Talk:Gaza war/Archive 49

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Requested move 20 February 2025

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus to close this early per last month's RM. SilverLocust 💬 23:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Gaza war → Gaza war (2023–present) – There have been multiple articles titled "Gaza war" which include Gaza War (2008-2009), 2012 Gaza War, and 2014 Gaza War. ColdestWinterChill (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Procedural oppose – we just changed this article's name. Maybe wait a little before yet another move request on this high profile article? Did you read the previous move request, closed not even a month ago, in which this issue was discussed to death? That move request determined that this article was the primary topic over the three other articles you name. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 21:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I personally agree with this proposal. However, there was a discussion less than a month ago with consensus that this war is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with no need to disambiguate by adding years. I don't think enough time has passed for the consensus to shift. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 21:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

comment - why is this article called gaza war? Israel-Gaza War (More neutral, naming both parties.) or War on Gaza captures intensity of Israel military operations in gaza Astropulse (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

While I do think this war is the primary topic, I don't see any reason to oppose adding more specificity to the title. However, I think this RFC is likely to fail on procedural grounds. I don't necessarily think it should; with a consensus now settled on Gaza war in some form, it seems reasonable that the next step would be to debate how specific the title should be. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of to oppose this name change is that it may be better to wait until sources agree that the war is over, so that another RFC is not required to remove the "-present". If the end of the war proves controversial, this could result in the title being outdated for months, as it was when it was still named Israel-Hamas war long after sources moved away from that name. This could also be resolved by opting for simply 2023 Gaza war which is enough specificity to differentiate it from the others and won't be inaccurate if sources and editors disagree on the war's end. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Monk of Monk Hall If you agree this war is the primary topic, then policy says we shouldn't have a disambiguator: "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification" (WP:TITLEDAB).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

My reading of the section you quoted is the title need not have a disambiguator, not that it shouldn't. I can see why in the case of the example given on the policy page of Turkey the country and Turkey the bird, using parenthesis on both titles is unnecessary and undesirable. However, in the context of military history I think distinguishing to this level of specificity is more in line with the norms in the field. See for example the Italian Wars of Independence. Come to think of it, I think first, second, third Gaza war would be the best naming convention to use for these articles. However, I don't think there would be enough good sources to support that change. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I oppose because it has present, and while I know it is still going on, it will eventually end and then we'd have to do more discussions on that. I think the best title alternative would be the Israel-Gaza war. Also, a month ago, wasn't there another discussion on the title name change?StormHunterBryante5467 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. This is essentially a question of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which itself has two components WP:PT1 and WP:PT2.
- WP:PT1: Previously, I showed when you search "Gaza war" in Google scholar (filtered to post-2023), then only <1% of the results actually refer to the 2008, 2012 or 2014 wars (see details here).
- WP:PT2: this war undoubtedly has long-term significance that is overwhelming compared to the rest of the Gaza wars combined. The casualties alone are much higher. The previous wars also did not have anything remotely close to Gaza Strip famine or Gaza genocide, nor did 66% of all buildings in Gaza suffered damage during those previous wars[1].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Speedy close This RM, Talk:Gaza war/Archive 48#Requested move 17 January 2025, closed less than a month ago specifically addressed whether a year or similar was needed - ie whether this was the primary target. Could be seen as disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Also speedy close. Too soon after the previous move discussion, and it isn't a very good title anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Revert to Israel–Hamas war. That title was more appropriate based on what media sources call the war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Speedy close for the same reasons as VR, Cinderella157, Ian. Consider a ridiculous hypothetical: should we rename the World War II article "World War (1939-1945)" because there are other articles named World War? Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Speedy close - The last RM was less than a month ago and the inclusion of the dates was also discussed. Nothing has changed since then 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Speedy close. Per others; last RM was only a month ago, this was already discussed, and nothing has changed. Shouldn't need to drag this discussion out for a week to confirm consensus for oppose. CNC (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Speedy close. إيان (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy close and procedural oppose because I think we should wait for the conflict to end, so that we can add an end year rather than move now and then move again later. For the record, I am in support of changing the name, just not right now. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Close. I think if the title needs to change, there should be discussion beforehand. Also, such a change should wait for more time to pass: to see how events in the real world go, as well as more distance from the last RFC. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy close procedural, and flawed proposal. The other wars are properly disambiguated, and a hatnote here to Gaza War (disambiguation) clears up any possible confusion. Havradim leaf a message 22:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy closure

If anyone disagrees with me closing this RM (With a good reason) then please let me know so that I can self-revert 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Revert close, per talk page discussion and WP:INVOLVED. The only thing worse than this RM would be reviewing it again basically. Let's throw more !votes in for a speedy close and let someone else close it is my suggestion. CNC (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

aight 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:16, 21 February 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.

