{tq\|The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history.}} ... {{tq\|By some measures, destruction in Gaza has outpaced Allied bombings of Germany during World War II.}} {{tq\|“Gaza is one of the most intense civilian punishment campaigns in history,” said Pape. “It now sits comfortably in the top quartile of the most devastating bombing campaigns ever.”}}
	:* says: {{tq\|Corey Scher of the City University of New York Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University are experts in mapping damage during wartime. They've studied the effects of aerial bombing and artillery strikes in conflicts ranging from Syria to Yemen to Ukraine. They applied data from the Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite to Gaza and found levels of destruction unprecedented in recent conflicts, Scher told CBC News.}}
	:Those are pretty close to what we say. The one tweak that might be worth considering is attributing it to "experts" per both the AP and CBC sources, changing it to {{tq\|Experts say that the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history.}} I don't think that that's ] for the lead because it directly reflects the sources. A wide range of experts, across a wide range of disciplines, all agree on this point, and nobody has really presented any sources disagreeing with it; the only reason to consider attributing at all is because the sources do so. Either way, we can then go into detail on the individual experts in the body.--] (]) 11:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::+1 , all I have seen here is a complaint that some prose doesn't match up with sources in the complainants opinion and the complaint is phrased tendentiously as editors pushing a false narrative. ] (]) 11:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::+1 as well. I'd like to see a response to @] quoting what is currently in the article, and then specifically point out which words/which groups of words they do not believe are justified given these three sources. ] (]) 20:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::+1; I’ve read the same in reliable sources without seeking it out; appears accurate and due. ] (]) 10:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::All 3 quoted sources refer to, and rely upon, imagery assessments of apparent bombing damage specific to buildings.
	::Updating the statement to be more specific and aligned to the sources, articulating the compared time period of 21st century, and destruction - specific to buildings would provide clarity and accuracy, aligning to the references. The word "among" is particularly vague and meaningless. I don't agree with your proposed change at all. ] (]) 11:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::+1 per others. ] (]) 11:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

	:::I have reverted the edits by @] and applied the change suggested by @]. It seems that nearly everyone here disagrees with Aeonx, as he is mostly just splitting hairs and cherry-picking about exact wording. The word "recent" is an adequate substitute for "21st century." "Destruction specific to buildings" is an unnatural wording. All of the sources clearly state that the "destruction" or "devastation" (generically) are among the worst in (recent) history. The extensive destruction to the buildings is cited as a reason for this, yes, but the actual ''theses'' of the respective articles mention generic destruction. I frankly find it bizarre that such a discussion is being had considering the sources clearly and unequivocally say what we claim they say. It is right in the article titles. I do not believe it is worth the time of the editors here to entertain the extreme tendentiousness of an individual editor by discussing this matter any longer. ] (]) 12:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Nice example of ], and not even 10 minutes after I replied with my concerns, you decided to remove the tag under an alleged 24-hour consensus. Please read: ]. I think you're actually proving my point on POV Pushing. ] (]) 12:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::] applies. Just looking over this discussion, it's obvious that (while there's various suggestions about how exactly to word it) there's a general consensus that the current wording is fine. Tags aren't intended as badges of shame - if you have a ''specific'' suggestion you can suggest it and see if it can get a consensus, but editors aren't required to answer all of your objections or satisfy you personally. If you disagree with that sort of rough nose-count and don't actually believe there's a consensus, you could start an RFC, but it seems pretty clear to me. --] (]) 18:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I request that you refrain from addressing people as 'civil POV pushers.' Just because the term contains the word 'civil' doesn't make your argument more civil than you may think. The related essay characterizes so-called 'civil POV pushers' as bad-faith actors. When used repeatedly against the same opponents without providing any substantiating evidence, it constitutes a personal attack. Bluntly put, please stop doing this. -- ] (] · ]) 01:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@]
	::Don't just say "experts", say the person who said it, instead of the place it was published. Unless it actually is in the voice of the publication. e.g. "an Al Jazeera investigation showed the hospital read bombed by the IDF".
	::On a related note, can we avoid "Hamas said" as much as possible, please. Use "] said" or "] said" or "The party isusued a written statement" etc. The only time I'd not mention the person is ] because they're an anonymous spokesperson, but then it should be "Al Qassam said" because he's Rhee spokesperson for the military wing.
	::] (]) 14:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::The AP literally says "experts". I quoted them saying that immediately above this. If you have a ''specific'' attribution that you believe would actually encompass all three, go ahead and offer it, but it would be inappropriate to attribute to the publications themselves when they cite many different experts - that would be downplaying the breadth of agreement. More general, as I said, ] itself specifically says that you can summarize broad trends in the lead as long as you place the individual citations in the body, so if you want more detail the thing to do is to use the description I provided in the lead and to go into more detail in the body. --] (]) 18:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::@]
	::::Just saying "experts" is almost meaningless, if you may you can say "AP reported". Were you the one wanting to add who said it or wanting to remove it? ] (]) 03:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::No, {{tq\|experts say}} is what the AP says as fact and is the appropriate way to summarize multiple experts saying something in the lead section; it is clear, concise, and has an obvious meaning. If you personally disagree and personally hold the opinion that it is meaningless, take it up with the AP, which used that wording. Your proposal of attributing it to the AP alone would be inaccurate in several ways; after all, it is not only the AP reporting it, but multiple experts cited in multiple sources. It would also be completely inappropriate to attribute it to the proximate source like that in that it would violate ], which says to {{tq\|avoid stating facts as opinions}}; when you attribute something using an in-line citation like that you are implicitly stating it is only their opinion, whereas the fact that there is a consensus of experts on this is uncontested fact reported by multiple high-quality sources. It isn't the ''opinion'' of the AP that experts say this; it is an uncontested fact. This is also, per ], the correct way to summarize a view held by a wide number of experts in the lead section; we can name the individual experts in the body, but the lead's role is to summarize. The belief that WEASEL discourages such summaries in the lead is a common misunderstanding of what the policy actually says; but it makes a clear exception for summaries in the lead. And the reason why ought to be obvious. What exactly would you replace it with in the lead, anyway? Even ignoring the NPOV problems that come from attributing facts as if they were opinions, to cover even just the sources I quoted above (which are not all the available ones; we stop at three for a single sentence) we would have to say something like {{tq\|According to the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, U.S. military historian Robert Pape, and Corey Scher of the City University of New York Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University, who are experts in mapping damage during wartime, the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history.}} That wouldn't be readable or useful. Choosing only ''one'' of them (as you seem the proposing) and implying that it is just the opinion of that source would be inappropriate because it would downplay the coverage. Hence, we summarize as "experts"; sometimes editors quibble over exactly how to summarize them but in this case there is no need to argue because we have a high-quality source stating attributing it to experts as uncontested fact in their article voice, allowing us to do the same. More detail on ''which'' experts goes in the body, not the lead. --] (]) 09:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Yet another example of POV Push, comments such as ''"If you personally disagree and personally hold the opinion that it is meaningless, take it up with the AP, which used that wording"'' and unhelpful and actually adisruptive.
	::::::The notion that "the scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among the most severe in recent history"is a fact, and not simply an opion, regardless of how many expertsmake statements. It's not a FACT. As for facts, the fact is the claim an opinion that isn't published in any scholarly journals, there's no meta-analysis, it's not peer-reviewed, we don't understand whether or not the "experts" have bias, we don't have information nor understand what evidence supports their claims - at least not in detail (other than imagery assessments). Presenting opinions as facts IS the problem here. ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::] is what we look for, and it definiely passes that. And there's nothing extraordinary about the assertion. ] (]) 20:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

	== Overcitation in the lede ==

	What is the purpose of using more than three in-line citations in a sentence in the lede? It is unnecessary, and visually ruins the lede and ruins readability. ] (]) 10:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

	:Afaics, this happens when there has been some discussion of an issue and reflects a desire to emphasize that the discussion was resolved in a certain way. However, I agree that it is unnecessary, actually by now, all citations in the lead could theoretically be dispensed with if the points are correctly covered in the article body. ] (]) 11:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:That is correct, but overcitation is a minor flaw and removing it now would just create more unnecessary drama. ] (]) 14:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::We can clean them up. See ]. ] (]) 03:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Without taking a strong stance on whether it's appropriate or not, this is not uncommon on Misplaced Pages and far from unique to this article. One argument is that for particularly contentious claims, it's best to have a large number of citations to justify the position we take. ] (]) 17:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Contentious claims do not need more than three, and when someone is skeptical, they can be pointed out to the full citations in the body of the article. ] (]) 18:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but doing that pointing repeatedly (which happens on high-traffic controversial articles like this one) wastes valuable time and energy from editors. Bundling citations is simpler and better at resolving issues in the long term, that's why it's widely used. --] (]) 11:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	== "During this attack 1,139 ______ were killed" ==

	Currently the intro says, "During this attack, 1,139 people were killed, of whom 766 were civilians." But far more than 1,139 ''people'' were killed. There were the ~200 bodies originally misidentified as Israeli but later found out to be Gazans. Then there were also about 1000 additional people (presumed Gazan militants) killed who were never misidentified as Israeli? (But I think are still currently unidentified?)
	* But we can't say "1,139 Israelis", because a lot of that 1,139 were Thai and there were a few other foreigners as well.
	* Exact numbers of Israeli + foreign sort of works, and the France 24 source has that data.<ref name="F24231215">{{cite news \|title=Israel social security data reveals true picture of Oct 7 deaths \|date=15 December 2023 \|url=https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths \|work=] \|access-date=16 December 2023 \|archive-date=17 December 2023 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231217222630/https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths \|url-status=live}}</ref> But it doesn't fit well in that first sentence where "1,139 people" appears.
	{{reflist}}
	* The best I can think of is {{teal\|"(not including Gazans)"}}?
	* Does anyone have any other ideas?
	] (]) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

	:"1,139 people in Israel were killed"? Or "Hamas killed 1139 people in Israel"? ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 21:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@]
	::That doesn't work
	::* 200 to 1200 Gazan militants also died "in Israel"
	::* not all of the 1139 were killed "by Hamas", at least one death was "friendly fire" (according to very reliable sources) and there is a lot of controversy about how many more, ''most'' were probably killed by the Gazan militants, but it's a bit of a mess that we can't state simply in the leade.
	::It works fine in the info box, showing deaths on each side, but it's hard to articulate in a sentence. Maybe "Israeli citizens and foreign nationals"? That seems like the simplest way to include all the 1139 while excluding the attackers? In a way the Gazan militants are invading foreigners, and there's a chance some has Israeli citizenship, but other than that nitpicking, it's at least fairly clear who is being referred to?
	::] (]) 07:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Israelis and foreign nationals is precise enough. The extent of Hamas militants killed is still not known, because while 200 bodies were ruled out, the rest were not counted in as precise of a manner. See {{tl\|2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties}} for a suggested prose wording. It is already used inside the section {{Section link\|2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Casualties}} ~ 🦝 ] (he/him • ]) 21:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@]
	::Yeah "Israelis and foreign nationals" seems best. Change it to that anywhere you see it.
	::It's slightly debatable whether the invading militants are also "foreign nationals", but it's at least '''a lot''' clearer than "people" or "in Israel", and much less complicated than "by Hamas".
	::] (]) 07:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:In fact, I was the one who phrased it like this, and I am aware of the slight ambiguity. I think most sensible readers would realize that we are not included the Hamas fighters in the casualty count. The issue is that the proposed solution "Israelis and foreign nationals" does not seem to resolve the ambiguity ... because the Hamas fighters would also technically be "foreign nationals." The other suggestions are on the awkward side (e.g., "1,139 people in Israel were killed"). To resolve this whole thing, the cleanest way is just including a footnote. ] (]) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{done}} Added the disambiguating footnote. ] (]) 22:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

