Talk:Gaza war

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Will the Gaza war territorial control image be updated?

With the war resuming since the ceasefire, numerous reports have released claiming at least 50% of the gaza strip is occupied by Israel. Yet, the map displaying Israeli control of territory has yet to update since february. Will the map ever be updated? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Certainly, it will have to be updated. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Ecrusized, as far as I know, they are the main user behind the map. Many territorial updates are needed. Evaporation123 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

ISW, which is the source previously used to update this map has stopped releasing new maps. Therefore I am unable to update the map further, unless there is another reliable source showing where Israel operates. Ecrusized (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge no reliable sources have shown any maps recently, but would you be fine with using reliable sources describing territorial control to create approximate lines of such control? Evaporation123 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Missing and killed persons in infobox

As it stands right now, the death toll in Gaza in the infobox is 51,439. The health ministry added some missing persons confirmed killed to their toll so it's now gone up to 52,423. So it'd be 52,423 + 14,000 = 66,423, but the missing 14,000 may have reduced due to the health ministry adding numbers from that to the confirmed dead. My question is do we add the missing persons that the health ministry just added or just keep the 14k added? Because if the health ministry is adding deaths from the 14k reported missing, then we'll be adding an additional amount of deaths to the infobox ontop of the 14k assumed dead, which will surely be inaccurate. ThePaganUK (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@ThePaganUK Btw I believe the 52,000 number includes 1,700 Israelis. This is according to the separate deaths in Gaza War article. Alexysun (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Update - have updated the total with both the health ministry number + the 14k missing.ThePaganUK (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

War between states or militaries

@GreenMeansGo: et al. The combatants are listed as a state (Israel) and a military (Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups). This asymmetry has political implications. It can be said to blame all citizens of Israel for the fighting, but being more careful with the opponent. On the flip side it can be used to say that the opponent is targeting all people of Israel, not just the military, but being more careful with the Israelis. I find that being symmetric, referring to both as states/countries or referring to both by who is using the weapons, avoids making political statements that don't belong here. That's the way I see it. Or if you see a better way to achieve the same results, I'd like to hear that. —Quantling (talk | contribs) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It is common practice in articles involving asymmetrical warfare to refer to a state as a state and not try to Weasel-Word things lest we be accused of making unnecessary absolutions. If you really insist on changing this it would be better for you to take this to the Military History WikiProject. Borgenland (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect I know your answer, but since you didn't give it, I'll give you the chance to speak for yourself. Would you be in favor of saying that this is a war between Israel and Gaza? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

If you want me to be blunt, your proposal is woefully inaccurate and goes against standards practiced in infoboxes for wars such as this and may appear to be a poor attempt to absolve one party of responsibility for the tons of issues for which we've already been accused by both left and right of POV accusations. And regardless of what you want to believe, there is no Gazan state that Israel is fighting against, just a bunch of Palestinian militias of which Hamas happens to be in the lead role. Borgenland (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. Thank you for being blunt.

I see you (and others) saying that Gaza is not a state, which is why you would break the symmetry of "Israel vs. Gaza". But ... the American civil war is described as:

The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865; also known by other names) was a civil war between the United States and Confederate-led militant groups.

Just kidding. It says:

The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865; also known by other names) was a civil war in the United States between the Union ("the North") and the Confederacy ("the South"), which was formed in 1861 by states that had seceded from the Union.

It doesn't have to be the way that I initially proposed, but I am still looking for a consensus approach to acknowledge that the war is between counterparts in Israel and Gaza. (That is, it is between their armed forces, or it is between their governments, or it is between their populaces, or it is between unspecified counterparts, etc., ... but not mix and match.) I see the present asymmetry "between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups" as bias. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The current consensus seems to be that the situation is not symmetrical. If you're looking for a subject that comes with an intuitively satisfying consistency, this ain't it. GMG^talk 19:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, my position is, so far, a lonely one. Indeed, I don't envision an all-encompassing solution. But working together to do the best we can is the Wikipedia way.