Leaflet content

This content has been added and removed multiple times now per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The citations being provided for the content are two organizations listed as no consensus on reliability on the RSP list - WP:RSP § Democracy Now! and Middle East Monitor, both of which state that at a minimum statements sourced to them should be attributed if even included at all. The third source, newarab.com, is one I cannot find any prior discussion of its reliability on. However, our own article on that source does not provide much information on its ownership (and in fact, there is no article on Fadaat Media, the owner, to go off of). However, our article on the source has a quote from the (at the time, potentially still) "head" of the paper, saying "Sometimes the newspaper might be sensitive about what not to say, because you are not there to provoke the people that finance you" and a cited statement that it is meant to be a rival to pro-Muslim Brotherhood Al Jazeera as a major outlet for the Qatari state's views. So regardless of its reliability (or lack thereof), statements to it should be attributed per WP:PARTISAN.

I take the view that if the only sources for this information are the three, that it does not meet WP:DUE at all - much less the strong sourcing needed for what is an extraordinary claim. If it must be attributed to only low (Middle East Monitor and Democracy Now!) quality activist sources to at best clearly biased medium quality sources (newarab.com), then it is not DUE for inclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that attribution is appropriate. I'm not convinced that an attributed statement would be undue based on the source quality alone. Democracy Now hasn't been discussed on RSN since 2013 and the 12 year old discussion about it is not substantive, which I take to mean that its use on-wiki has generally been uncontroversial since then. While your concerns about MEM or New Arab being unwilling to publish info critical of their financial backers' interests might be relevant in other contexts, I don't see how that applies to them publishing a story critical of Israel. The other editor who reverted this material made a case that was more impactful imo - which was that other sources argued the document was a forgery. I'd like to see those sources. If they are more reliable than the ones listed or make a convincing case, I'd consider that a strong argument for the material's exclusion. If they're equally questionable, I'd say both should be attributed. Overall, I don't think this material is all that important either way. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't America be included in the forces section to reflect no consensus?

So as I'm sure many people here know, a few weeks ago a very long RFC was closed concluding that there was no consensus to include America or to exclude America from the wikibox as a belligerent on the side of Israel.

The issue I have is that, in the past, to reflect the fact that America has 100 soldiers stationed in combat in Israel, 100 US troops were listed in the Strength section. While America was excluded from belligerents due to the ongoing debate.

With the RFC closed, someone removed the 100 soldiers. I understood why this was done, but at the same time, I can't help but thing that removing said 100 soldiers does not reflect the ruling of the RFC. The ruling was, after all, no consensus, which is a two way street. It means there is no consensus to include or to exclude. But removing US soldier count from the strength section means that the current state of the infobox has *no functional difference* from an RFC that ruled against including America.

The reason this wouldn't be the case if it were the other way around is that America wouldn't be included in the belligerent section, while being in the strength section. Demonstrating that the situation is a bit complicated. What should be done here to reflect that there is no consensus, instead of acting as if there is one? Genabab (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

They were removed per this discussion without any opposition for a few days. The general view seemed to be that since there is no consensus on including the U.S. in words, then including the number was just an attempt to shoehorn something about it into the info box. No consensus does not mean content must be included elsewhere - a no consensus outcome on one aspect of something doesn’t mean that the information should be attempted to be put into the article in another way.

Given the arguments at the RfC, there is no reason to include 100 soldiers operating in an assistance/defensive capacity mainly (even if they may be authorized to take offensive action if necessary) in the force strength. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 15:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez I understand. But then I have to ask, what's the functional difference here between no consensus and consensus to remove? Genabab (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, that RfC was never about the 100 soldiers being listed in the infobox. Some people used that as part of their reasoning... but most did not express any opinion on that subject since that was not the topic of the RfC. Being "in combat" does not mean they are taking present in the war. There have been many opinions expressed in various places about how the troops, while they are assisting Israelis in operating equipment they may be using in the Gaza War, are primarily there to operate the equipment, not necessarily determine how it is used. That makes them there in a supporting role primarily, rather than an active combat role. Furthermore, even if you disagree that it is a supporting role rather than a combat role, the THADD battery is a defensive system. Operating a missile defense system hardly counts as being "in combat", which would generally refer to offensive operations or in offensive positions, regardless of where it's located.