	"1139 estimated people were killed by Hamas and allies."
	"1139 estimated people were killed by invading militants." ] (]) 09:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	::One can neutrally state only the number of people killed on that day. The addition of an instrumental '-by' (Hamas/allies/militants) is deceptive. Undoubtedly the majority were killed by militants, but since the casualties include indiscriminately also Israelis killed by their own IDF in the counterattacks of that day, as is now admitted, with a massive volume of airpower in particular, we simply cannot determine how many of the 1139 were directly killed by Hamas and co. This is obvious and rigorously ignored on many articles.] (]) 10:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] yes I'm trying to avoid why or how or killed by who, and just devise a succinct way to say WHO died. A few places in this wiki page say 1139 "people" died that day, when at least 200 Gazans militants died as well. Current best option is 1,139 "Israelis and foreign nationals" (it is actually 1105 now, this is a very weird war). ] (]) 08:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC).
	:::Is there a source for that admission anywhere? ] (]) 08:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

	Such a detail could be mentioned later. A few killed by friendly fire could be assumed in any similar conflict, and the onus would still be on the attackers. This is how such casualties are documented in every other instance (including the current conflict ongoing in Gaza). It doesn't matter that there was friendly fire, in this statistic. ] (]) 10:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:No. 'A few' That is WP:OR. We have no reliable information of the breakdown of this figure (and friendly fire has caused '''substantial''' casualties among Israeli troops in Gaza. The way classifications work there is confused as well, 29 Israelis of around 186 have died of such fire). It does matter, in terms of NPOV, to attribute to Hamas et al., all deaths of all those who died on October 7, for to state that is a matter of deliberate obfuscation, if not deceit.] (]) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Friendly fire by Hamas is attributed to Israeli forces, of course. (A generalization subsequently explained, can’t be characterized as “deliberate obfuscation” or deceit, especially where context and common sense are considerations.) (Which, indeed, the footnote here is the “subsequent explanation”.) ] (]) 14:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] I don't think anyone would be surprised if the militants had a high rate of friendly fire. I don't know much about guns, but some of the things they do seem like a bad idea. Like shooting directly up in the air while standing in a crowd?
	:::'''But who are you accusing of obfuscating what?'' '
	:::] (]) 08:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::My point is that even though we assume that some friendly fire is occurring, it is frequently not considered as a factor in death tolls when making general quotations, especially where precise attribution to friendly fire is uncertain. As you say, the reader knows that some fraction may be attributed to friendly fire. ] (]) 21:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

	:Why have we no actual figure for militants killed instead of this vague 1000 or so? After all this time they would surely know how that. Is it deliberate that they do not release such figures like the way they hide the graves of those they kill? ] (]) 11:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	::These figures are notoriously messy, and newspapers simply repeat each other from sheer laziness. One preliminary analysis may be found in Tamsin Westlake, l ] 20 December 2023
	:::That says nothing about the militants. Those figures for the Israeli side are probably a little wrong but are certainly good enough. The dead militants have almost certainly been counted pretty accurately as well by now and even a large number of them identified, why have no figures been released? ] (]) 13:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::By the way I'm quite happy for those killed by friendly fire to be counted as casualties rather than having anything special about friendly fire. After all they are killed because of the fighting. A note or something in the text can give an estimate the numbers due to friendly fire but it is hard to ever know that accurately and shouldn't be in an infobox or the lead. ] (]) 14:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::@] I'm just looking for the least ambiguous way to clearly describe who we mean. There being debate about friendly fire means saying "killed by Hamas" is unclear if we're counting everyone or if we're asserting that those 1,139 were not killed by Israeli weapons. So "Israelis and foreign nationals" fits best. ] (]) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::@]
	:::Can you find me a '''source''' where they have been "counted accurately by now"? Or tell me where the bodies ended up?
	:::Or are you saying you're confused like me?
	:::Israel supposedly claims they killed 1000 invading militants? But I'm beginning to think they just made that number up? But it would be several dozen at the very least? But I've found amost nothing about it.
	:::] (]) 07:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Refrain from making inflammatory statements without evidence. ] (]) 03:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Who are you referring to and what do you think is without evidence? ] (]) 09:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::You and the inflammatory statement you made without evidence. ] (]) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::You mean this sort of thing ? ] (]) 08:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::So not "hiding the graves of those they kill", but withholding corpses, according to Jacobin. Which Palestine also does, see ] for one example. In any case, this has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, as has now been shown. ] (]) 08:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::The original poster said "Then there were also about 1000 additional people (presumed Gazan militants) killed who were never misidentified as Israeli", how can this not be relevant to the topic being discussed? We don't even know if that 1000 has just one or two significant figures in it - it could mean anything from 500 to 1500. ] (]) 10:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hamas-fighters-bodies-israel-toll-gaza-ground-invasion-rcna119640

	https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/1500-palestinian-militants-found-dead-along-israeligaza-border-idf-says-103856155?id=103804516

	https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47754

	https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-gaza-border-finally-sealed-bodies-of-1500-terrorists-found-inside-israel/

	https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-prepared-for-a-long-war-with-israel-as-concerns-for-hostages-in-gaza-grow ] (]) 21:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::That was a couple of days after the raid. I was hoping they had something better by now. I'll copy it to the talk page about the raid as they still say 1000. Sounds like it was evem ore of a suicide mission than I first thought. That takes real hate. ] (]) 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::My understanding that Gaza Health is aware of these expired IDs and includes this in the total deaths since 10/7.
	::::::::::So far as the suicide nature of the mission, it is apparent that the militants did not expect to return home, many or most of them, at least. See the popularized recording of the call home, the militant who “killed 10 Jews”.
	Also, subsequent to these published estimates, over 200 deaths previously ascribed to Israel were subsequently reclassified as militant.
	] (]) 19:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@] Is there a mass grave somewhere? Wouldn't they want to check very thoroughly that none were Israeli or foreigners?
	::The sheer volume of unaccounted for corpses is doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should be ambiguous? If it' 1000 men, that's over 60 tons?
	::There's 7000 people in the rubble that used to be Gaza. But where on earth are the 1000 who allegedly died in Southern Israel?
	::] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Presumably they are buried in one of the various cemeteries of numbers in a closed off military area or some may still be in freezers. Yes they would have checked for Israelis or foreigners. The hiding is that they don't say anything about them so some families may think they're being detained or dead or hope they're still alive somewhere. The only mention I can see in Misplaced Pages is under ]. I'm a bit surprised there's no article specifically on the cemeteries of numbers, there's lots of reliable sources and it has been going on for decades. ] (]) 10:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

	== Reasons for attack in the lede ==

	Currently the lede only mentions the stated reasons for the attack. The experts acknowledge some overlap between the stated and actual reasons (e.g., freeing Palestinian prisoners), however they also believe that there were other reasons, such as resisting the normalisation trend, re-established ties with Iran and burnishing resistance credentials. These are some of the sources which discuss the reasons , , .

	This should be reflected in the lede per WP:DUE as otherwise only Hamas's stated reasons are mentioned. Also, WP:LEDE should summarise the article and now this part of article is not reflected in the lede.

	My attempt to improve the lede has been , so I'd like to understand which policies it was based on. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