I am proceeding under the assumption that the bulk of the reason that we aren't writing "Israel vs. Gaza" is that Gaza isn't recognized as a state by some important entities. (You may remember that Israel also had trouble garnering recognition as a state ... but I digress.) We write "Union" vs. "Confederacy" for the American civil war rather than "Confederate-led militants" ... so why isn't this case similar enough to that one? Might residents or armed forces who represent the cause they call Gaza get named "Gaza", much as the confederates earned a name beyond "militants"? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Might residents or armed forces who represent the cause they call Gaza get named "Gaza" They might. But they aren't. GMG^talk 20:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Same example as in my edit summary, it would be silly to think that simply listing "United States" in Vietnam War would imply that every US citizen supported the war. They obviously didn't and there were long sustained protests, as there have been in Israel. We ought not imply symmetry where there is none, and by all accounts, Hamas does work through multiple non-state actors. GMG^talk 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

If by non-state you mean that the likes of Iran support the Gazan war effort then ... the likes of the United States support the Israeli war effort. If you mean that support also comes from entities that aren't states themselves, that too is true of both Israel and Gaza. For example, the people murdering Palestinians in the West Bank are not state actors but believe that they are helping in the Gaza war effort. I assume good will on your part, but I'm not understanding your argument. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

We normally refer to the state absent significant non-state actors, which normally requires a level of organization beyond individual people carrying out violence on their own. GMG^talk 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

From the words you are using, it sounds like we agree that both Israel and Gaza should be referred to as states. But, I suspect that I am failing to read between the lines, and that we don't actually agree. If it is what you are saying, would you explain why you think the support for Gaza is more "non-state" than the support for Israel? If that is not the case, can we change the combatants to be "Israel" and "Gaza"? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want symmetry. There's no symmetry. Gaza is not a state or a combatant/belligerent. Palestine is not allowed to have a national military that could be treated as a state-actor, hence the diverse set of non-state armed groups listed as belligerents. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Gaza isn't internationally recognized as a state; Israel is. Israel relies on a national military; Hamas works with a number of paramilitary groups. I'm not sure what part of that is confusing. GMG^talk 18:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

My response to @Borgenland above could have been made here. Rather than duplicate that discussion, I would appreciate if you would join that discussion. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

How this compares to the American Civil War is that the Confederate States are listed as the belligerents in the war (alongside the United States). The general region (American South) is not listed, because a region of a country can't be a belligerent. Only governments or armed groups can be belligerents. So Gaza is the region, but the de facto government of Gaza (Hamas) is the belligerent. Does that make sense? JasonMacker (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

In my experience we do commonly say "American South"; we also say "Confederacy"; we also list the states; but somewhere between rarely and never do we add "militants" to the title of the belligerent(s) even though they are not national militaries. I propose that we list the opponent of "Israel" as "Gaza"... but if you have another way to avoid calling only the latter "militants", I would appreciate hearing about it. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

>In my experience we do commonly say "American South"

Okay, but Wikipedia is not a place of casual conversation. Yes, in casual conversation, people use words that suggest a war against a specific geographic location, but the war is actually being fought against either the armed forces of another country, or a militia group. "Gaza" is not a country, so it can't be listed as a combatant, because geographic locations don't wage wars, people do. JasonMacker (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Quantling, I think I see what you're saying, and the issue was similar to when we had the title of Israel-Hamas war, causing political implications from different angles. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Might it be helpful to find the archived links to that? Borgenland (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I've got to read this conversation a few more times to see exactly what is being said. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my concern is likely similar to when we had the title of Israel-Hamas war, causing political implications from different angles. I suspect that there is discussion from that successful article name change that is quite relevant to this discussion. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

We've come to a lull in the discussion here. Perhaps, if I start from another angle. What is the downside in calling Israel's opponent "Gaza" in this article's lede? Are we fearful that folks will thus be confused into thinking that that proves that United Nations has recognized Gaza as an independent nation? Or, if not that, what's the downside? I'm looking to avoid something that is manifestly asymmetric, as is the present article's "Israel vs. ... militants", because I find that makes the Gazan civilians second class to the Israeli civilians, both in terms of being victims and being blameworthy. To me, fixing that is a bigger upside than the downside that somebody might be confused as to whether Gaza has official recognition as a state. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

>What is the downside in calling Israel's opponent "Gaza" in this article's lede?

Because that doesn't mean anything. War is fought by people, not geographic locations.