If you really feel strongly about them being in the infobox, then an RfC about that topic specifically would be your best bet. But the reasoning for including them in the infobox is borderline at best, and there are serious WP:NPOV concerns with including them in the infobox - since the infobox is generally to be used to state who is offensive for a side. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the better approach is to focus on improving the section about America's role in the article for now. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There are two articles that cover the topic: United States support for Israel in the Gaza war and United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war. Right now, Israel in the infobox is accompanied with a hatnote linking to List of military aid to Israel during the Gaza war. That article lists the United States as an arms supplier. I think that's fine. JasonMacker (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The American deployment is outside the scope of the Gaza war but within the scope of the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Since I don't see it linked yet, WP:ONUS is probably what you're looking for. We often need affirmative consensus to include contested/controversial material in articles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Imbalance in photos - favoring Israelis over Palestinians

Going through photos on this page, I noticed that we seem to depict Israelis frequently, and Palestinians infrequently. So I counted the number of times that an image appears with a person or (intact) vehicle in the foreground or midground, and found the following:

Palestinians - 3 images

Israelis - 20 images

For the Israelis, the images are most often of soldiers or hostages, and less often of large military vehicles (like tanks), or of politicians.

I suggest we correct this imbalance: we have images of Israeli hostages being released, but there are countless photographs of Palestinians either in detention from this conflict, or also being released. Also, we should show Palestinians in Gaza as frequently as we show Israelis in Gaza. The outcome of an extreme imbalance of this kind is to humanize one group of people who are depicted, and dehumanize another group of people who are not depicted. I'm sure we can fix this. -Darouet (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It should be corrected. I did notice that, for the truce pictures, there were none depicting the release of Palestinian prisoners; in the media, there are many. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is partially due to the availability of images with the suitable copyright status. We can definitely show more Hamas fighters. As to the released Palestinians, I also think that it would be helpful for the reader to see their release and reception. Alaexis_¿question? 22:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It's solely to do with the availability of images. I've been adding more images to this article, and intend to add more, and they are derived from the child articles. The imbalance therefore comes from the children if not obvious. CNC (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

is there a way to contact UN or other organization and ask if we can use their pictures? Astropulse (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This. Can someone call the CEO of UN and ask for permission? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a UN Photo contact form here. Elsewhere, I read that one has to pay for using unwatermarked, high-resolution pictures; however, I wouldn't be surprised that, if we asked, pointing out the pictures we want to use, they'd waive the costs. There are some free photos on Unsplash, but they're too generic. Getty Images has the sort we're looking for, but they're out of the question, being non-free and carrying a wallet-thinning price tag. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ty. i send a message to them. lets see what happens Astropulse (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Astropulse. Let's wait and see. GeoffreyA (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Darouet @GeoffreyA Good news! I received a response—they connected me with the head of the UNRWA photo archive, who said photos can be provided upon request. Do we need a specific type of photo (e.g., prisoner releases, bombings, killings, etc.)? Astropulse (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Welcome news! Yes, let's try to put together a list of the type of photos. The impression I get is that, in the article, there is a preference towards photos of building damage in Gaza; if we could get some that bring out the human side more, that would be an improvement (and more in line with the coverage of the past year). And yes, we need a couple showing the recent release of Palestinian prisoners, coming out of the bus, being reunited with their loved ones, etc. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/2023-War-on-Gaza

we can select photos from here. once we have consensus ill work towards getting them Astropulse (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

omg. this is crazy. Astropulse (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

in the first set of images - there is blood and video of dead Israeli's. But for gaza - its just building getting destroyed. thats also imbalance. Astropulse (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. As @CommunityNotesContributor said, it could be a matter of availability. Do you have any images (ones already uploaded to mediawiki) you'd like to add to the article? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Also the video in the infobox of 2025 Gaza war ceasefire is of Israeli hostages being released. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

UNRWA photo archive

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/2023-War-on-Gaza

Astropulse got access to the UNRWA photo archive, from which we may request photos to use here. I believe there are over 2,000. Anyone willing to sift through them would be a great help. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

ill do this - since no one has helped so far. Astropulse (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried going through them the other day, but lost hope, there being so many. GeoffreyA (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought that "2011" was the date of the pics before noticing the word "files" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right. It looked like a date. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to sound greedy but if there is no limit to the pics that we can choose from, cant we just have them all? After all, its for a good cause 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

lol. we need to get permission for every photo that we need to use ( they require a list ). i dont think they will release all. also they told me, we can only use low resolution images on wiki with attribution Astropulse (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Awh man :(
Ill help after iftar tho 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't want to nitpick your wording but images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia ... are unsuitable. Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/search/result/I0000YVUmjOtcJo4?terms=5W4B0883&galleries=G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko:C00009xWZSJER24M&

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/search/result/I0000VFwGjj5vQWs?terms=child%20injured&