	:The experts can be left to give their opinions later. The stated reasons by Hamas were attributed to them and definitely are of lead type interest. ] (]) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I would say that the opinion of neutral geopolitical experts is at least as relevant as the stated reasons from Hamas: the average reader will want to know why experts believe Hamas started the war, and not only why Hamas says it started the war. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. ] (]) 22:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] - absolutely support this. ] (]) 07:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	Just to add that stated reasons are often bollocks meant for non-expert domestic audience (i.e., the electorate). We don't write, for example, that Russia attacked Ukraine "in order to save its population from neo-Nazis", or that the US invaded Iraqi or Libyan oil fields "to combat terror". Hamas's statements (of revenge, etc.) are also destined for its domestic audience. IMO, wider geopolitics should be given a prominent place in such articles, even if it means relying on sources not consumed en masse by the electorate. — ] ] 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	:While I agree that expert opinion should be emphasized over Hamas' view, I'm not sure your Russia comparison is quite accurate. Russia's justifications were simply lies ("Donbas genocide"). This is why we did not take them seriously. However, Hamas' justifications regarding settlements, West Bank flare-ups, and Palestinian prisoners are true and independently attested to. ] (]) 02:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Yes, although I simply wanted to underscore that there are war rationales, and there are rationales for the masses, and both usually deserve to be mentioned. I didn't intend to compare the veracity of individual claims. — ] ] 09:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	:I said 'The stated reasons by Hamas were attributed to them'. The attributing is important. The attributed reason is more encyclopaediac than some american expert sitting halfway across the word spouting his expert opinion on what are the 'real' reasons are - which most definitely should also be attributed properly wherever it is stuck in. ] (]) 08:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I completely agree with this comment. In the version I suggested both sets of reasons are attributed. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::The reverted bit removed some important bits of what Hamas said. Its quite likely the leaders did have the concerns the experts said but I hardly think that was primary or that three thousand militants went into what was essentially a possible suicide mission because of that! Russians and Americans didn't think of the Ukraine or Iraq as possible suicide missions. ] (]) 10:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::I tried to keep the lede concise and so mentioned the key issues ("desecration" and settlements) while labelling everything else as "other actions in the West Bank and Gaza." If that was the issue, we can mention more of them. I'll give it a try shortly.
	::::You're making a good point when you say that the geopolitical reasons are unlikely to have motivated ordinary Hamas fighters. The motivations of the Hamas leadership are not necessarily the same as those of Hamas fighters and ideally the article should discuss both of them. Unfortunately, our sources do not allow us to make this distinction for now. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::{{re\|Alaexis}} reverted, most immediately because of the weasel wording. Being the lead in a contentious area in which you've made similar bold edits twice, I think a full-text draft of the proposed change and then getting clear consensus is the best path forward. To be clear I agree in spirit with what you're trying to do it just needs more polish before it goes live. I do want to not per the exchange immediately above - I don't think motivations of the individual combatants is of encyclopedic interest to the lead in an article about the war. We care about the strategic reasonings, not the individual motivations of the people involved (which will vary by individual with a near-infinite number of permutations). Also, we generally should focus on the reasons for the war as evaluated by third-party sources, '''not''' the stated purposes by the parties (even if attributed) to the conflict (which will be heavily politicized at best). ] (]) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, so here's the change.
	::::::{{TextDiff\| Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued ] of the ], the ], the expansion of ], and the plight of ] and ]<ref name="aj7oct-invasion"/><ref name="McKernan-2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=McKernan \|first1=Bethan \|last2=Michaelson \|first2=Ruth \|last3=Graham-Harrison \|first3=Emma \|last4=Kierszenbaum \|first4=Quique \|last5=Balousha \|first5=Hazem \|last6=Taha \|first6=Sufian \|last7=Sherwood \|first7=Harriet \|last8=Beaumont \|first8=Peter \|date=14 October 2023 \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/seven-days-of-terror-that-shook-the-world-and-changed-the-middle-east \|title=Seven days of terror that shook the world and changed the Middle East \|agency=Anadolu Agency \|work=] \|access-date=1 November 2023}}</ref><ref name="Pacchiani2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Pacchiani \|first=Luca \|date=7 October 2023 \|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-deputy-chief-anticipates-hostages-will-be-swapped-for-palestinian-prisoners/ \|title=Hamas deputy chief anticipates hostages will be swapped for Palestinian prisoners \|work=] \|access-date=25 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite web\|\|title=Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood \|url=https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/text-of-the-speech-by-ismail-haniyeh-on-the-first-day-of-operation-al-aqsa-flood \|date=9 October 2023 \|access-date=1 January 2024 \|website=Crescent International}}</ref> the latter of whom it sought to free by taking an estimated ] into Gaza as leverage.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=7 October 2023 \|title=Hamas says it has enough Israeli captives to free all Palestinian prisoners \|agency=] \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/hamas-says-it-has-enough-israeli-captives-to-free-all-palestinian-prisoners}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Mills \|first1=Andrew \|last2=Hassan \|first2=Ahmed Mohamed \|date=15 November 2023 \|title=Exclusive: Qatar seeking Israel-Hamas deal to free 50 hostages and 3-day truce \|work=] \|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-seeking-israel-hamas-deal-release-50-hostages-3-day-truce-sources-say-2023-11-15/}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|title=What we know about the captives taken by Hamas \|language=en \|work=] \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/3/what-do-we-know-about-the-israeli-captives-held-by-hamas \|access-date=15 December 2023}}</ref>\| Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued ] of the ], the ], the expansion of ], and the plight of ] and ].<ref name="aj7oct-invasion"/><ref name="McKernan-2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=McKernan \|first1=Bethan \|last2=Michaelson \|first2=Ruth \|last3=Graham-Harrison \|first3=Emma \|last4=Kierszenbaum \|first4=Quique \|last5=Balousha \|first5=Hazem \|last6=Taha \|first6=Sufian \|last7=Sherwood \|first7=Harriet \|last8=Beaumont \|first8=Peter \|date=14 October 2023 \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/seven-days-of-terror-that-shook-the-world-and-changed-the-middle-east \|title=Seven days of terror that shook the world and changed the Middle East \|agency=Anadolu Agency \|work=] \|access-date=1 November 2023}}</ref><ref name="Pacchiani2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Pacchiani \|first=Luca \|date=7 October 2023 \|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-deputy-chief-anticipates-hostages-will-be-swapped-for-palestinian-prisoners/ \|title=Hamas deputy chief anticipates hostages will be swapped for Palestinian prisoners \|work=] \|access-date=25 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite web\|\|title=Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood \|url=https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/text-of-the-speech-by-ismail-haniyeh-on-the-first-day-of-operation-al-aqsa-flood \|date=9 October 2023 \|access-date=1 January 2024 \|website=Crescent International}}</ref> According to experts Hamas wanted to disrupt the ], assert its presence as a significant security and political force, and resolve internal debates over its primary focus between governance and confrontation.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood \|url=https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/text-of-the-speech-by-ismail-haniyeh-on-the-first-day-of-operation-al-aqsa-flood \|date=9 October 2023 \|access-date=1 January 2024 \|website=Crescent International}}</ref><ref name =whynow>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|title=Why did Hamas attack Israel, and why now? \|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-did-hamas-attack-israel-and-why-now/ \|access-date=12 January 2024 \|publisher=CBS News \|date=25 October 2023}}</ref>}}
	::::::The main goal of the change is to give equal weight to stated reasons and to reasons reported in secondary sources (although you're right that the latter should eventually have greater weight). The clause I've removed in order not to inflate the lede isn't crucial for the lede in my opinion. If the problem is with "according to experts," then could you suggest another way of introducing this (the CBS article does include several experts' opinions)? ]<sub>]</sub> 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::The experts added renormalization as a reason rather than saying it was the reason. As far as I can see not all mentioned wanting to resolve internal tension or wanting to reassert themselves as a reason. ] (]) 23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::The lead summarizes the body. Where in the body do we talk about the expert opinions on the cause of the 10/7 attack? (I didn't immediately see it but the article is rather long and I may have just missed it). ] (]) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Very good point, @], I have, likewise, struggled to see it clearly in the main body of the article. ] (]) 02:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::These opinions are discussed in the 3rd and 4th paragraph of the ] section. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::The text I'm proposing also doesn't say that preventing the normalisation was the reason. It's listed as one of the reasons.
	:::::::As to your second comment, it's true that only one source supports each claim ("reasserting its power" and "resolving internal tension"). Let's look at the reasons mentioned in the 3 articles I've listed above (Al-Jazeera, CBS and the NYT). Please feel free to add more sources dealing with this.
	:::::::# Derailing the normalisation: 3/3
	:::::::# Mending fences with Iran: 3/3
	:::::::# Palestinian desperation: 2/3 (AJ, NYT)
	:::::::# Reasserting power: 1/3 (CBS)
	:::::::# Resolving internal tension: 1/3 (NYT)
	:::::::# Drawing Israel into a quagmire 1/3 (CBS)
	:::::::So it looks like the reasserting power and resolving internal tensions should be removed and instead we should mention the ties with Iran. Here's a new version. Per u:VQuakr's comment I'm starting with the reasons from secondary sources and then mention the stated reasons.
	:::::::::::::{{TextDiff\|Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued ] of the ], the ], the expansion of ], and the plight of ] and ]<ref name="aj7oct-invasion"/><ref name="McKernan-2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=McKernan \|first1=Bethan \|last2=Michaelson \|first2=Ruth \|last3=Graham-Harrison \|first3=Emma \|last4=Kierszenbaum \|first4=Quique \|last5=Balousha \|first5=Hazem \|last6=Taha \|first6=Sufian \|last7=Sherwood \|first7=Harriet \|last8=Beaumont \|first8=Peter \|date=14 October 2023 \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/seven-days-of-terror-that-shook-the-world-and-changed-the-middle-east \|title=Seven days of terror that shook the world and changed the Middle East \|agency=Anadolu Agency \|work=] \|access-date=1 November 2023}}</ref><ref name="Pacchiani2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Pacchiani \|first=Luca \|date=7 October 2023 \|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-deputy-chief-anticipates-hostages-will-be-swapped-for-palestinian-prisoners/ \|title=Hamas deputy chief anticipates hostages will be swapped for Palestinian prisoners \|work=] \|access-date=25 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite web\|\|title=Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood \|url=https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/text-of-the-speech-by-ismail-haniyeh-on-the-first-day-of-operation-al-aqsa-flood \|date=9 October 2023 \|access-date=1 January 2024 \|website=Crescent International}}</ref> the latter of whom it sought to free by taking an estimated ] into Gaza as leverage.<ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|date=7 October 2023 \|title=Hamas says it has enough Israeli captives to free all Palestinian prisoners \|agency=] \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/hamas-says-it-has-enough-israeli-captives-to-free-all-palestinian-prisoners}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=Mills \|first1=Andrew \|last2=Hassan \|first2=Ahmed Mohamed \|date=15 November 2023 \|title=Exclusive: Qatar seeking Israel-Hamas deal to free 50 hostages and 3-day truce \|work=] \|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-seeking-israel-hamas-deal-release-50-hostages-3-day-truce-sources-say-2023-11-15/}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|title=What we know about the captives taken by Hamas \|language=en \|work=] \|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/3/what-do-we-know-about-the-israeli-captives-held-by-hamas \|access-date=15 December 2023}}</ref>\|The reasons for the attack included the desire on part of Hamas to disrupt the ], Palestinian frustration with settler violence and deepening ties between Iran and Hamas.<ref name =whynow>{{#invoke:cite news\|\|title=Why did Hamas attack Israel, and why now? \|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-did-hamas-attack-israel-and-why-now/ \|access-date=12 January 2024 \|publisher=CBS News \|date=25 October 2023}}</ref> Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued ] of the ], the ], the expansion of ], and the plight of ] and ].<ref name="aj7oct-invasion"/><ref name="McKernan-2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last1=McKernan \|first1=Bethan \|last2=Michaelson \|first2=Ruth \|last3=Graham-Harrison \|first3=Emma \|last4=Kierszenbaum \|first4=Quique \|last5=Balousha \|first5=Hazem \|last6=Taha \|first6=Sufian \|last7=Sherwood \|first7=Harriet \|last8=Beaumont \|first8=Peter \|date=14 October 2023 \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/seven-days-of-terror-that-shook-the-world-and-changed-the-middle-east \|title=Seven days of terror that shook the world and changed the Middle East \|agency=Anadolu Agency \|work=] \|access-date=1 November 2023}}</ref><ref name="Pacchiani2023">{{#invoke:cite news\|\|last=Pacchiani \|first=Luca \|date=7 October 2023 \|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-deputy-chief-anticipates-hostages-will-be-swapped-for-palestinian-prisoners/ \|title=Hamas deputy chief anticipates hostages will be swapped for Palestinian prisoners \|work=] \|access-date=25 October 2023}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:cite web\|\|title=Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood \|url=https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/text-of-the-speech-by-ismail-haniyeh-on-the-first-day-of-operation-al-aqsa-flood \|date=9 October 2023 \|access-date=1 January 2024 \|website=Crescent International}}</ref>}}
	:::::::]<sub>]</sub> 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	{{Reflist-talk}}

	== Title ==

	The RM prior to the disambiguation RM above was closed on 4 January and then reclosed on 10 January. In between, an informal discussion took place and continued until said discussion was closed on 13 January. That informal discussion indicated a possible change in consensus as to the title of the article.
	I would like to test the waters once again and see what appetite exists for a new RM that would change the title to Israel-Gaza war (EDIT: or Gaza War with some disambiguation). This is not a formal discussion, more of a straw poll.

	FYI, NPR/WAPO/BBC/AJ/Guardian/UN/The Conversation/Axios and CNN (which appears to have recently switched) all refer to the war as the Israel–Gaza war (Israel's war on Gaza - AJ, Israel's war in Gaza - CNN). ] (]) 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	* '''Strong support''' because of sourcing and, primarily, because of how the international law defines a war. A military attack against ] is considered as an attack against a '''state'''; not against a ruling party, etc. (Bombing of the US territory would be viewed as an attack against the United States and not against the Democratic Party.) Here, too, we have ample evidence that the infrastructure of the Palestinian state, along with its civilian population, have been the actual target of the Israeli attack; and not just a militant group. Framing this war as "anti-Hamas" is a valid propaganda move of the attacker; however, Misplaced Pages titles must represent a ] regardless of the number of ] on POV versions. — ] ] 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*Far too soon for a new RM; to open one would be disruptive. If you disagree with the close, the correct place to challenge it would be ]. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:(Having checked a few, your list of sources that have switched also appears incorrect, but that isn’t currently relevant.) ] (]) 19:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	*'''Procedural close''' wait until the date is settled. ~] (], ], ]) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	*I am in favour of the "Israel–Hamas" form of the title still, but I don't think there would be any harm in having another RM focused on this question once the current one is closed. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 01:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' after the date issue is settled above. Israel-Hamas war is a biased and inaccurate name unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. ] (he/him • ]) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

	*I agree with ], for many reasons, including (1) calling it Israel-Hamas war seems close to an Israeli POV, (2) clearly all of Gaza is affected, (3) few reliable sources use the title "Gaza war" or "War in Gaza" seem to dominate. So both by NPOV and COMMONNAME, the title should be changed. ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. I am not opposed to such idea, but we better wait and see. This war is happening also in West Bank and on the northern border of Israel, not mentioning the strikes in Lebanon, Syria and Houthis. It is not limited by Gaza, and it is not only with Hamas. ] (]) 02:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

	== Map ==

	When was the last time the map was updated? I found a that used a online mapping software to claim that Israel has taken over northern Gaza. I don't know if this is real but I am confused as to why the map has not been updated, is the war just a stalemate? ] (]) 05:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

	:Never mind, the source was blocked. So is the war a stalemate? You think the map would have moved a little. I might just be blinded so I would like it if someone could clarify how maps for ongoing wars work on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::From what I've gathered from the discussions above, the map (at least the Gaza Strip portion of it) is an exact, albeit incorrectly-labeled copy of the daily maps produced by the ], for lack of any other reliable sources publishing regularly updated maps. What we have here is a particularly unique situation as it relates to maps for ongoing wars on Misplaced Pages - most of the others I am familiar with follow different processes. ] (]) 09:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

	== Why isn´t the name changed to 2023-2024 (or even 2023-present) Israel-Hamas war ==
	{{atop
	\| status = See current requested move
	\| result = Please refer to the existing requested move instead of starting a new conversation. Thanks. - ] \| ] 06:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	}}

			The changes are fully suppoprted by numerous references including : https://archive.ph/2023.10.19-000330/https://docs.google.com/forms/d/ and https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231103-israeli-families-bring-war-crime-complaint-to-icc-lawyer ] (]) 21:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Not done. Change is not supported by the sources. ] (]) 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Third edit request from ] ==

			{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	Let´s face it´s going to go on for a while, we don´t have the crystal ball to know when it will come to an end. ] (]) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
			The following statement is misleading: "Torture and sexual violence were committed by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli forces". Sexual violence committed by Hamas on October 7th was widespread and systematic. On the Israeli side there is one documented case. The statement on this Misplaced Pages page is not based on a direct source, but rather on a quote of quote of an Amnesty International document that doesn't go into specifics. This does not meet the conditions to make such a general claim about "Israeli sexual violence".
			Please check sources of this statement. ] (]) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			: ] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 00:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== 2023 attack ==
	:Being dealt with above. ] (]) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:@]
	:Because we cannot agree on who or what Israel is at war with. ] (]) 06:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}