>I'm looking to avoid something that is manifestly asymmetric

It's literally an asymmetric war (and a genocide). JasonMacker (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

> Because that doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps that is the essence of where we disagree. If I talk to pretty much anyone on the street about the war between "Israel and Gaza", they'll know what I am talking about, so I'm not worried about sowing confusion on that side. However, the moment I classify one side by its geography (thus leaving somewhat ambiguous whether I'm talking about the people, their government, its armed forces, etc.) and one as militants then it sure sounds like I am opining (or in the case of Wikipedia, that I am authoritatively relaying) that the latter does not include the people or their government (whether or not it is recognized by other nations). If I saw references to the American Civil War as between "The United States and Confederate militants", I'd likewise be uneasy. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Was there a war between Nazi Germany and the Warsaw Ghetto? M.Bitton (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I know World War II big picture, but not at that level of detail, so if there is any subtlety to your question, I am probably missing it. That said, I expect that the "Warsaw Ghetto" was one small part of the enemy of the Nazis and thus would fail to be appropriate on that grounds. That is, given my possible ignorance, your argument could be indicating that I have aimed too small with "Gaza" and should have used something like "Palestine". But I don't think that's what you are saying, so I apologize that my response here is inadequate. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

> If I talk to pretty much anyone on the street about the war between "Israel and Gaza"

Again, Wikipedia is not written in the style of casual conversation. Please familiarize yourself with Template:Infobox_military_conflict#Parameters, which states that the combatant1(2,3,4,etc.) should list only parties to the conflict. "Gaza" is not a party to the conflict because it's a geographical location. Only human organizations can be parties to a conflict.

>the moment I classify one side by its geography

"Israel" does not refer to a specific geographic location. See Borders of Israel, which makes it clear that "Israel" as a geographic region is ambiguous. "Israel" in the infobox is referring to the Israeli government and its armed forces. JasonMacker (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Gaza is a somewhat independent de facto state from the West Bank and has been under the rule of Hamas since the 2007 "Gaza civil war" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That's true. If you look at similar articles such as Vietnam war, Korean war, and Iraq war, you'll see that the belligerents listed are the specific governments involved. Perhaps instead of "Hamas", the infobox lists [[Gaza Strip under Hamas|Hamas government in Gaza]] (displayed as Hamas government in Gaza). This would clarify that Israel is at war with the de facto government of Gaza (and its allies), and not merely what it (degradingly) refers to as a "terrorist group" (a label that most countries disagree with). Another option would be [[Gaza Strip under Hamas|Gaza (Hamas government)]] (displayed as Gaza (Hamas government)). I'm open to suggestions on this. JasonMacker (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Specifying the government also seems wrong to me. Should we be sure to specify that Israel "is under the rule of Netanyahu's government" on the grounds that Labor would have handled (at least some) aspects differently? I don't think so.

By "Gaza" I would mean what I mean when I say "Israel" or "American Confederacy" — the people within that geography including their leaders and their armed forces. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

To call it a war between Israel and Gaza would destroy the factual distinction that it is a war on Gaza, and the principal attacker in this picture is the state of Israel. Whether the Netanyahu administration and IDF are to be abstracted as Israel, I do not know, but it is convention across sources and uncontroversial. (As an aside from a philosophical point of view, this conversation brings out the problem of equating the individual with the class or group, and vice versa, a mismatch plaguing human history, with often deleterious results, from the day symbolic language was first used.) GeoffreyA (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There isn't going to be wording that satisfies everyone. But I do hope to convince you and others that it is improvement to say "between Israel and Gaza" rather than "between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups". I am hoping to achieve that incremental change at this time. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history

Do we have a citation for "The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history"? In particular, I am wondering whether they mean that it is the day that the most Israeli-ethnic residents of Israel were killed. I suspect that if we included days where many Palestinian-ethnic residents of Israel were killed, the sentence might have to be changed. So, I am hoping that someone knows the source and that we can modify the sentence with the appropriate qualifications if needed. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it means the day, from 1948 to the present, that the most Israelis were killed. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The source is in the article. GMG^talk 13:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Which source? The source cited in the lead doesn't say anything of that nature, and I can't find any comparable language in the body. The closest thing is A briefing in The Economist noted that "the assault dwarf[ed] all other mass murders of Israeli civilians", and that "the last time before October 7th that this many Jews were murdered on a single day was during the Holocaust" but of course OP's point is that that doesn't paraphrase to the same wording we have in the lead, since "deadliest" is much broader wording. This is part of the reason why I dislike the interpretation that WP:LEADCITE allows us to leave things uncited in the lead if they're cited in the body; it becomes too easy for people to just assume something is cited in the body, when in fact the wording in the lead or body may have drifted, the citation in the body may have been removed, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

If we want to mince words over "bloodiest" vs "deadliest" then have at it. But the Economist source seems to fairly well support the line. GMG^talk 14:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The word I am focusing on is "Israelis" not "bloodiest" vs. "deadliest". My question is whether in that sentence or source does either of "Israeli" or "Israeli civilian" mean only enfranchised residents of Israel (with respect to Israeli national elections) or does it include disenfranchised residents of Israel (in Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights, and any other areas similarly controlled by the Israeli military)?