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/search/result/I0000HnnSozlHdyk?terms=Rafah&

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/search/result/I0000r8TAGLZg42E?terms=killed&galleries=G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko:C00009xWZSJER24M&

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/search/result/I0000yp4AR2BUgWc?terms=ceasefire&

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000oNIUqVERf6c/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000lEdjArp_ZKA/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000sjPT99k3zqE/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000Ss.oWS2qs2o/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000YgBBTFoQMUo/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000K_aM4_bonO8/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000ld1FML3Ohic/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000LFHxEabLvF4/HJ2024121602274548

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/search/result/I0000VAnV5Blu5og?terms=image00004&

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/search/result/I0000c1JY.RqVUNc?terms=child& Astropulse (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen@GeoffreyA these are selected by me. if you want to change please let me know asap. search the file name, if link isnt working. Astropulse (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Astropulse: Tomorrow, I'll select a few to add. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Astropulse Nice. Do they come with the huge unrwa watermark tho? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I want to limit asking for 10 to 20 pics. My question was whether you can find a better picture or if you can find something to capture a scenario that isn't covered in the pics I selected. cc @GeoffreyA@Abo Yemen Astropulse (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's mine (cut down from a bigger selection):

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I00000WbrgLtAL84/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I00004ZqxlAe6nYI/Historic-Milestones

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000_vy17fR74RY/B3A0054-jpg

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I00003.8rSWJIs7o/B3A2177-jpg

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000ph1DDelz2.E/DJI-0949-jpg

https://unrwa.photoshelter.com/galleries/C00009xWZSJER24M/G0000LyFEeIWQ6Ko/I0000eMhEhtISONQ/FT2025012605-jpeg GeoffreyA (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

ok ill select 20 pics for all the selected pics. ty Astropulse (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Adding the United States to the infobox

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.

Question withdrawn. Discussion is here: [2] (non-admin closure) —TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the United States be added as a participant under Israel in the infobox?

Option 1: Yes, add the United States as an ally of Israel.
Option 2: Yes, add the United States as a co-belligerent under Israel.
Option 3: No.

Rationale for this RfC: Previous RfC (no consensus) had several issues: the question changed half-way through the RfC, it used "US/UK" implying that the foreign policy of the two countries is the same when that is clearly not the case. This RfC focuses on the question of including the United States only.

Option 1 or 2. There are several arguments for both positions. It doesn't matter to me whether US is listed as an ally or a co-belligerent.

1) There are US troops listed in the infobox under "Strength", it is unusual that the United States itself wouldn't be listed in the infobox.

2) WP:RS call the US an ally of Israel explicitly.

"White House has then firmly backed its Israeli ally's decisions"^[1]

3) The US has sent THAAD missile batteries and troops to operate them in Israel, WP:RS say that the US troops are deployed "in combat".

"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."^[2]

4) Some academics have explicitly stated US is a co-belligerent, although I am not sure if it is WP:UNDUE.

"The Israeli military forces' war on Gaza, following Hamas's 7 October attack, is the first Israeli war in which Washington is a cobelligerent."^[3]

5) While the THAAD missile system was sent to defend against possible attacks from Iran, the first missile it shot down was from Yemen.^[4]

6) The THAAD missile system was sent to "defend Israel" in general, be it from Iran, Yemen, Hamas, etc. There is nothing in WP:RS to suggest that the THAAD missile system is used only against Iran's attacks, it can be used against Hamas rockets too (it's just that geography doesn't permit Hamas to launch "long range ballistic missiles" on account of them being so close to Israel.

"President Joe Biden said the THAAD's deployment, along with about 100 U.S. soldiers, was meant to help defend Israel"^[5]

"Mr. Biden said only that he had ordered the Pentagon to deploy the system "to defend Israel.""^[6]

7) US has already sent a THAAD battery in response to Hamas' attack on October 7, meaning that the US is involved in the Hamas-Israel conflict.^[7] The same BBC article also points out that US sending troops to Israel is "more rare". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 Per the points I made in the previous RFC.

1. USA has sent forces on the ground in combat operations to Israel, which is a geopolitical first.^[8] If a country like, say, China, sent 100 soldiers to Russia to help them fight Ukraine, editors would no doubt add China as a belligerent to the infobox. America has done the same thing, as seen here, and thus should be added.