			The recent edit to lede changed describing Israeli victims from "killing" to "deaths." This should be reverted. ] (]) 14:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Is Middle East Eye reliable? ==

	~~Is ] a reliable source?~~ I ~~wanted~~ to ~~include~~ ~~article as an~~ ~~example~~ of ~~Israeli~~ ~~war~~ ~~crimes~~. ] (]) 23:54, 16 January ~~2024~~ (UTC)		:I restored the previous version, folding in the civilians addition. ] (]) 18:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Hannibal directive in the lead ==
	:@]
	:I read it quite a lot. Fairly reliable. It's cherry picked but it's factual. In my personal experience the stories it tells line up well with other reliable sources.
	:It won't give the ''whole'' story, but nothing will. It gives a selection of bits of the story that tend to have a pro middle east slant, but each story it does give is factual, as in the details match other reliable sources. We couldn't base a whole article on it, but we shouldn't do that with any source, it's useful as one of the sources to include.
	:In terms of how much I personally trust it, compared to others with a similar stance, I'd rank it as less reliable than Al Jazeera (one of the world's most reliable news outlets on any topic other than the Qatari government) but more reliable than TRT or Electronic Intafada (I'm unsure how much to trust TRT).
	:According to it's own Misplaced Pages page it's a UK based spin off of Al Jazeera, I'm not sure if that's official or just some staff who left and did their own thing.
	:] (]) 03:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:@]
	:For that particular story I would give it a brief mention prefaced "Eyewitnesses told Middle East Eye…" (exactly as they have) it's important to include as a thing that was observed / reported / claimed, but we can't say it's a thing that definitely happened. ] (]) 04:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::That is not the only consideration. Is the source reliable enough that we can say in wikivoice that eyewitness told them something? Either way, is it significant enough for this page, or is it ]? ] (]) 08:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

			I'm not seeing what's ] about the material removed in ; the sourcing looks high-quality at a glance. If there are other sources that contradict them, present them and we can discuss how to resolve the discrepancy, but unless there's a significant difference in weight and reliability we don't usually resolve those discrepancies via complete omission. --] (]) 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	An anonymously written article from "occupied Palestine" quoting people whose names were changed, produced by a news source believed to have ties to the Qatari government. No, I think that for a contentious subject we need much better sourcing than that. ] (]) 00:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

			:I think Lisa got their revert rationale wrong, but Airship got their revert rationale right, essentially the sentence as written is improper, see here . ] (]) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@] I think it would be appropriate to include as "witnesses reported that". This same story is also appearing in other sources.
			::Indeed, it should be reworded. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:And "occupied Palestine" is a fairly common term for Gaza and West Bank, the particularly slanted sources use that to refer to Israel, but I think MEE just calls it Israel.
	:] (]) 03:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::It will be appropriate once the sourcing meets the requirements of ].''' "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."''' One anonymous report in a biased publication citing anonymous people doesn't even come close. ] (]) 14:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:@] "Northern Gaza, occupied-Palestine" I think most of the world would think it was a stretch to say that ''Northern Gaza'' is not currently "occupied", it's full of IDF soldiers. ] (]) 04:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': Whiteout comment on the source, I found this on RSN ]. ping {{reply to\|nableezy}} to this conversation, they seem to have long term knowledge about this source. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 04:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:That editor is temporarily topic-banned from Israel-Palestine articles so you'll be waiting a while. ] (]) 08:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::My mistake, I thought that had ended at AE, but still has a couple of weeks. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 09:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment 2''': I think the above referenced incident needs more than one WP:RS for inclusion, it makes extraordinary claims based on "witnesses reported that" statements, there needs to be more substantial and independent sourcing than witness statements. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 04:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:@] We can't include it as a fact, but we should include it AS a witness report "witnesses told Middle East Eye…" or just "witness reported that…" exactly as MEE have presented it. Other sources will probably trace to the same witnesses, the other sources would just be endorsing MEE. The discussion on the reliabile sources notice board (that someone linked above) says very reliable sources like the BBC already have a track record of quoting MEE as a reliable source. ] (]) 04:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::*I was the one that posted RSN thread. Not every rumor or witness statement published on the internet needs to go in the article ]. ] states, "'''Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.'''" This is especially important in a CTopics article.<span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 09:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

			== Scope of article ==
	:Indeed. Is the source listed under any pages listing levels of source credibility ? If so, what is its stated level of reliability? (Can't remember what the page that lists sources and their reliability is called). ] (]) 08:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

			The lead of the article would state: {{tq\|An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups has been taking place in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the fifth war of the Gaza–Israel conflict since 2008, and the most significant military engagement in the region since the Yom Kippur War in 1973.}} This would clearly define the scope of the war (the article) to be within Gaza and without (eg within Israel) as directly related to Palastinian Gazans and Israelis.
	It's a newsorg and presumed reliable (even if biased). Also not too difficult to find other sources ] (]) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:I rather sadly did not find it an extraordinary story though it was shocking but yes I'd have agreed it should not go in without more support as there's a lot of propaganda about. However the above does seem to be an actual independent reliable source corroberating it rather than just duplicating the source and it looks due to me. ] (]) 16:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:This other source is hardly better than Middle East Eye. The chairman of Euro-med Monitor was the assistant director of ], an organisation tied to Hamas . More recently he was positively about the October 7 attack, calling the attackers "elite young men" and "heroic knights". ]<sub>]</sub> 21:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Wow. That's a horrific statement, especially from someone claiming to represent human rights. Definitely a partisan organization, so hopefully not reliable even when their claims are reported by RS. I wonder if there's some way to blacklist the organization's claims, not familiar with those aspects of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Just saw that someone has already started a discussion at WP:RSN which is the appropriate venue for that, feel free to ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Nothing wrong with Middle East Eye, either. ] (]) 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

			The article has a section ''Other confrontations'' - ie these confrontations are related (somehow) but fall outside the scope of the article. They are primarily about other Islamic groups engaging Israel, sometimes purporting sympathy for the Gazan Palestinians but also because of ongoing hostilities with Israel. These are covered in ]. The sectioning and title indicate these are quite peripheral to the scope of this article. I am not suggesting content under ''Other confrontations'' should be removed from the article but in line with the scope defined in the lead, content should reflect that these events are peripheral.
	== Misplaced paragraph? ==

			What does this mean? Firstly, subsections under ''Other confrontations'' should be confined to a high-level summary with limited detail, where appropriate detail is given in related articles. This has occurred to some extent but there is scope for further improvement. Secondly, this relates to the infobox and the drop-down ''Allies in other theaters''. Simply put, if they are not a belligerent in this war (as defined by the cope of the article) they don't belong in the infobox. Thirdly (and similarly) for ''Palestinian allies''. ] (]) 04:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	The following paragraph is in the subsection War Crimes -> Following Hamas Attack

			:In reference to the ] that I recently closed, which I assume you have seen here, I completely agree with your assessment. I've expressed this elsewhere, so to say it in the right place, the ] is highly problematic; there is only one sentence in relation to Hamas (the assassination), while the rest has no relevant context to the subject and scope. This should be cleaned up given the consensus, ie complete the merge to MEC article, ideally by a competent editor who is familiar this this article and the other, leaving only a ] of the child article in it's place per editing guidelines, similar to nearly every other section here. The Iran conflict is also already summarised as a child in MEC, so there is no need to do so here, only a sentence or two with wikilink is required. The other issue is the lead of MEC is of poor quality, as it fails to summarise the body and main child articles with an undue focus on Israel–Hamas at present, so a summary would realistically need to be written from scratch, ideally with additional context to the subject (that's the main obstacle here imo). If there were a decent lead summary over there, it would be relatively straightforward otherwise. As for the ], this just seems misplaced as it is directly about the Israel–Hamas war, not other confrontations, so would be better moved elsewhere. ] (]) 13:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	>In a 12 October preliminary legal assessment condemning Hamas's attacks in Israel, international humanitarian law scholar and Dean of Cornell Law School Jens David Ohlin said the evidence suggested Hamas's "killings and kidnappings" potentially violated Articles 6–8 of the Rome Statute as well as the Genocide Convention and were "crimes against humanity"; over a hundred international scholars expressed support for this position.

			== Infobox talk page ==
	But clearly the paragraph pertains to the Hamas attack, not events following the attack, so it is misplaced. I wasn't sure where else to put it. Suggestions? ] (]) 10:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

			Generally the infobox should not be a separate sub-article but if it is, all discussions about the article (including the infobox) should be centralised - ie at the article TP here. This is done by making the template TP a redirect to this page as done for ] and ]. There is presently an RfC occurring at ] that makes actioning this problematic at this immediate point; however, I would be proposing to implement this once the RfC has been closed. ] (]) 04:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@]
	:I think it belongs in ] instead of either of the other two? ] (]) 22:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:27, 22 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel–Hamas war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 7 October 2023, from October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict to 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Not moved, WP:SNOW, 11 October 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Gaza War, see discussion.
No consensus, 15 October 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Gaza–Israel war, see discussion.
Not moved, WP:SNOW, 31 October 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Not moved, early close, no consensus, 1 November 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Hamas–Israel war, see discussion.
Not moved, moratorium on requested moves, speedy close, 26 November 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to 2023 Hamas–Israel war, see discussion.
Retain "Israel–Hamas war", no consensus on year disambiguation, 23 December 2023, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Procedural close, 10 January 2024, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
Moved, 12 January 2024, from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Hamas war, see discussion.
No consensus, three month moratorium from date of close (28 February 2024), 23 January 2024, from Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Gaza war, see discussion.
No consensus, 29 May 2024, to Gaza War (2023–present), see discussion.
No consensus. Listed at WP:MR; Result was endorsed, 13 August 2024, to Israel–Gaza war, see discussion.
Not moved, 30 December 2024, to Gaza war (2023–present), see discussion.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

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

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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Other talk page banners

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Israel Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Top‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Lebanon Mid‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[REDACTED]

Yemen Low‑importance

[REDACTED]	Yemen portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Stephen Harrison (2023-10-26). "Misplaced Pages Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X". Slate.
Mark Klugman (2023-10-22). "'The Sabbath Massacres': Naming Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on Israel - opinion". Jerusalem Post.
Hava Mendelle (2023-11-02). "Misplaced Pages at war". Spectator Australia.
Aaron Bandler (2024-05-23). "Seven Tactics Misplaced Pages Editors Used to Spread Anti-Israel Bias Since Oct. 7". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved May 24, 2024.
Avior Byron (2024-06-03). "Truth held hostage: Language differences in Misplaced Pages's 'Israel-Hamas War' page – opinion". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved June 3, 2024.
Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research". The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 18, 2024.

This page is currently under extended confirmed protection.
Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023 and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 24 November 2023. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Section sizes

Section size for Israel–Hamas war (42 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	21,535	21,535
Names	6,048	6,048
Background	22,783	22,783
Events	140	166,396
7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel	18,868	18,868
Initial Israeli counter-operation (October 2023)	13,730	42,948
Blockade, bombardment, and evacuation of Northern Gaza	29,218	29,218
Initial invasion and truces (October–November 2023)	12,892	12,892
Resumption of hostilities (December 2023 – May 2024)	18,865	36,085
Build-up to the Rafah offensive (February–April 2024)	17,220	17,220
Beginning of the Rafah offensive (May–July 2024)	18,702	18,702
Rafah, Khan Yunis, and general bombardment (July–September 2024)	10,852	10,852
Continued operations throughout Gaza (October 2024 – present)	14,495	24,602
Encirclement of Northern Gaza	10,107	10,107
Second truce	1,307	1,307
Other confrontations	3,523	51,527
West Bank and Israel	21,763	33,230
Israeli settlements	1,634	1,634
Attacks in Israel	2,522	2,522
Israeli prisons and detention camps	7,311	7,311
American involvement	2,169	2,169
Iran	3,737	12,605
Iranian strikes on Israel	3,321	3,321
Israeli response	5,547	5,547
Casualties	1,373	1,373
Humanitarian crisis	12,292	12,292
Scale of destruction	9,626	9,626
War crimes	18,835	18,835
Diplomatic impact	7,295	7,295
Reactions	382	17,947
Israel	3,223	3,223
Palestinian territories	1,569	1,569
International	8,491	8,491
Evacuations of foreign nationals	4,282	4,282
Impacts	58	13,473
Regional impact	5,778	5,778
Economic impact	7,637	7,637
Media coverage	2,841	2,841
See also	402	402
Notes	138	138
References	2,387	2,387
External links	1,824	1,824
Total	356,722	356,722

A news item involving Israel–Hamas war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 October 2023.