My (rather slap-dash attempt at) research indicates that even when you count deaths of the disenfranchised as Israeli civilians, October 7 is still the record holder. So that means that the article is closer to correct than I had feared. Perhaps the only remaining issue is that of a proper citation, as is discussed in the above. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:RFED

The textbox, in [f]. change "US intelligence estimate: 10,000–15,000 militants (as of January 2025)" to "US intelligence estimate: Hamas reduced to 9,000–12,000 militants (as of June 2024)"

reason: The current claim relies on an article by The Print that says " The Palestinian militant group Hamas has recruited between 10,000 and 15,000 members since the start of its war with Israel" (emphasis on recruited, not killed) The Reuters article https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/diminished-hamas-switches-full-insurgent-mode-gaza-2024-06-06/ claims "The enclave's ruling group has been reduced to between 9,000 and 12,000 fighters, according to three senior U.S. officials familiar with battlefield developments, down from American estimates of 20,000-25,000 before the conflict. By contrast, Israel says it has lost almost 300 troops in the Gaza campaign" Therefore, it will be best to either subtract the two ranges (which was rejected before) or claim that Hamas has been reduced to 9000-12000 members, as written in the article. It is also possible to write "US intelligence estimate: Hamas reduced from 20,000-25,000 to 9,000–12,000 militants (as of June 2024)" just as written in the article, but that might be too long Stone fridge (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Please note that right after the sentence you quoted the Print article says The intelligence indicates a similar number of Hamas fighters have been killed during that period, the sources said.. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Continuing or starting

There are political factions who like to focus only on the parts of the mideast conflict since October 7, 2023 because it fits into a narrative that they are trying to fashion. I argue that this mindset does not change the underlying reality that this is a conflict that has been going on for decades. I would like the Wikipedia article to reflect the reality rather than focus on the narrative that some political factions are hoping to fashion. (Yes, I know that other political factions are also pushing talking points that distract from reality. We should address those too when we find them in our article.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA: I now see that you had two edits and that the other edit comment has a better explanation for what you were doing. So, my edit comment contains wrong. I apologize. Is there a way for me to edit my edit comment to fix that? Again, please accept my apologies. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You could partially self-revert to re-instate the 'sparked' the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) wording and write an edit summary acknowledging it. The latter re-wording of the opening sentence could be shortened as well to just: The Gaza war is the part of the conflict fought between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. There isn't an obvious difference between that has occurred since and just since. The change from a to the phrase the part of is doing all the heavy lifting anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"sparked" is one of those words I am hoping to avoid. For decades each side has claimed that the recent actions of the other side ruined everything and sparked the next steps. That's simply not reality; the decades-long context is what is really going on.