2. USA regularly runs flights of spy drones over Gaza and uses them to give key military info to Israel. Pentagon statements about the issue state that ""The US is conducting unarmed UAV flights over Gaza, as well as providing advice and assistance to support our Israeli partner as they work on their hostage recovery efforts," the Pentagon's statement on Friday said. The confirmation comes after reporters spotted MQ-9 Reapers, usually operated by American special forces, circling Gaza on Flightradar24, a publicly available flight-tracking website."^[9] The WSJ also reported that America used this data to share the locations of militants.^[10]. Significantly, this also helped Israel locate Yahya Sinwar.^[11] Going back to China/Ukraine, imagine if China was flying drones in Ukraine that gave Russia information on where, say, Zelensky is located leading to his assassination. That would surely be grounds to include China, so why not here?

It is worth noting that Israel accounts for a measely 20% of reconnisance flights over Gaza. With the USA representing 33% and the UK representing 47%. The data gained from these flights provided Israel with data of ground movements in Gaza.^[12]

3. RS have called this war the first Joint US-Israeli War.^[13]. Genabab (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 or 2 per my and others' arguments in the previous RFC and the ones reproduced here. I think the evidence shows that the US is an essential ally and co-belligerent of Israel whose military, diplomatic and economic actions have profoundly shaped the outcome of the war by supporting or restraining the range of action of its other belligerents, for example through carrier group and anti-air deployments and by providing military intelligence, arms and other battlefield support. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Option 1, per Genabab. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Option 3, and moratorium. The US has not fought in the Gaza War. The US has, however, continued its longstanding "war" against rebel groups in the Middle East. They have done this since before the Gaza War, and they will continue to do so after the Gaza War, because their reason for doing so is not to support Israel. The United States' rationale for attacking the Houthis/other militia groups is because those groups attack the US separately for their own reasons. The closest the US has come to being actually involved in this war is either providing arms to Israel (if you look at it that way), or by providing training and a few (well under 1000) trained personnel to operate defensive equipment. As such, option 2 is blatantly false.
That leaves option 1 - which suggests to list as an ally. Sure, they're an ally - but they are not involved in fighting on Israel's behalf as a "co-belligerent" or "ally" would be. As such, they are a "supporter", not an ally. And there was previously a consensus (see Template talk:Infobox military conflict § RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter) to deprecate the use of "supported by". Deprecation does not mean "shoehorn it in under another field that has a completely different meaning". It means deprecated. As such, unless/until the US engages in active hostilities, they are not an ally by the definition of the template as per longstanding consensus.
I recommend a moratorium on this issue until there is a significant change in any country's (whether the US or otherwise) involvement. This topic (re: US and UK) was discussed at length, and the purported problems with the past RfC (which was only closed not even 2 weeks ago) are, bluntly, non-issues. Regardless of what the question itself asked or if it was changed, people discussed the US and the UK at length independently from each other, and there was still no consensus to add it. Attempting to claim that there was some "fatal flaw" with the question (so to speak) that means a new RfC is merited is simply attempting to wikilawyer a reason to hold a new RfC in the hopes that people who contributed to the last RfC are exhausted and won't contribute. In other words, it is "civil" POV pushing and an attempt to bludgeon the process - especially holding this so soon after the last RfC ended in a resounding "no consensus to add". This is evidenced also by the fact that, rather than holding a new RfC on that page, or at least notifying the page the last RfC was held on, it is being held here in a different forum to try and get a different result.
Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
"their reason for doing so is not to support Israel."

You need to show WP:RS that say this, because the consensus among WP:RS is that US deployed the THAAD battery "to defend Israel".

"rather than holding a new RfC on that page, or at least notifying the page the last RfC was held on, it is being held here in a different forum to try and get a different result."

I do not agree with your characterisation. For every other conflict article the infobox is discussed on the article's talk page. This is the first time I have seen that an infobox has its own talk page. I don't think we need a separate talk page just for the infobox and in fact I am going to suggest that that Talk page be deleted and topics moved/archived to the Gaza war Talk page.

"imply attempting to wikilawyer a reason to hold a new RfC in the hopes that people who contributed to the last RfC are exhausted and won't contribute."

Or, you know, WP:AGF. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez

> The US has not fought in the Gaza War.

How can you argue that sending 100 soldiers to fight in combat, even if to operate defensive equipment, is not taking part directly in the war in Gaza?

> but they are not involved in fighting on Israel's behalf as a "co-belligerent" or "ally" would be.

This is not what RS's seem to suggest at all.^[14]

> It means deprecated. As such, unless/until the US engages in active hostilities, they are not an ally by the definition of the template as per longstanding consensus.

And the argument being made here is that they already have and do.

> This is evidenced also by the fact that, rather than holding a new RfC on that page, or at least notifying the page the last RfC was held on, it is being held here in a different forum to try and get a different result.