[REDACTED]

Misplaced Pages

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Hasson, Nir; Yaniv, Kubovich (2024-11-11). "The Israeli Army Is Allowing Gangs in Gaza to Loot Aid Trucks and Extort Protection Fees From Drivers". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2024-11-19. …looting of the convoys reflects the complete anarchy that prevails in Gaza due to the lack of any functioning civilian government. … Defense officials confirmed that the IDF is aware of the problem. (the Israeli government) considered making the clans to which the armed men belong responsible for distributing aid to Gaza's residents, even though some of the clans' members are involved in terrorism, and some are even affiliated with extremist organizations like the Islamic State.
"Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel's challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Image". International Criminal Court. 21 November 2024. Retrieved 21 November 2024. The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.
Murphy, Brett (15 January 2025). "A Year of Empty Threats and a "Smokescreen" Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza". ProPublica. Retrieved 16 January 2025.

Split

PARTIALLY MERGED After initial split discussions, convincing consensus to merge Other confrontations to Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) was established. Multiple editors also recommended that the West Bank and Israel section remain, and a partial oppose was made for this reason alone. There was additionally a parallel discussion to eliminate this standalone article, however this proposal failed to gain traction alongside the merge proposal. This is an involved close, so any strong opposition to this summary should be reverted; however it's worth noting the overwhelming consensus that was established making this close far from controversial, as well as the partial execution of a merge occurring on 6 January 2025 of the sections Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. Thus I believe this close is more procedural than consensus determining, given the bold merge that has already occurred and become the status quo, while noting that the section on Iran still remains against the established consensus. CNC (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

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♦ 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:

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...")
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...")
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages). I doubt that name will reach consensus on English Misplaced Pages 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 Barnt Toust 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)
Support, while keeping section on West Bank and Israel. Firecat93 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (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 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 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Post January cleanup

@AirshipJungleman29 performed a trim, from 14500 words (480K bytes) in 18 January 23:00 to 11000 words (350K bytes) in 19 January 04:00. @CNC indicated their initial approval. Do you both think the above discussion can be deemed resolved? Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Not quite but close, I left a comment for AJ29 on talkpage requesting implementing this. But otherwise, given the clear consensus above and a motivated editor to summarise Other confrontations a bit better, I'll close this up. CNC (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, as a personal note, this led me to read the whole article for the first time, as it is now much more pleasant to read! Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:09, 19 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

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

#Requested move 17 January 2025 has been opened by VR with agreed sources. Kenneth Kho (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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 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 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" . 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)

@Levivich, suppose you were to propose a move, do you have a list of sources that you'd use? Can you please post them here?

And everyone (@Chicdat, @QuicoleJR, @Unbandito, @Makeandtoss etc), what do you think of a move to "War in Gaza"?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

We have an incomplete table of news sources, and (thanks to you VR) a comprehensive table of scholarly sources to support the RM. Though either title is fine with me, I personally hold a slight preference for "Gaza war" over "War in Gaza" per consistency with the prior conflicts, but if either one is proposed, I would support it. 🐔 Chicdat 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chicdat, should we, present in the RM, 3 choices (Gaza, Israel-Gaza, Israel-Hamas) and ask people to give ranked choices? Or we should ask people to indicate whether they support/oppose on every single one of the choice? Or should the RM only be a binary choice between "Gaza" and "Israel–Hamas"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I'd prefer the binary, since it seems like both Gaza and Israel–Hamas are both considerably dominant over Israel-Gaza. 🐔 Chicdat 15:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for ping VR and no offense but I'm going to decline to suggest sources for fear that a year+ from now, someone will post it as evidence of "consistent non-neutral editing" by me and arbcom will tban me for it as is happening now at arbpia5. I don't think I'll be participating in talk page discussions like this anymore, sorry. Again, nothing personal and has nothing to do with you or this page in particular. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

News organizations

@Chicdat: Thanks for taking the initiative. Note that a major point of contention will arise relating to what is the most recent usage by these RS, so the analysis in the table should probably include this. Also, a point will be raised that the scope is not consistent, so categories should be compared to categories, and text references to text references. But overall, it seems that there is consensus among RS, and in the previous move, to include Gaza rather than Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 10 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 1 2	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

Scholarly sources

Here is the table I presented at the last RM.


Engine	Gaza+war	Israel+Hamas+war
Google scholar	590	257
JSTOR	26	24
PubMed	57	17
Taylor & Francis	60	24
ScienceDirect	15	9

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"Gaza war" is a bit more ambiguous, and some of those hits could refer to the 2014 war, the 2012 war, or the 2008-2009 war. "Israel-Hamas war" is much less ambiguous, so it would naturally have less hits. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify that in each of these cases I filtered to post 2023. Now its possible a source is referring to the 2008 Gaza war post 2023, but its rare. For example in google scholar:

So as you can see this effects results by <1%. BTW, the previous wars can be referred to as the "Israel-Hamas war" (for example "2014 Israel-Hamas war" or "The Israel-Hamas War") but this is also rare.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe this is enough evidence that the current war can be primary topic over all other Gaza wars, and that it is time for you to start an RM and present the opening statement. Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Several of the results of the Google Scholar search use "Israel-Gaza War", not "Gaza War". One of the ones on the first page even used "Israel-Hamas War" and simply happened to also mention Gaza in the title! The Google Scholar search you performed, using the terms you typed in, includes all sources that use "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza War", and it is therefore a bit misleading. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kenneth Kho@QuicoleJR, I deliberately didn't use quotes so as to include "Gaza war" variants like "War in Gaza", "War on Gaza", and "Israel-Hamas war" variants like "Israel and Hamas at war". Before we start the RM, we should decide if including these variants is valid or not. I think it should be as these are very similar wordings. If not, then everyone must exclude variants from their search.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The only valid exception would be to exclude Israel–Gaza War from Gaza War, the rest of the variants are most likely valid. Kenneth Kho (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Scholarly sources table with variants


Search query		Google Scholar	JSTOR	Taylor & Francis
Scope		Titles only	Titles only	Titles only	Anywhere
Gaza war variants	"Gaza war" only	421	36	7	151
	"War in Gaza" only	203	26	4	170
	"Gaza war" or "War in Gaza"	553	50	11	279
	(subtract) "Israel-Gaza war"	69	9	0	27
Gaza war total		484	41	11	252
Israel-Hamas war variants	"Israel-Hamas war" only	278	26	8	164
Israel-Hamas war variants	"Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel and Hamas at war" or "War between Israel and Hamas"	285	27	8	192
Israel-Hamas war total		285	27	8	192

@Kenneth Kho@QuicoleJR here's the table with "Israel-Gaza war" removed and popular variants included. I included the top 3 search engines that I can think. I'm still trying to figure out how to use PubMed's phrase index and proximity search.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is sufficient evidence for me. If you are unable to figure out PubMed, I think Google Scholar, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis are enough. If you are able to include PubMed data, I think it will be similar to the three. There will be a more heated debate on common name in news media, I think Makeandtoss's evidence is a good start. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kenneth Kho, Makeandtoss, we need a similar fleshed out table for the news sources. Personally, I think scholarly sources should be given at least as much weight as news sources. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

News sources' prose


Domain	Country	Top name	("the gaza war")	("the gaza war" OR "the war in gaza")	("the israel-hamas war")	("the israel-hamas war" OR "the war between israel and hamas")
theguardian.com	UK	Gaza war	600	789	10	76
reuters.com	UK	Gaza war	212	1,100	51	168
bbc.com	UK	Gaza war	147	182	0	4
telegraph.co.uk	UK	Israel-Hamas war	1	47	69	78
haaretz.com	Israel	Gaza war	627	669	9	40
timesofisrael.com	Israel	Both	190	485	218	246
jpost.com	Israel	Israel-Hamas war	48	208	152	162
palestinechronicle.com	Palestine	Gaza war	150	174	0	0
today.lorientlejour.com	Lebanon	Gaza war	120	160	4	40
aljazeera.com	Qatar	Gaza war	42	398	0	2
france24.com	France	Gaza war	119	189	40	45
afp.com	France	Neither	0	1	1	1
dw.com	Germany	Israel-Hamas war	6	92	55	60
cbc.ca	Canada	Gaza war	50	117	49	50
smh.com.au	Australia	Gaza war	9	118	6	31
cnn.com	USA	Israel-Hamas war	5	82	86	133
wsj.com	USA	Gaza war	3	64	2	3
nytimes.com	USA	Both	116	526	210	384
pbs.org	USA	Israel-Hamas war	3	180	190	157
bloomberg.com	USA	Gaza war	2	96	4	6
theatlantic.com	USA	Neither	1	6	0	0
washingtonpost.com	USA	Gaza war	137	217	65	78
politico.com	USA	Both	26	82	38	40
thehill.com	USA	Israel-Hamas war	3	82	49	43
npr.org	USA	Israel-Hamas war	27	134	79	62

Methodology: I searched for "the gaza war", and its most common variant "the war in gaza" vs "israel-hamas war" and its most common variant "the war between israel and hamas", for the past one month (to pick up on which direction sources are moving). I used "the" to ensure I was searching in prose and not in keywords or tags. I used google's "OR" operator, but some results don't make sense and you may get different results than me (see WP:GOOGLELIMITS). To determine what a source's top term was, I first compared "the gaza war" against "the israel-hamas war" and see if one phrase was clearly predominant; if not, I then added their respective variants and tried the test again. If without the variant one was predominant, but with it the other became predominant, I wrote "both"; if all hits <10, I wrote neither.

Observation: Of the 25 sources examined, 13 prefer "gaza war", 7 prefer "israel-hamas war" and 5 are unclear. Every single source uses either "the gaza war" or its variant in large numbers, but the same is not always true for "the israel-hamas war". American and Israeli sources are split between the two phrases, while UK, Europe and Arab sources lean more towards "gaza war". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Perfect analysis VR, well done! I think the community is now better posed to make an informed move decision based on this data. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 16 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.

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)

I know it's a technicality, but I'm not too sure about moving all the items under "plight of Palestinians," though it is logical and the reality. In Hamas's document, the items seem to be listed separately. On the other hand, if we read it from a high level, it all does come down to the predicament of Palestinians, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or Israeli jails. GeoffreyA (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

How is this: "Hamas said its attack was in response to the plight of Palestinians, Israel's occupation, blockade of Gaza, and expansion of settlements, and alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque." GeoffreyA (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

A bit reordering and trimming into: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's blockade of Gaza, policies at the Aqsa Mosque, and occupation and settlements expansion." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's all right, but another word in place of "policies" perhaps. Also, I think "expansion of settlements" sounds better from a style point of view. "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's blockade of Gaza, ?policies at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, expansion of settlements, and occupation." GeoffreyA (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Further iterating to:

ALT1: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's policies, including its blockade of Gaza, actions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and expansion of settlements and occupation."

ALT2: "Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's blockade of Gaza, actions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and expansion of settlements and occupation."

I would personally prefer ALT1. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

ALT1. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

ALT1. That's an excellent improvement. Good thinking. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Implemented, thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 7 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)

I have updated #1.