I'll go ahead with "since". Thank you for the suggestion. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Quantling, I also made those edits hastily earlier, and apologise. I should have brought the issue to the Talk page first. You have valid points, but I think we've got to take into account the linked article that considers this to be from 2023 to the present. (I know Wikipedia is not a source but consistency is important.) Also, I agree that we should put everything into perspective, that this conflict has been going on for decades, along with the occupation; but I would prefer if we carefully distinguished that in succeeding sentences, keeping it simple. Let's work on the consensus here together, and then roll out the new edits. Will that be all right? GeoffreyA (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely let's work it out here first. I believe the "since" suggestion of @Mr rnddude is not controversial and will give me a chance to apologize in a comment. (But if I have that wrong, please undo that edit.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, I apologise for my second edit, which boils down to a second revert. That was wrong of me. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change the link. I fear that changing the sentence to match the link is having the cart lead the horse. Or avoiding the cliches: getting the continuing vs. started thing right is higher priority for me than making that particular link fit in. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, starting general and filling in details later is a good thing in a Wikipedia article. But in this case the lede, when it uses "sparked" and similar, is something that the details would have to later contradict (or, at least, that's my opinion). Perhaps we can find wording in between that optimizes both the accuracy and the general-to-details transition. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps with the ME crisis, we could add the years, in text, to codify that we're talking about the crisis from 2023 to the present, an "arc" in the broader conflict, and encompassing specific events in that span of time. As for the word "sparked," I'm not attached to it; from a language point of view, better words or phrases could be used: "started" or "brought about." GeoffreyA (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is my fear ... if one talks about things "starting on" or "brought about by" events on October 7, 2023, one is implicitly indicating that Gazans (or Hamas-led militants ... see other discussions) attacked Israel more-or-less "out of the blue" and that that "sparked" a conflict that would have otherwise somehow magically disappeared. Personally, I don't find the reasons for violence from either side to be convincing or productive so you won't find me defending the events of October 7, but I also don't want it to be implied that Gaza started this fight. The reality is that this fight started before most of today's participants were born. Do you see what I'm getting at? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the decades-long conflict led to the tragic events of Oct. 7. I still think that the present "arc" should be distinguished, but the bigger context should also be recorded, as the sentences unfold. Indeed, as it stands, there is little context, giving the impression that the present war came "out of the blue." Israel's initial blockade, Hamas's governing the Strip, the preceding wars, the Great March of Return, etc., none of these are really mentioned. A highly-condensed selection from Background could remedy this. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is an attempt to fill out the missing context for the present war. I placed the opening in the past tense to help see it from an historical point of view; of course, that's not intended for a published version. It can be trimmed further, particularly the italicised clauses: Israel's mantaining control of the border after withdrawing, and the Palestinian and Israeli deaths. For the time being, I left out the Middle Eastern crisis and "deadliest" day and war parts; they can be integrated in the next iteration, or, even better, moved to the fourth paragraph---at least the "deadliest" part can.

The Gaza War was fought between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups from 7 October 2023 to DATE in the Gaza Strip and Israel. It was the 15th war of the Gaza–Israel conflict, which began in 1948 when fleeing or expelled Palestinians settled in the Gaza Strip as refugees. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank. The uprisings of 1987, 2000, and a failed peace process saw Israel unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005 while continuing to control its shared border, airspace, and shoreline. Hamas, a Palestinian political organisation with a military wing, took control of the Strip, after which Israel and Egypt imposed a damaging blockade on it. From 2007, Israel and Hamas, along with other Palestinian militant groups, engaged in conflict, including four wars: 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021, killing 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Please keep MOS:LEADREL and MOS:OPEN in mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA: Thank you for your hard work on this. I do fear that trying to address decades of conflict in the lede is sure to be incomplete and is sure to draw criticisms of bias. I think it is important to indicate, in the lede, that the event since October 7, 2023 are part of larger whole, but I would leave the description of that larger whole out of the lede. The safest thing might be to leave it out of the present article completely, with wikilinks in a later section to articles that already attempt to describe that larger whole. I find it hard to describe these decades without omitting facts that someone considers as essential to be included. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, Quantling: Acknowledged. I'll put together a short, abstract version along the lines of the present one. GeoffreyA (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

A new version, closely following the old one. The second sentence states that this war is part of an ongoing conflict; therefore, we needn't pack the first sentence, making it harder to read. The live, published version duplicates, in different words, what's said in the second. Also, regarding ME crisis, I stand by my argument that this is a distinct group of events in a specific span of time, following the start of this war. To say "continues" is, I think, a mismatch between previous crises in the Middle East and the present one. Perhaps "Middle Eastern crisis" is not a good title. If so, it should be changed in that article.

The Gaza war has been fought between Israel and Palestinian militant groups, chiefly Hamas, in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the 15th war of the ongoing Gaza–Israel conflict, and led to unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history, and the war is the deadliest for Palestinians in the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A Middle Eastern crisis also followed. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have much new to say. I find this text misleading on several fronts; ☹. (Not that I find your efforts to be disingenuous or anything like that! In fact, I am thankful that you are working to bridge the gap.) My objections are (a) to say that one side is "Palestinian militant groups, chiefly Hamas" disappears the Gaza civilians in a way that "Israel" does not do to Israeli civilians, thus both hiding that Gaza civilians are victims and that they may have culpability (and note that we're not saying "IDF, chiefly Likud"); (b) "has been fought ... since 7 October 2023" makes it seem like something happened out of the blue on 7 October 2023, which is simply not reality; (c) "led to" minimizes that things were already bad (for both sides) on 6 October 2023 and in the previous decades and that these previous conditions and events are at least as significant as what happened on 7 October 2023 itself. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Criticism noted. (a) The Israel vs. Gaza question, I am going to leave to the other discussions, whilst here, I am using, for better or worse, the current system of Israel vs. Hamas/Palestinian militants. (b) Fair enough. But then, my previous lengthy version tackled this point by giving a small history. (c) We could change "led to"; the important thing is "the result," here in the present war. Again, filling out the context would help.