I assume good faith here but it is quite a stretch. Turbo's account is only a few months old. It's entirely possible they just don't know the relevant RFC etiquette. You should have checked if that whole WP about biting Newbies was in play here smh. And in addition, Turbo also got permission (kinda) from the previous closer to re-open it anyway. You probably should have checked that as well. Genabab (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Option 3. The reason is "dispute over Israeli allies". Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 or 2 per Turbo and Genabab 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Option 3 per Berchanhimez and this should be speedy closed as being improperly opened in a naked attempt to forum shop. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
"naked attempt to forum shop."

Can you please cite the section of the policy that applies here? We all make mistakes and I'm always willing to learn. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not engaging in a bad-faith discussion with you on this matter -- you're well aware that there already was an RFC just days ago on this matter, which closed as no consensus, covering *exactly* this same question with no substantive differences or new edits in that point. Sealioning isn't going to make this any more in-process. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I looked at the policy and it doesn't apply here, I have not made multiple posts on several Talk pages and noticeboards, only here.

It doesn't cover the same question because the previous RfC asked to add US and UK as "allies in other theatres" while this RfC asks whether the US should be added to the infobox as either a belligerent or ally.

I hope that addresses your concerns. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester Are you aware of the fact that the previous closer did not have a problem with a re-open? Genabab (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
It's irrelevant whether the previous closer has a problem with it or not; there is a longstanding established consensus against immediately re-opening an RFC, and even longer-standing consensus against out-of-process disruption of the project in this particular topic space. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
> there is a longstanding established consensus against immediately re-opening an RFC and even longer-standing consensus against out-of-process disruption of the project in this particular topic space.

@Swatjester That doesn't appear to be the case per the previous closers statements that there is no issue with re-opening the RFC. Just where are you getting that consensus from? Genabab (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Please reread my prior statement about the complete irrelevance of the previous closer's comments. Then please read up on what the purpose of an RFC is and the definition of what a close is and why one is performed. By definition a closed RFC represents a consensus (including a consensus that no consensus exists); absent new information that changes the standing consensus, a new RFC on the same topic definitionally represents a disruptive attempt to ignore consensus. Per the FAQ at WT:RFC: The formal closing summary of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time. and per WP:RFCBEFORE: If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC and editors are instructed to attempt all other options first. (No such attempt has been made here). Since per the longstanding procedures of our RFC process, a closed RFC represents a consensus, there was no need to start a new RFC on the same question. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
> Please reread my prior statement about the complete irrelevance of the previous closer's comments.

What is that based on though> As of right now it sounds like an assertion and not a steadfast rule smh

> a new RFC on the same topic definitionally represents a disruptive attempt to ignore consensus.

I just don't see how that can be the case if the previous closer takes no issue with RFC being re-opened.

> (No such attempt has been made here)

That's not true, there were loads of discussions made about this issue before this RFC and the one before it. Inbetween, eh, not so much. But so what? Not like there was any reason to believe the end result of the discussions between either one would have changed Genabab (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did I just read that correctly? Did you just admit that there was no discussion in between this RFC and the previous one 10 days ago, nor that there would have been any reason to believe that the end results of either would have changed? Well, I guess that puts to rest any outstanding dispute whether this RFC was created in bad-faith. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

This RFC is plainly disruptive for being opened so soon after the last one, and raising no substantive new arguments or sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

American involvement

Genabab readds an unexplained removal of Trump's proposal but this text is redundant from the section "post-war plans" and fails verification. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Achmad Rachmani wdym by "redundant" and "fails verification" do you think Trump never said that? Genabab (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

And why mention it in the talk page of all places? Genabab (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Genabab: I think Trump never said that before. And because "forcefully cleansed" is not mentioned. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok well that's ridiculous. I'm sorry but saying "deporting everyone in Gaza" is the same as ethnic cleansing is not Original Research, any more than saying 2+2=4... @Achmad Rachmani. Ethnic cleansing literally means deporting everyone smh Genabab (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Heading title

Any ideas on the heading title for today's events? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest Oh FFS (joke). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose: "Humans, the most civilised species in the galaxy, doing what they do best (March 2025)" GeoffreyA (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"Ending the ceasefire"

@Davefelmer did you read the first sentence of March 2025 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip? In case you didn't here it is "On the night of 18 March 2025, Israel launched a surprise attack on the Gaza Strip, effectively ending the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire. (emphasis mine). You've been reverted by @GeoffreyA here and reverted by me here and you reverted both reverts in less than 24 hours, breaking the WP:1RR. Self revert or else you're risking yourself getting blocked 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Did not see there was a 1RR so I'll revert, but the argument there is nonsensical. Wikipedia is not a source for itself, and it 'effectively', 'essentially' or 'more or less' ending is not the same thing as it actually ending. The framing is still incorrect, and the source included doesn't even address it. Davefelmer (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Davefelmer, what reading do you propose? If it's that the cease-fire broke down, I think that omits the part the Netanyahu administration has played in trying to sabotage the cease-fire (killing Palestinians, blocking aid, changing the goalposts of the signed agreement, etc.), and more importantly, the glaring Mar. 18 attacks, which more than one source, The Guardian and CNN from the top of my head, characterised as "shattering" the cease-fire---perhaps a reluctance to use the word "ending"---and which Israelis and others have pointed out is an attempt to divert attention from his domestic political issues.