While #2 is already problematic since it lumps displaced Israelis from the country's war with Hezbollah into the conflict relating to the war on Gaza; it is also a year old. I have tried looking for updated figures but didn't find any relating specifically to Israeli communities around Gaza. If someone can find these figures within next two days, we can update them, otherwise this will be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I would agree that if we want to include displacements from the Israel-Lebanon conflict, then we should include both Israeli and Lebanese, or neither.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Per capita

@Rebestalic: I think "rate" is descriptive on its own and adding "per capita" to it is redundant. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey Makeandtoss, sure thing! Thanks for letting me know. Rebestalic 18:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Lede summarizing proposal 2

This summarization is going to be a tough one, proposal to summarize this chunk from:

"The war has reverberated regionally, with groups of the Axis of Resistance launching attacks on American military bases, and the Yemeni Houthi movement attacking commercial vessels in the Red Sea that incurred a US-led military operation. Meanwhile, by the end of 2024, a year-long exchange of strikes between Israel and Hezbollah escalated into a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, before pausing after a ceasefire. The crisis also saw the fall of the Assad regime and an ongoing Israeli invasion of Syria.

"The war has reverberated regionally, with Axis of Resistance groups across several Arab countries and Iran clashing with Israel and the United States. By late 2024, a year of Israel-Hezbollah strikes led to a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as well as the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria and an ongoing Israeli invasion of the country." Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at it and thinking. One point, though, do we need to include the fall of Assad and the invasion of Syria? GeoffreyA (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this specific point, but it surely is directly connected to the regional reverberations part of this war. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the whole section, I must say that I can find little to improve because you've strained it down to its essentials, and indeed, there's not a word more that can be severed without losing meaning. Only, a slight stylistic change in the Israel-Hezbollah sentence:

"The war has reverberated regionally, with Axis of Resistance groups across several Arab countries and Iran clashing with Israel and the United States. By late 2024, a year of strikes between Israel and Hezbollah led to a brief Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as well as the collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria and an ongoing Israeli invasion of the country." GeoffreyA (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Much better, yes. Though of course, this does not exclude the possibility of further trimming this part in the future if deemed necessary. I will wait until tomorrow if anyone has further input before implementing this change. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite modular, in that we can cut out certain parts, if necessary in the future, without affecting the rest. GeoffreyA (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Implemented accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Much improved. Tackle paragraph three next? (Which I think will be a nightmare.) GeoffreyA (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I have updated and trimmed it a bit. Hesitant to do more to avoid giving misleading equivalency between the one day of 7 October 2023, and the 461 days since. Let's leave it for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Trimming the October 7 section

@AndreJustAndre: This article should be a broad overview of the relevant issues. With that in mind, I don't think we need to specify every kibbutz affected, and we certainly don't need a list of the types of people taken hostage. Can you please explain why you think this information needs to be included? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Especially since this article is not the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Casus belli was Oct 7 and the hostages and the various operations that day, so I think it's not undue weight. Andre🚐 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A date can't be a casus belli, and arguably, Hamas had one of those as well, for their attack, that aside, hostages just need to say how many, no idea what "various operations" means exactly but some summary like that too, right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The date isn't the casus belli but the events of that date. What I reverted removed some details of the attacks on the kibbutzim. If Hamas' casus belli should be mentioned too it can be, is it not already? Andre🚐 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to list every single attack that happened on that day, we can just say that various attacks occurred and highlight the most important ones. Similarly, we don't need a sentence describing who the hostages were. We can describe the attack that started the war without these specifics, and the article on the October 7 attacks still mentions them, so I don't see why they need to be included. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre: Can you please explain why you think we need to describe the location of every single massacre on October 7, instead of simply summarizing? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I said that, QuicoleJR, but I do think some mention of the invasion of the kibbutzim as a casus belli is merited, and I think your removal was overly extensive. It doesn't need to name all the specific operations but I think some mention of the kibbutzim should be retained. Andre🚐 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre: I agree that the invasion of the kibbutzim certainly warrants mention, I just disagree on the importance of the disputed content. I don't believe that this overview article needs to list all of the kibbutzim that were attacked and the number of casualties in each. I believe that we would be better off simply saying that it happened in multiple kibbutzim and describing the most notable ones (Re'im and Be'eri) with more detail. The more detailed information would be retained in the October 7 article. Judging by your reply, you seem to be arguing that every kibbutzim that was invaded should be mentioned by name. If that is correct, I would like to know why. If I am wrong, please let me know. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, QuicoleJR. I agree that "aying that it happened in multiple kibbutzim and describing the most notable ones with more detail" is acceptable. Andre🚐 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you actually disagree with the change you reverted. If you don't have any objections, I am going to restore the original edit. To be clear, I will only be restoring the summarization related to listing the kibbutzim, not the other disputed edit regarding the hostages, which I am fine with keeping as the status quo. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre: Forgot to ping. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK on the hostage edit, but regarding this revert , I disagree with the removal of the text mentioning that they were kibbutzim and the mentions of the notable kibbutzim, instead adding "at several locations." I believe it should specify that the locations were kibbutzim and name the most notable ones, as you said. Andre🚐 23:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, as to your first point, would it be better if I changed "locations" to "kibbutzim"? As for the second point, the new version names the most notable two (Re'im and Be'eri) in the following sentences. If there are any other kibbutzim that you think need to be mentioned, please tell me which ones and why. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would suffice, thank you. Andre🚐 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Done QuicoleJR (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think mentioning Nir Oz might be worthwhile Andre🚐 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre: Could you please add the content? The source previously used to support mentioning it doesn't provide enough context to support a section, so a new source would need to be added. I'm not sure what source that would be, but I do agree that the Nir Oz attack should be mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I also agree that we shouldn't give unnecessary details in that section. I hope that a similar filter would be applied to the parts of the article dealing with the war in Gaza which includes lots of individual attacks atm. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. ARandomName123 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Simchat-sukkot war" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Simchat-sukkot war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at ] until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Lede bit

Personally I think this should be removed from the lede: "Torture and sexual violence were committed by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli forces". Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss why? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A lot of things are happening in this war like use of human shields, tunnel warfare, carpet bombing, etc; not everything should be mentioned in the lede as summary. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a strong part of the overwhelming horror at Hamas's actions that gave the Israeli government such a casus belli and widespread support by the Israeli public and international partners. Its relevant IMO. TimeEngineer (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So long as the information provided is accurate and verifiable, it should remain. It is one of the catalysts (for good or for bad) why the war has lasted as long as it has. I see no compelling reason to remove this information from the article but am open to futher opinion. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss so it seems that information should remain, but it can be rephrased with the other things you mentioned. "Torture and sexual violence against the opposing side was committed by Palestinian fighters and by Israeli forces; Palestinian civilians have been used as human shields by Israeli forces and by Hamas." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

My point was in arguing for less of this kind of information in the lede rather than more. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Casualty figures

Note that a peer-reviewed Lancet scientific paper has found that Palestinian causality figures are most likely an undercount by at least 41%, which has received extensive reporting by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but the Reuters headline here is wrong: "Gaza war death toll could be 40% higher, says study". Instead it should say "could be 71% higher". When we are going from the "real" figure to GHM figure, we'd subtract 41%, but when we are going from the GHM figure to the "real" figure we'd add 71%.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: How about summarizing it this way?

From: "Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been reported killed, over half of them women and children, with thousands more dead under the rubble. The Lancet has estimated a total figure of 70,000 direct deaths due to traumatic injuries."

To: "Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, over half of them women and children, and tens of thousands more believed dead, trapped under the rubble or unreported." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The Lancet study does not actually include those under the rubble, so that would be a misleading summary. I don't see the need to blend the Lancet analysis into other things. It's got a very narrow and precise scope and definition. It also isn't saying that's the total number of dead, just those dead from direct traumatic injuries. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: It is mainly because they are within same idea in two different sentences; also I think there is no need to attribute the Lancet. To avoid the implication you mentioned; "dead" could be replaced with "killed" for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's correct that the Lancet is a very authoritative source, and this is the first peer-reviewed study of the numbers, so it is doubly authoritative. Even so, I think attributing the statement is quite worthwhile until the dust has settled around it in the media. It has already been picked up a lot, but we will know in a week or so whether anyone opens to question its methodology or attempt to pick holes in its premises. If not, the attribution can go; if so, the material is suitably treated in-text. In terms of your specific combo phrasing, I'm afraid I don't really like the way it takes a very rigourously quantitative source with specific figures and turns that into just "tens of thousands" in a vague context. That just seems sloppy. Your proposed summary makes it so that the Lancet study may as well not even exist, which is the opposite of what my attributed phrasing is doing, which is broadcasting that fact far and wide. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

How about: ""Since the start of the Israeli offensive, over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, mostly women and children; thousands more are dead under the rubble, and The Lancet estimates the true death toll may be 70% higher." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That sort of works, but it should probably be "... estimates the true death toll due to traumatic injury to be (at least) 70% higher." – since the study is specific and I don't think includes those under the rubble, which would be extra. This also doesn't include indirect deaths from starvation or disease, which the article alludes to in noting the previous 186,000 estimate in the Lancet correspondence. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead of "traumatic injury", how about "directly killed" since that is more accessible to the reader. So something like:

"...over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been directly killed, mostly women and children; thousands more are presumed dead under the rubble, and The Lancet estimates the number of direct deaths may be 70% higher. These estimates don't include indirect deaths (due to disease and famine), which may be four times higher." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can definitely get on board with that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I support that wording, and inserting "mostly civilians" as suggested below. Well supported by the sources. I'm trying to think of a better wording, as "may be 4 times higher" seems to imply "up to 4 times higher" when actually the source implies it may be much more, but the above wording is still OK and I haven't thought of a better wording. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Per above (Iskandar323—Makeandtoss), also please consider adding "mostly civilians", as there does appear to be a consensus of sources at Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Civilian_to_combatant_ratio that 75%+ are civilians.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Casualties in infobox

The casualties section of the infobox is presently being used to give a detailed breakdown of casualties in the war. This is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE where the infobox is to summarise key facts from the body of the article. The infobox is not suited to such detail. Whether the numbers reported can be represented as a fact is another issue, as is the process by which these figures are arrived at through a collation from sources. A collation process assume that the reports identified are complete and without duplication. Also, in an ongoing engagement, any figures are not stable. Consequently, the casualty reports should be removed from the infobox. A consensus to this effect was reached for Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is a casualties section in the body of the article and the TOC directs the reader to that section. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 are you proposing there be no casualties in the infobox, if so, I disagree. Otherwise please state your proposal. If we must simplify, I'd rather leave in the casualties for Gaza and remove those for other parts like Lebanon etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless the casualties can be simply summarised, they don't belong in the infobox (per INFOBOXPURPOSE). If you disagree, then on what P&G basis? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We could maybe put the detained and displaced numbers in a hidden section like the one the Egyptian casualties are currently in, since these are not technically casualties and losses, and maybe remove the Egyptian casualties altogether. Direct death and indirect deaths could be made more concise at the top with bracketed ranges, 47,000-70,000, and 186,000+, respectively. That would reduce the size. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The place for detail is in the body of the article. Large hidden sections create accessibility issues for mobile users as the dropdown doesn't function for mobile devices. We are also back to the issue of presenting detail in the infobox for which it is not intended per INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Refaat Alareer's death

I removed this from the article back in December, but apparently it was added back on January 1st. I still believe it is not important enough for this broad overview article, and should be mentioned in more specific articles, such as the timelines. @Monk of Monk Hall: Why do you believe that this individual poet's death should be given a paragraph in this article? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well first of all, I believe there is only a sentence in this article about Alareer, not a paragraph. To my understanding, Alareer's death is one of the most notable civilian casualties of the war. His killing has had extreme significance in pro-Palestinian protests around the world. Buildings have been occupied and libraries created in his memory. A video of Brian Cox reading his poem was watched millions of times. Alareer's book recently made the NYT bestseller list. There are far less notable people mentioned in the article, like Israeli colonel Ehsan Daxa. Since I added Daxa to the article, I have never seen anyone try to remove him despite the fact that there is no consistent basis to leave him in the article while removing Alareer. I think this article should be fairly detailed even if that means it is long and for the most part, I think that short mentions of notable individuals in this article enhance its quality and accurately reflect the weight given to them by the sources we use. If Alareer were not mentioned here, this article would be minimizing his importance in comparison the sources and the public's memory and those are important aspects of what we ought to hope to capture in writing for Misplaced Pages. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Monk of Monk Hall, I hope we can come with a more or less objective criterion. I don't know why, for instance, Ehsan Daxa is mentioned and Vivian Silver is not. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be given a paragraph, rather a single sentence (not two as we currently have it). We can also make it part of a sentence like "Israeli operations have killed prominent artists in such as Refaat Alareer,..." IIRC he's not the only prominent artist killed in Gaza, and the killing of artists as a category has been subject to RS coverage.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the second sentence was/is needed to explain his notability, but I agree with the idea of organizing the article more thematically in general, in which case the mention of Alareer could be shortened and moved to a section about notable civilian deaths. If the ceasefire announced today holds, I think it will become much easier to write about the war as a historical rather than a current event, and we can clean up the timeline and present information more thematically. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Date variety?