I appreciate the dialogue; it will lead to a better version. As Dr. Johnson noted, "The duty of criticism is neither to depreciate nor dignify by partial representations, but to hold out the light of reason, whatever it may discover; and to promulgate the determinations of truth, whatever she shall dictate." GeoffreyA (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Another iteration: The Gaza war is a war/conflict/armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the 15th war of the Gaza–Israel conflict dating back to 1948. The war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, and unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history; it is the deadliest war for Palestinians in the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A Middle Eastern crisis also followed. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Failed verification of "Israel–Gaza war"

In the Names section, there's currently a failed verification tag for the usage of "Israel–Gaza war", as it seems the BBC article used as a citation has since had its title changed. In checking that source, I saw that there are tags including one for Israel–Gaza war, which has its own hub on the site. You can also see their usage of Israel–Gaza war by clicking "News" at the top.

I'm having trouble finding articles using the term, but a handful of news sites are using "Israel–Gaza war" as a tag or hub. The Guardian, Washington Post, PBS, The Conversation, The Nation, and South China Morning Post all use "Israel–Gaza war" in favour of any of the other variants.

Do others feel that these hubs/tags are enough to warrant the term's inclusion? I found a few other sources, largely from scholarly/educational publications or think tanks, that use the term as well, but the focus on the names seems to center more around news coverage. Sock (tock talk) 11:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

As I see it, there is no perfect name for this conflict. Many names are explicitly biased (to one side or the other), other names are what I would call subtly biased, and a third category, perhaps less common, is pushed by those trying to avoid signs of bias. For reasons that I give ad nauseam in #War between states or militaries above, I am aiming for Israel–Gaza. But others don't like that. I don't know how we're going to achieve consensus on this. (The discussions about the related article name change may have some insight, but I haven't looked there.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is the archived page with the last move discussions. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling: I'm not sure how this was interpreted as me requesting a page move when I made it very clear that I'm asking about resolving the failed verification tag in the Names section. I don't want the page name changed, I want to know if the hubs and tags would be enough to add as citations to remove the failed verification tag. Please don't bring me into any attempts to revive the name discussion, as 1) that's not the point of my post, and 2) I agree with the article name and would not support its change. Sock (tock talk) 22:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've removed the bit in question. Anyone is free to add with a source, but I'm not seeing where people are using this in natural prose. That may be different in non-English languages. GMG^talk 12:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

First lead paragraph

@Quantling: I've broken this off from Continuing or starting for better visibility and comment from others. The linked section had discussion on the context for the war, and level of detail for that context. Different versions were looked at. My concern is that the live version doesn't describe much, but sticks to the definition in a staccato fashion, jumping from point to point. An alien from outer space, reading the paragraph, would not understand much. Here is the last iteration I proposed, taking into account commentary on the previous too-long and too-short versions: The Gaza war is a war/conflict/armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the 15th war of the Gaza–Israel conflict dating back to 1948. The war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, and unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history; it is the deadliest war for Palestinians in the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A Middle Eastern crisis also followed. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA Thank you for your ongoing efforts. I have major objections with both this text and the text it would replace, That said, the newer may be better than the older. At any rate, I wouldn't accuse you of edit warring if you were to go ahead and make edits along these lines. (I can't speak for others!) As to my major objections:

1. "is a war ... since 7 October 2023" is how people frame things when they want to imply that the attacks of 7 October 2023 were "out of the blue" or an unprecedented escalation, etc. To indicate that the conflict since 7 October 2023 is somehow a distinct war from what preceded it is capitulating to that bias. (I have no problem indicating that this article focuses on those parts of the decades-long conflict that have occurred since that date.)
2. "A Middle Eastern crisis also followed" is similar. The fact is that a Middle Eastern crisis also preceded 7 October 2023, and to imply (by omission) that that isn't the case is capitulating to a biased framing of events.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)