I'm open to using, temporarily perhaps, the plain dates ("followed by a second ceasefire from January to March 2025"). GeoffreyA (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Hamas as a terrorist organization in lead

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.

B. WP:SNOW closing after a week, at least 10 !votes for B (8 of them explicit) and no real opposition. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarize significant aspects of the topic. Currently, the lead does not mention that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, including the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and the EU. This designation is recognized and relevant to the conflict, so should the lead have this?

Include
Exclude
Other (please explain).

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Not so long as it isn't covered in the body. The lead summarizes the body. The tail does not wag the dog. GMG ^talk 15:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
More descriptive and indisputable is that Hamas governs Gaza: this should be noted but isn't. Their designation as a terrorist organisation is, seemingly, by the US and the West, so far from representative of the world. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
That is of course, utter nonsense. A number of countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the European Union, have all designated Hamas a terrorist organization under their laws. Arguing that position is "so far from representative of the world" smacks of bad faith. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
yeah and let's ignore the fact that that 100+ sovereign states don't recognize them as such 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I stand by my point that it is far from representative of the world. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude, as this is a heavily politicized and arguably inherently non-neutral designation that is disputed in international relations and global public opinion. There are also a lot of assumptions implied in the acceptance of this designation that are too challenging to address in this article. Ultimately, explaining the designation is not really necessary for the article to be informative about the war, which is its purpose. It is even less necessary for the article to be informative within the summary scope of the lead. Almost nobody would dispute that Hamas is a militant group, so that is the term we should use. If the terrorist designation material belongs anywhere in the article, it would be in the background section. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude, It is a fact that most of the countries in the world does not designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation. We are just reflecting a Western World view, if we include that in the lead, Huldra (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude - per prior. Captainllama (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment I checked the current article for related content, what I found was this sentence: "At least 44 nations denounced Hamas and explicitly condemned its conduct on 7 October as terrorism, including a joint statement by the US, UK, France, Italy, and Germany.[653]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment That means there are about ~150 countries which do not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. These ~150 countries (including China & India) represents by far most of the population on this planet. Huldra (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  If we are being technical on this point, its ~150 countries that have not condemned the conduct of Hamas in the October 7 attacks as terrorism, not that they don't designate Hamas as a terrorist group. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  Condemning the Oct. 7 attacks as terrorism != designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. I would assume there are far more countries in the former category than the latter. Huldra (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude. Mentioning it is a blatant attempt to present Israel's state terrorism campaign as a just war. Dimadick (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude. The reason is no arrest warrant after the death of Mohammed Deif. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude. Including this would be blatant POV as charges of terrorism, when not universal, are heavily politicised (I don't like you so you're a terrorist). As pointed above, the overwhelming majority of the world does not designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 13:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude. It's hard to succintly explain which countries do, and which don't, consider Hamas a terrorist organization. If you can keep it succint, it shouldn't be in the lead. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
B: Exclude. If Hamas's designation as a terrorist group is mentioned—which is not supported by several third-party countries such as Turkey and Qatar—then Israel's longstanding mistreatment of the Palestinians prior to the October 7th Attack should also be mentioned for due weight. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

B - Wiki is not BBC. Not a government mouthpiece. So no thank you. Please withdraw this RFC. No single person has supported it so far. Astropulse (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

someone should close this per WP:SNOW 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:13, 25 March 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.