Over at Talk: October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, there was a recent requested move that changed "7 October" to "October 7," de facto ending in consensus that the entire article's WP:DATEVAR should be changed from day-month-year to month-year-day, based on a preponderance of reliable sources — Arab, Israeli, and international. In the interest of cross-topic consistency, I'm asking here if people would agree to change the DATEVAR on this article (and other related articles) to MDY based on this conclusion. DecafPotato (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Both Palestine and Israel use DMY format according to our listing so we should retain that format. MOS:DATETIES says to "should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country". Maintaining date format consistency across articles is not important. Burrobert (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

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

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

Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War
Gaza War → Gaza War (disambiguation)

If supporting, please indicate whether you prefer "Gaza War" or "Gaza War (2023–present)".

WP:COMMONNAME: Either "Gaza war" or its variant "war in Gaza" (or both) are common among every single news source below, including Israeli sources. By contrast, "Israel-Hamas war" or its variants are no longer used at BBC and Al-Jazeera; the Guardian and Haaretz are both 10x more likely to use "Gaza war" than "Israel-Hamas war". Scholarly sources somewhat prefer "Gaza war" (even after we subtract "Israel-Gaza war" from the results). (Side note, WP:NCENPOV requires us to consider names "close enough to be considered variations of the same common name")
WP:CONSISTENT: most major modern wars are simply named after the main location: Vietnam War, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, Tigray War etc. Where we have two names, they are both countries: Iran-Iraq War, Russo-Ukrainian War etc. "Gaza War" is consistent with these, but "Israel-Hamas war" is not as Hamas has never been a country.
WP:PRECISION, both "Gaza war" and "Israel-Hamas war" have previously been used to refer to other conflicts (eg, 10,000 google hits for "2014 Israel-Hamas war"). Previously there has been consensus that this current war overshadows all previous wars to be the WP:PTOPIC (see here and here). "Gaza War (2023-present)" is more WP:PRECISE, but "Gaza War" is slightly more concise.
WP:NPOVN. Significant POV issues were identified with "Israel-Hamas war" in the last RM, and "Gaza War" solves that. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The move request was modified to indicate the fate of the existing Gaza War page as per this discussion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Google search of term and variants in prose, over last month, in 26 news sources: 14 favor Gaza war, 7 favor Israel-Hamas war, 5 are unclear


Domain	Country	Top name	("the gaza war")	("the gaza war" OR "the war in gaza")	("the israel-hamas war")	("the israel-hamas war" OR "the war between israel and hamas")
theguardian.com	UK	Gaza war	600	789	10	76
reuters.com	UK	Gaza war	212	1,100	51	168
bbc.com	UK	Gaza war	147	182	0	4
telegraph.co.uk	UK	Israel-Hamas war	1	47	69	78
haaretz.com	Israel	Gaza war	627	669	9	40
timesofisrael.com	Israel	Both	190	485	218	246
jpost.com	Israel	Israel-Hamas war	48	208	152	162
palestinechronicle.com	Palestine	Gaza war	150	174	0	0
today.lorientlejour.com	Lebanon	Gaza war	120	160	4	40
aljazeera.com	Qatar	Gaza war	42	398	0	2
france24.com	France	Gaza war	119	189	40	45
afp.com	France	Neither	0	1	1	1
dw.com	Germany	Israel-Hamas war	6	92	55	60
cbc.ca	Canada	Gaza war	50	117	49	50
smh.com.au	Australia	Gaza war	9	118	6	31
cnn.com	USA	Israel-Hamas war	5	82	86	133
wsj.com	USA	Gaza war	3	64	2	3
nytimes.com	USA	Both	116	526	210	384
apnews.com	USA	Israel-Hamas war	3	823	2,010	2,610
pbs.org	USA	Israel-Hamas war	3	180	190	157
bloomberg.com	USA	Gaza war	2	96	4	6
theatlantic.com	USA	Neither	1	6	0	0
washingtonpost.com	USA	Gaza war	137	217	65	78
politico.com	USA	Both	26	82	38	40
thehill.com	USA	Israel-Hamas war	3	82	49	43
npr.org	USA	Gaza war	238	460	79	83

Discussion

Important to note that this move request, as have previous ones, is being subject to mass campaigning . Makeandtoss (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Vice_regent, probably you'd want to add "Gaza-Israel war" (3 Google scholar hits) and "Hamas-Israel war" (36 hits) to the totals in your table. Also, note that the last pages of Google Scholar results shows mostly newspapers and think tanks. For example, page 36 of allintitle:("gaza war" OR "war in gaza") has the Guardian, Haaretz, Foreign Affairs, etc. Hopefully it affects both options similarly. Alaexis_¿question? 08:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Good call, I'll likely do that for google scholar first and its easy to do. If I get time, I'll do it for the news searches too, but its more work.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Re Chess's comment above. For the news source prose search I specifically limited to the last 1 month in google search options. It is true that Al-Jazeera used "the Israel-Hamas war" back in 2023, but now it seems to almost never use it; that shift is significant. Likewise, even if we use WSJ's own search engine, we get 39 hits for "the Gaza war" (and variants) vs 3 hits for "the Israel-Hamas war" (and variants). So the result that WSJ favors Gaza war would remain the same. Regarding Reuters' search, I'm not finding it to be accurate (many of the results it gives for "the Israel-Hamas war" don't have that term in the prose). Regarding CBC, there is no option for either OR operator or to limit the search results to last month, but we can sort by date. So for Dec 2024 and Jan 2025, the Gaza war total is 18 (17 + 1) vs Israel-Hamas war total 12 (12 + 0). The problem here is that CBC search is an undercount as doing a google search shows more hits over the same time period (verified by clicking the link and doing ctrl+f). So while google search has its issues, I think its better than the search engine of most websites.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Vice regent: I would say that's a significant limitation, because the war took place in Israel during the first part and is currently taking place in Gaza now. I'd like to see something more long-term than "here's some recent news articles from the past month". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Chess given that many RS have shifted away from "Israel-Hamas war" term, the best way of measuring that is by limiting results to the past month (or 2). Also, google search itself says it might get unreliable when results are >400, not to mention, it becomes near impossible to manually verify when results get that large; hence quoting results in the thousands becomes less meaningful. Also, even the Oct 7 attacks mostly took place inside what is known in Israel as the "Gaza envelope" so the "Gaza" terminology seems much more accurate than "Israel-Hamas".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Vice regent: What you're proposing is, essentially, WP:RECENTISM. I would weight far less on primary sources (of which contemporaneous news articles are) and far more on secondary sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That isn't the meaning of that guideline. The conflict as a whole is not breaking news at this stage. It is an understood thing with common terms. His methodology is simply accurately depicting where the language has shifted to long-term. Current news language usage reflects where the common terms for the conflict have shifted. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not WP:RECENTISM but WP:NAMECHANGES, which provides "extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change." Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chess: A good example here is the article on the Kursk offensive. Its original title, August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion, was based on the initial sources on the event. Over the next couple of months, sources shifted to use "offensive" rather than "incursion" as the conflict changed in scope. This article is similar. During and directly after October 7, sources (even very pro-Palestinian sources like Al Jazeera) predominantly used Israel–Hamas war. However, as the conflict changed from symmetric warfare in Israel to the fighting in Gaza, sources switched to using Gaza War over time. With that in mind, we should be looking at recent sources because it helps determine what exactly is more used at this moment. In the Kursk case, a move might have failed because the initial body of sources referred to it as an incursion rather than an offensive. 🐔 Chicdat 12:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. In response to the argument that this is a war between Israel and Hamas, I think if one looks deeper, it is not so simple. We've got two different categories being put on the same level: a country on one side, and a group on the other. Fair enough. However, why not call it the "IDF-Hamas war" or "Likud-Hamas war" for increased precision? (Of course, I'm not suggesting that.) There seems to be a mismatch where, on one side, the government and army are being abstracted as Israel, but on the other side, the territory's government and military wing, Hamas, is being used instead of Gaza or Palestine. This is illogical and inconsistent. There is probably a term for this fallacy but I can't remember it. What's more, Hamas was not the only group fighting. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Should the United States be added as a belligerent to the infobox?

The infobox shows there are a 100 US troops deployed in combat in Israel. The two cited sources for the 100 number have this to say:

"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed in combat in Israel during the current crisis."

"The United States is sending an advanced missile defense system to Israel, along with about 100 American troops to operate it, the Pentagon announced on Sunday."

I was going to add the US as a belligerent to the infobox as a bold edit, but since this is a very contentious topic I figured I'd ask here first for thoughts/input from other editors. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose since the troops -if I’m not mistaken- were sent to operate interceptors targeting Iranian missiles, which are a different conflict from the one here relating to Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the infobox, it lists 100 US troops on the side of Israel. I just think it's weird to have US troops on the side of Israel in the conflict's infobox but not have them as belligerents. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

None of these US forces fight against Hamas in Gaza. Otherwise, one would need to include all US battleships in this area, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

If those 100 troops are part of a different conflict, should they be removed from the infobox? (Or should the area warships be added?) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're part of a different conflict, but they aren't a belligerent in the conflict. It's possible to be involved in a conflict without being a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR, as the cited source says US troops are deployed "in combat". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Belligerent has a very specific definition. Combat troops only operating in a supportive role are not belligerents. As another example, if the US sent medics to the border of Ukraine (or even into Ukraine) to help bolster their healthcare system (ex: due to losses of doctors who were conscripted into combat), that does not make the US a belligerent in that war. Similarly here, the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems. They are not making the ultimate decisions on how they are used. They are acting in a supporting role, not a belligerent role. I will end by saying thank you to TurboSuperA+ for recognizing this will be contentious and bringing it here rather than just making the edit - we all do better when we communicate rather than just making changes that we know will be contested :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"the US sent troops to train and maintain missile defence systems."

The WP:RS is quite clear that US troops are there to operate the missile defense system.

"about 100 American troops to operate it" and "The move will put American troops operating the ground-based interceptor,"

"Components for a terminal high-altitude area defence (Thaad) missile system, alongside a crew to operate it," and "Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system"

Therefore the troops aren't sent there to train and maintain, but to actively "operate" the system. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Operating a missile defense system is not a belligerent. Helping an ally defend themselves from missiles while not actually engaging the enemy yourselves is the opposite of a belligerent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez "Combatants are persons who are authorized to use force in situations of armed conflict" It would appear the US soldiers are authorized to use force. The only thing is that the 'enemy' they are authorized to use force against is most likely Iran or Hezbollah, not the Palestinians. This is why I suggest not conflating the Iran-Israel conflict with the war here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

My very best wishes is correct that none of these US troops are fighting in the Gaza theatre. Which is why the United States could be added to "Allies in other theatres". But I think the better option here would be for this infobox to only focus on the Gaza war, and we should not have "other theatres" for either side.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Support addition to "Allies in other theatres" similar to Iran. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd also support this. DecafPotato (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Trim Review

@AirshipJungleman29 performed a trim, from 14500 words (480K bytes) in 18 January 23:00 to 11000 words (350K bytes) in 19 January 04:00. I took a cursory look at all their edits for an hour, I think it is reasonably carefully done.