Arrest warrants mention in lead

As I stated in my edit, no Hamas leaders have an outstanding arrest warrant. That's why it doesn't make sense to state that "...the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders indicted for war crimes." The only leaders that the ICC has issued arrest warrants for are Israeli leaders. The minor information that the ICC briefly issued an arrest warrant for Muhammad Deif but later retracted it after confirming his death is not important enough to be included in the lead. But even if somehow that was important enough to be included in the lead, it's singular, so it's incorrect to state that the ICC has issued arrest warrants for Hamas leaders. So the phrase (prior to my removal of "and Hamas") is inaccurate. I do think that the way the information is presented in the "war crimes" section is okay. JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User:GordonGlottal has reverted my removal of "and Hamas" without explanation or even any notation of the change. Please make your argument as to why it should be included in the lead. JasonMacker (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@JasonMacker: Language you use is like "shattering". Achmad Rachmani (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jason. I did attempt to explain in the edit summary—but I had missed this on talk. I don't think it retroactively becomes untrue that they "issued arrest warrants" just because Deif later died. There's also a WP:RECENTISM in assuming that, because Netanyahu and Gallant are alive and Sinwar and Haniyeh are dead as of March 2025, that will effect the long-term evaluation of their conduct, even though the ICC prosecutor did not distinguish them in life. It has bearing on the application of this article to current politics, but IMO probably not to encyclopedic evaluation of historical events. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Sinwar and Haniyeh never had arrest warrants. As International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#Arrest_warrant_requests states, Karim Khan announced that he intended to request arrest warrants for Sinwar, Deif, and Haniyeh. However, the requests for Haniyeh and Sinwar were withdrawn after Israel killed them. Ultimately, only 1 arrest warrant was issued for a Hamas leader, Muhammad Deif, which was ultimately retracted after Israel killed him too.

So, to recap:

Request for arrest warrants: Netanyahu, Gallant, Deif, Sinwar, Haniyeh

Arrest warrants issued: Netanyahu, Gallant, Deif

Arrest warrants issued that are currently outstanding: Netanyahu and Gallant.

So, with the phrasing in the sentence being "...the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants...", the correct continuation of the phrase is "for Israeli leaders..." because the ICC does not currently have any arrest warrants for Hamas leaders. If you want to really insist that Muhammad Deif be mentioned in the lead, then the sentence would have to become much longer to explain that the ICC had (not "has") issued an arrest warrant for Hamas leader (singular) Deif, but he no longer has an outstanding arrest warrant because he is dead. Again, I don't see why that's so important to include in the lead. JasonMacker (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The current wording ("issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders") seems alright. Alaexis_¿question? 22:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/11/1157406

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icc-press-release-arrest-warrant-deif-21nov24/

it does look like arrest warrant was issued. Cinaroot (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox features casualty figures for the spillover in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, but these portions of the conflict are not listed in the Location field or in the list of combatants. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't these be aligned one way or another? As it currently as, it could imply to a reader unfamiliar with the conflict that the Palestinian groups are the ones operating in Lebanon and Syria.

Apologies if this is something that has already been discussed recently - searching through the archives of the talk page, I was only able to find stuff from 2023. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Recommendation for FAQ banner

Could help answer FAQs like "why is this article named XYZ", or "why does(n't) this article mention XYZ". w.i.k.i.w.a.r.r.i.o.r9919 17:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

For such a controversial topic, I too am surprised that it does not have a FAQ. Then again, this talk page is ECP'd as well. DotesConks (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

What would it say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It would have the results of past RFCs or other discussions that have developed clear consensus. Searching the archive for "RFC", the two things that jump out is who to include as belligerents and maybe inclusion of Hamas sexual violence & rape in lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth Its important to note however that this talk page is Extended-Confirmed. And a user who has EC status generally knows Wikipedia basic norms and wont post obvious stuff. DotesConks (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking while looking at the past RfCs that for a controversial page, there are not that many. Perhaps it is pretty clear cut what should and should not be on the page. The people who do not know that will not know to read the FAQ. I did not particularly favor a FAQ, I was just saying what would be on it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. — $Q$ uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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)

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. — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) — $Q$ uantling (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? —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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"? —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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"? —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. — $Q$ uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (talk | contribs) 13:37, 2 May 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)

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.) — $Q$ uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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.) —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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? —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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. —

Q

uantling (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.) —

Q

uantling (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)

[1] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39le0dp4p7o

[2] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/

[3] ttps://mondediplo.com/outsidein/us-israel-joint-war

[4] ttps://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-anti-missile-system-israel-used-intercept-projectile-yemen-2024-12-27/

[5] ttps://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-says-thaad-anti-missile-system-is-in-place-israel-2024-10-21/

[6] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html

[7] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20jye8v5dro

[8] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/

[9] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67317218

[10] ttps://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-and-israels-unprecedented-intelligence-sharing-draws-criticism-a85979b4

[11] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/politics/israel-hamas-sinwar.html

[12] ttps://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/10/24/how-us-and-uk-military-airlifts-have-supported-israels-war-on-gaza

[13] ttps://mondediplo.com/outsidein/us-israel-joint-war

[14] ttps://mondediplo.com/outsidein/us-israel-joint-war

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]