I picked one of their edit that removed 4.5K bytes, which I see as representative of how the trim was carried out. Please explain your approval or disapproval with that edit.

Edit summary: merge paragraph to enforce WP:TOOBIG size guidelines; again, this top-level article, per WP:SS, is not the place to detail minutiae of individual attacks unless notable themselves.

Before edit: An Israeli airstrike on a UNRWA-run school-turned-shelter in Nuseirat refugee camp killed at least 18 people. In September, an Israeli strike on a home in Nuseirat refugee camp killed 10 Palestinians. An Israeli air strike on Zeitoun school in Gaza City killed at least 21 Palestinians. Israel returned 88 bodies to Gaza in a container truck, providing no personal or location information where the victims had been killed. Nasser Hospital health officials refused to bury the bodies until they were identified. An Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter in Jabalia killed at least 15 Palestinians. Israeli forces bombed two houses on the Nuseirat camp, killing at least 13 people.

After edit: An Israeli airstrike on Nuseirat refugee camp on 11 September killed at least 18 people. Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

References

"Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff". BBC News. 13 September 2024. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
^ "Six Unrwa workers among estimated 18 killed in Israeli strike on Gaza school sheltering displaced". The Guardian. 12 September 2024. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
Mccready, Alastair; Rasheed, Zaheena; Marsi, Federica; Siddiqui, Usaid; Varshalomidze, Tamila; Jamal, Urooba (11 September 2024). "Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
Rowlands, Lyndal; Rasheed, Zaheena; Siddiqui, Usaid; Motamedi, Maziar; Najjar, Farah (16 September 2024). "The Wafa news agency is reporting that several children and women were among the 10 Palestinians killed in the Israel's attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
Rowlands, Lyndal; Rasheed, Zaheena; Siddiqui, Usaid; Motamedi, Maziar; Najjar, Farah (16 September 2024). "At least 10 Palestinians killed and 15 wounded in another Israeli attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
Rowlands, Lyndal; Rasheed, Zaheena; Jamal, Urooba; Siddiqui, Usaid (23 September 2024). "Most victims of Saturday's school attack were women and children: Rights group". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 23 September 2024.
"Israeli attack on Gaza school sheltering displaced Palestinians kills 22". Al Jazeera. 21 September 2024. Retrieved 21 September 2024.
"IDF says airstrike targeted Hamas command room in a Gaza school; Palestinians say 10 killed". The Times of Israel. 21 September 2024. Retrieved 21 September 2024.
"Israel sends unidentified bodies to Gaza as Palestinian officials demand answers". NBC News. 25 September 2024. Retrieved 28 September 2024.
"Death toll from Israeli airstrike on Jabalia school surges to 15". Wafa. 26 September 2024. Retrieved 26 September 2024.
Mohamed, Edna (26 September 2024). "Israel's military confirms attack on Jabalia school". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 26 September 2024.
Mccready, Alastair; Jamal, Urooba; Mohamed, Edna; Siddiqui, Usaid; Varshalomidze, Tamila; Najjar, Farah (30 September 2024). "At least 11 killed in Israeli attack on central Gaza". Al Jazeera.
Mccready, Alastair (1 October 2024). "Death toll rises following Israeli attack in central Gaza". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
"Israel Gaza: UN says Israeli air strike killed six of its staff". BBC News. 13 September 2024. Retrieved 12 September 2024.
Mccready, Alastair; Rasheed, Zaheena; Marsi, Federica; Siddiqui, Usaid; Varshalomidze, Tamila; Jamal, Urooba (11 September 2024). "Death toll of Israeli attack on UNRWA school rises to 18". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 12 September 2024.

As noted in the edit summary, this trim was done to enforce WP:TOOBIG size guidelines per WP:Summary Style. As this topic has a huge number of child articles, I chose to retain only mentions of events that have dedicated child articles of their own, showing their comparative notability, or when they were directly relevant to high-level topics. In the case of the above paragraph, the September 2024 Al-Jawni School attack is the only incident, as far as I am aware, to have its own article, and thus mention of it was retained in this top-level article. The article-wide trim has received positive review from users CommunityNotesContributor and Pachu Kannan on my talk page; further comments or constructive criticism are of course welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not a good trim. I count 165 victims of Israeli attacks in the top paragraph. That number has been reduced to "at least 18". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The number hasn't been reduced to "at least 18", that's a complete misrepresentation of the content. The summary of the child article remains "at least 18". It bares no reflection on the remainder of September's undue details. If you want to summarise that there were 165 victims in September, then go ahead, create a note with your calculations using the references provided. However, given it's been months and nobody bothered to do this, despite issues with the page size for months, and a maintenance template to boot, these overly specific details were better off removed entirely to uphold WP:SUMMARY style guidelines. Apart from the reference to the child article, none of the other details are relevant to the summary of the child article in question, this is why there is an entire article dedicated to the specifics, that includes a detailed breakdown of September 2024. Expecting editors to be making over-complicated summaries due to the laziness of others is completely unreasonable. The issue is that the paragraph breached editing guidelines that are not negotiable, if editors want to add summaries they are more than welcome. Thanks. CNC (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

For anyone watching, I styled this review to solicit approval or disapproval on the general methodology used to trim, but of course feel free to comment on anything related to the trim. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse trim per comments above. TLDR is that it is not the responsibility of the editor trimming content to child article summaries to summarise every single detail included when upholding said guidelines, that are not negotiable. It is instead the responsibility of editors contributing content to adhere to editing guidelines, failure to do so and others should act accordingly. IAR does not apply here. CNC (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
At a first glance, this is a good faith effort to improve the page. But the lead is missing the stated goals by Israel for the war, i.e. to destroy Hamas and return their hostages. They apparently failed to accomplish their first goal (the Hamas remains in charge in Gaza) and are partially completing their second goal right now. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, these are stated in the second sentence of the second lead paragraph. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, it is there. I missed it. The lead is written in a such manner that an occasional reader (who does not edit this page) would immediately focus on the alleged atrocities committed by Israeli forces, rather than anything else. One of tricks here: we do not know how many Palestinians were actually combatants, and of course a lot of civilians will be killed during any urban warfare. But the presentation implies that the Israeli forces were targeting civilians just as much (or a lot more) as Hamas when it was killing their people during the October 7. This is because the lead dedicate a lot more space to the Israeli "atrocities". The Israel is looking 1000 times worse than the terrorists from Hamas. This is not true, but a reader will definitely get such impression after reading the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Naturally, the lead will use more space to describe the Gaza war, which occupied about 470 days, and indeed, more used to be said about the events of Oct. 7, 2023, but was trimmed in the recent summarising. As for the Palestinians that were killed, it is already known that a lot more than half were women and children, and therefore civilians, and surely, all the remaining men of that number couldn't have been fighters. To a large extent, the Gaza Strip has been reduced to WW2-style rubble, so the army that did this destruction, along with the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, intentional or not, will certainly have image problems at this point. GeoffreyA (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't about making one side or the other look worse, we go by what WP:RS say. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ceasefire

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for rewriting the lede in a proportionate way, which better reflects the events of the war.

As for considering the war to have concluded, I think this is premature. A ceasefire is by definition: a temporary suspension of fighting; a truce. This ceasefire, which Netanyahu himself had yesterday declared that he had the support of both Biden and Trump in viewing it as temporary, consists of two phases, with the first having started a few hours ago, and negotiations for the second to start in a few weeks leading supposedly to an end of the war. So the war has not finished officially yet, and the first phase is not being viewed as having been a permanent arrangement. The war should still be described in the present tense. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I am satisfied with that reasoning, and will self-revert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to request that... (the status section for the front page should be labeled as “ceasefire” until the ceasefire ends. This is in accordance with the recently-reached agreement.) . LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (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. possibly already done now Cannolis (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Second edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the fourth paragraph of the entry, it states "Various experts and human rights organizations have characterized the events in Gaza as genocide. A case accusing Israel of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,...." This should be changed to "Various experts and human rights organizations have characterized the events in both Gaza and Israel as genocide. Cases accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,..."

This change is supported by multiple references and necessary for balance, and neutral point of view.

The changes are fully suppoprted by numerous references including : https://archive.ph/2023.10.19-000330/https://docs.google.com/forms/d/ and https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231103-israeli-families-bring-war-crime-complaint-to-icc-lawyer Apndrew (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done. Change is not supported by the sources. Rainsage (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Third edit request from WP:RFED

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following statement is misleading: "Torture and sexual violence were committed by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli forces". Sexual violence committed by Hamas on October 7th was widespread and systematic. On the Israeli side there is one documented case. The statement on this Misplaced Pages page is not based on a direct source, but rather on a quote of quote of an Amnesty International document that doesn't go into specifics. This does not meet the conditions to make such a general claim about "Israeli sexual violence". Please check sources of this statement. 46.121.213.127 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (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. Rainsage (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

2023 attack

The recent edit to lede changed describing Israeli victims from "killing" to "deaths." This should be reverted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I restored the previous version, folding in the civilians addition. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hannibal directive in the lead

I'm not seeing what's WP:FRINGE about the material removed in this edit; the sourcing looks high-quality at a glance. If there are other sources that contradict them, present them and we can discuss how to resolve the discrepancy, but unless there's a significant difference in weight and reliability we don't usually resolve those discrepancies via complete omission. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Lisa got their revert rationale wrong, but Airship got their revert rationale right, essentially the sentence as written is improper, see here . Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be reworded. Alaexis_¿question? 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Scope of article

The lead of the article would state: An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups has been taking place in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the fifth war of the Gaza–Israel conflict since 2008, and the most significant military engagement in the region since the Yom Kippur War in 1973. This would clearly define the scope of the war (the article) to be within Gaza and without (eg within Israel) as directly related to Palastinian Gazans and Israelis.

The article has a section Other confrontations - ie these confrontations are related (somehow) but fall outside the scope of the article. They are primarily about other Islamic groups engaging Israel, sometimes purporting sympathy for the Gazan Palestinians but also because of ongoing hostilities with Israel. These are covered in Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). The sectioning and title indicate these are quite peripheral to the scope of this article. I am not suggesting content under Other confrontations should be removed from the article but in line with the scope defined in the lead, content should reflect that these events are peripheral.

What does this mean? Firstly, subsections under Other confrontations should be confined to a high-level summary with limited detail, where appropriate detail is given in related articles. This has occurred to some extent but there is scope for further improvement. Secondly, this relates to the infobox and the drop-down Allies in other theaters. Simply put, if they are not a belligerent in this war (as defined by the cope of the article) they don't belong in the infobox. Thirdly (and similarly) for Palestinian allies. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

In reference to the previous discussion that I recently closed, which I assume you have seen here, I completely agree with your assessment. I've expressed this elsewhere, so to say it in the right place, the Iran section is highly problematic; there is only one sentence in relation to Hamas (the assassination), while the rest has no relevant context to the subject and scope. This should be cleaned up given the consensus, ie complete the merge to MEC article, ideally by a competent editor who is familiar this this article and the other, leaving only a summary of the child article in it's place per editing guidelines, similar to nearly every other section here. The Iran conflict is also already summarised as a child in MEC, so there is no need to do so here, only a sentence or two with wikilink is required. The other issue is the lead of MEC is of poor quality, as it fails to summarise the body and main child articles with an undue focus on Israel–Hamas at present, so a summary would realistically need to be written from scratch, ideally with additional context to the subject (that's the main obstacle here imo). If there were a decent lead summary over there, it would be relatively straightforward otherwise. As for the American involvement section, this just seems misplaced as it is directly about the Israel–Hamas war, not other confrontations, so would be better moved elsewhere. CNC (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox talk page

Generally the infobox should not be a separate sub-article but if it is, all discussions about the article (including the infobox) should be centralised - ie at the article TP here. This is done by making the template TP a redirect to this page as done for Template:Syrian civil war infobox and Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. There is presently an RfC occurring at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox that makes actioning this problematic at this immediate point; however, I would be proposing to implement this once the RfC has been closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: