Talk:Israel–Hamas war

IDF

@Pachu Kannan: I think we should avoid using the IDF as a source here as much as possible; it is a demonstrably unreliable, non-independent and primary source. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we employ the same standard with Hamas? NesserWiki (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I'm against this on the basis that all militaries and paramilitaries have a track record of not telling the truth, and we still use their reports as sources. The IDF is not particularly special in this regard. NesserWiki (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also for the record, anything any military or paramilitary says should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm just saying the IDF's claims should he held to the same standard and every other military/paramilitary's claims, no lower, no higher. NesserWiki (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

hamas.com is not used in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas’s health ministry and media office is widely used. BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so is the IDF, only when the information is provided from a secondary reliable source that establishes context and challenges propaganda; not straight from their websites. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"Hamas health ministry" lol. Is that supposed to be an improvement over Hamas run? It's called the Gaza Health Ministry, has a wikilink and is considered a reliable source, unlike the IDF which is about as reliable as Hamas, in fact those two are peas in a pod and the only question is which member of either of them gets arrested for war crimes first. Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas’s health ministry. Like Israel’s health ministry, making it clear that it belongs to one of the belligerents. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I can repeat myself just as well, Gaza Health Ministry. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve edited my comment to make it clearer. BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, now just fix the POV and we're good to go. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Saying "Gaza Health Ministry" makes it obvious that it is run by the government of Gaza, and the government of Gaza is obviously Hamas. NesserWiki (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Whenever someone says "Hamas Health Ministry" or "Hamas-run Health Ministry", it's usually a way of trying to dismiss the death toll in Gaza. NesserWiki (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas has a press organization, the Government Media Office, which is distinct from the Health Ministry. Members of the civil government in Gaza, even if they are members of Hamas (not all of them are!), are speaking in their capacity as civil government officials, not as members of a political party/armed organization. It's a subtle but significant difference. Unbandito (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Who says the Hamas Health Ministry is a reliable source? PaPiker (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does, in several discussions already, because RS say it's reliable. Look for the discussions yourself. And fyi, its Gaza Health Ministry so take your POV elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The UN considers the data reliable, based on its past experience working with the government in Gaza in previous conflicts. I would guess that's why the it's reliable. 20WattSphere (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear what you suggest. Plenty of RS use the information provided by IDF (e.g., "According to IDF Muhammed Deif was killed"). We should follow the RS and use it as any other primary source based on our policies and the use by other RS. Alaexis_¿question? 19:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree we should agree with WP:RS. My question would be when and where information can be stated without qualification, vs attributing it in text to IDF. It does seem the IDF has now made a number of very significant errors in public statements, such as the Israeli allegations against UNRWA. Information from the IDF could simply be qualified with "according to the IDF, ...", or "the IDF stated..." 20WattSphere (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Dubious

I have added the dubious tag to the recently-added "and Israel" part of the opening sentence, which misleadingly implies that the Gaza War specifically is also taking place in Israel, contrary to the majority of RS which were provided in the discussion above Talk:Israel-Hamas war#Opening sentence. Please do not remove this tag without first demonstrating verifiability per WP:BURDEN and consensus per WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The war unmistakably takes place in part in Israel. The October 7th attack was very obviously in Israel and rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza as well as Hezbollah in the north hit Israel, as did Houthi and Iranian missiles at various times (and possibly Iranian missiles again in the near future). RM (Be my friend) 11:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the article about the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, nor of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict (2023-present) or Houthi attacks or 2024 Iran–Israel conflict; which are all separate articles and the last three are distinct conflicts of their own. The scope of this article is clear in the title: the Israel-Hamas war; and Hamas is overwhelmingly based in Gaza, and so the war is chiefly taking place there. This is not my words, this is the words of RS as was demonstrated in the above discussion, including the words of the Israeli government itself: CNN: "War in Gaza could last another seven months, Israel warns." Relating to Hamas specifically; Israel is indeed at war, but it is not in war; it is waging a war on Gaza.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss The war is taking place in Israel. This is not dubious; Hamas has launched rockets into Israel proper, by definition that means it is also taking place in Israel no? Could you please find an RS specifically supporting your position that the war is not taking place in Israel? I don't support this tag at this time. Chuckstablers (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the tag after reviewing the reliable sources we have in the article. I've listed my reasons for doing so below per WP:DISPUTED

1.) Hezbollah is a party to the conflict per the infobox and they have continued to launch attacks into Israel proper. Lebanon has been identified as a theater of the war in the infobox, so we have attacks from one belligerent/ally of Hamas into Israel proper. Just 4 days ago we have this RS reporting on Hezbollah launching a drone attack into Northern Israel. This clearly identifies Israel as a location where the war is occurring.

2.) The war began with an attack into internationally recognized Israeli territory by Hamas and their allies.

3.) Hamas regularly launches rocket attacks into Israel. This has been widely reported on by reliable sources; I've found 2 in the article reporting on this within 30 seconds of searching.

4.) Per this source 5 months after October 7th over 135,000 Israeli citizens remained displaced from their homes in Israel due to the war. I'm not sure how you can argue that the war isn't taking place in Israel when multiple RS's have reported that over 100k Israeli civilians (who live in Israel) were internally displaced due to the war.

5.) Here's another source, Reuters this time, reporting on "Palestinian militants fire rockets into Israel, tanks advance into Gaza". It's obvious to me (and I hope to others) that if Hamas is firing rockets into Israel then it's fine to say that the war is taking place in Israel.

Per WP:DISPUTED the disputed content can be supported by reliable sources, is unbiased (it states the fact that the war has been fought on Israeli territory) and doesn't contain original research (again, the RS's directly report on acts of war on Israeli territory by the other side), so the tag can be removed.

In addition none of the common reasons for adding the tag per WP:DISPUTED have been met; it doesn't include implausable information (plenty of sources saying it), it's not hard to verify (plenty of recent sources on strikes by Hamas and their allies against Israel in Israeli territory), it's not highly detailed information subject to frequent changes, it's not referencing outdated sources (see Reuters from 4 days ago that I linked), it isn't ambiguously worded, and there's no RS's supporting divergent claims (no RS's claiming that the war actually hasn't taken place and isn't taking place in Israeli territory).

This also conflicts with the rest of the article. The infobox clearly identifies Israel as a theater of the war; "Location: Gaza Strip and Israel" for good reason (because the war is taking place in Israel and Gaza). Chuckstablers (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So, would you say, from a maths point of view, which tends to clear the fog of language, that the war is—temporally, spatially, and destruction-wise—the same in Israel as in Gaza? That is, is the degree the same? If the degree is not the same, is that supported by the reading "taking place in Gaza and Israel," or does the latter grossly misrepresent reality? GeoffreyA (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the degree is not the same, but the current wording says nothing about the degree. It just says that it happened both in the Gaza Strip and in Israel which is an undeniable fact. The sources that describe the war in its entirety cover the events in Israel at length, see the discussion in Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Opening_sentence. Alaexis_¿question? 19:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The events in Israel were covered at length; but what is happening now, as documented in the Events section, is mainly in Gaza and has been all these months. When one opens news covering this, it is largely, and daily, the WW2-like imagery from Gaza. To a lesser extent, the incidents are elsewhere. Understandably, the opening sentence is compressed, but there is a loss of information as it stands. The older reading was an accurate summing up. If Israel must be included, then so must the other places where confrontations have taken place, such as the Israel-Lebanon border and the West Bank, for it to stay accurate.

In short, the present version is misleading, even if facts can be cherry picked to support it. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers:

1- The infobox lists Hezbollah under "other theaters" meaning other conflicts. WP is not a source anyway, and the Israel-Hamas war template should remove any references to other wars or conflicts. The drone attack is related to the Israel-Hezbollah war, and not to the Israel-Hamas war.

2- The Israel-Hamas war war began so indeed with a Hamas attack; that was >300 days ago. Since then, it has been >300 days of Israeli invasion of Gaza, >300 days of Israel-Hamas fighting in Gaza, >300 days of Israeli wiping Gaza off the map. One day of war is undue.

3- A dozen rockets once a month does not make the war chiefly taking place in Israel.

4- This is original research and WP:Synth.

5- Also original research and synth.

Do you have one single RS explicitly stating that the Israel-Hamas war is taking place in Israel? So far we have provided here at least five RS saying that it is taking place in Gaza, including one that is cited to the Israeli government itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I also provided multiple sources which said in 2024 that the war takes place in Gaza and Israel. I'm copying the list below for the convenience of other editors. Btw no one claimed that the war takes place "chiefly in Israel", this is a red herring.

• Reuters: Six months of war in Israel and Gaza In pictures: 100 days of war in Israel and Gaza
• The Atlantic: War in Israel
• BBC: One hundred days of the war in Gaza and Israel
• Brookings Institution: War in Israel and Gaza
• Committee to Protect Journalists: As we continue to monitor the war in Israel/Gaza. Alaexis_¿question? 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

They are titles. I guess historians of WW2 will now rewrite the record under the rubric 'The war in England and the Continent' because England was bombed and rocketed from there. There was no war in England, just as there has been, for 9 months, no war in Israel. A prewar situation exists between Israel and Lebanon, but so far neither side has invaded the other, as both Hamas and Israel did. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So you are citing a Reuters pictures website, an Atlantic "category", a BBC "episode" dating to 6 months ago, a Brookings institute category that includes an article about Hezbollah, and a CPJ website which says "Israel-Gaza War" not "war in Israel"? Looking at the provided sources, clearly "war in Israel" is not supported by the overwhelming majority of RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If a source says "war in Gaza" it doesn't mean that there was no war in Israel. As I've said earlier, rather than counting how many times a given wording appears in newspaper articles, we need to see how this conflict is described in sources which give an overview of the whole conflict.

• Britannica Israel-Hamas-War
• CNN map-israel-hamas-war,
• BBC What is Hamas and why is it fighting with Israel in Gaza?

In all of these cases the events in Israel occupy much more than 1/300 of the text. Alaexis_¿question? 20:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"In all of these cases the events in Israel occupy much more than 1/300 of the text." This is a synth and original research conclusion. Now that we have established that RS do not explicitly describe the war that wiped Gaza off the map as being in Israel. So this is neither verifiable nor does it have consensus, why is it still in the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Pinging in case you have missed it. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it indeed. I'm still not sure I understand your point. I've provided sources that say that the war takes place in Israel. I've also provided sources that describe the war in its entirety and give substantial weight to the events in Israel.

No one claims that the extent of destruction is the same and no reader would think this way considering the rest of the lede's contents. Alaexis_¿question? 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: The sources do not explicitly say so; but is a personal conclusion that it does since "the events in Israel occupy much more than 1/300 of the text." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Waiting for your RFC so you can get consensus for your contested insertion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What are the sources for "chiefly in Gaza"? I hope you will use the same standard of evidence you're applying to the sources I've brought up. Alaexis_¿question? 20:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Five high quality RS were provided in my 08:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC) comment saying that war is exclusively taking place only in Gaza, including one in the words of the Israeli government. "chiefly in Gaza" is my compromise to reach a middle ground solution as it implicitly implies that war is also taking place in Israel but to a lesser degree. Which of the two are you supporting? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No, your sources only say that a war is going on in Gaza which no one disputes. E.g. your sources #4 says Gaza could see another 7 months of war, Israel says. This statement says nothing about the significance of the events that took place within the Israeli territory on October 7-9 and later (rockets and shooting attacks). Alaexis_¿question? 22:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: This is a misrepresentation of RS; for example, the AP source I provided explicitly separates the attack on 7 October 2023 from the war that succeeded it in Gaza. AP: the Oct. 7 attack on Israel that sparked the war in Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Our article covers both, so it's irrelevant. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2024

Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Gaza war – Despite the move request to Israel-Gaza war being closed as no consensus in February 2024, a lot has changed since then and RS have converged to use this name. This move is long overdue and aligns with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE.

RS per WP that uses the Israel-Gaza war name as the title of their coverage category:

• The Guardian: Israel-Gaza war
• The Washington Post: Israel-Gaza war
• BBC: Israel-Gaza war
• NPR: Israel-Gaza war
• The Conservation: Israel-Gaza war
• Al Jazeera: Israel's war on Gaza

Other RS that uses the Israel-Gaza war name as the title of their coverage category:

• Doctors Without Borders: Israel-Gaza war
• Committee to Protect Journalists: Israel-Gaza conflict
• The National: Israel-Gaza war
• Middle East Eye: Israel's war on Gaza

RS per WP that uses the Israel-Gaza war in their coverage:

• Reuters: [1], [2], [3]: Israel-Gaza war
• CBS news: [4] Israel-Gaza war
• Vox: [5], [6]: Israel's war in Gaza

This name change would also align with a third Wikipedia guideline, all five of the WP:CRITERIA one, namely #5 on Consistency, as this would align with Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza war. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Update to add other RS mentioning Gaza instead of Hamas in one way or another in at least one instance:

• Save the Children: [7]: War in Gaza as coverage category title
• Haaretz Israeli newspaper: [8]: Gaza war as coverage category title (RS per WP)
• Relief Web: Relief Web: Gaza war
• Crisis Group: [9]: Gaza war
• Norwegian Refugee Council: [10]: Gaza conflict Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nominator has presented no evidence that the common name has changed, just that a small number of selected examples use "Israel-Gaza war", and it is clear that the most common and recognizable name among our readers is Israel-Hamas war.

In addition, the title has accuracy issues - Gaza has no army and is not fighting this war, while Hamas does and is.

Regarding the evidence the nominator does present, it is highly misleading. For example, they imply Reuters has shifted to "Israel-Gaza war". This is false; in the past week they have used one article with that term, compared to many (eg. 1, 2, 3) for Israel-Hamas war.

They also cite WP:CONSISTENCY, but the proposed title is not similar to the titles they claim it would be consistent with, and even if it was the wars are too dissimilar for consistency to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A commonly recognizable name per WP is a "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)," i.e. determined by RS not by readers.

As for accuracy, Gaza has no army indeed, but Hamas is not the only one fighting this war, as it is fighting alongside Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the Gaza Strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And "Gaza war" blows away both, see here. nableezy - 05:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Taking out the "-" character provides a clearer picture of what people are searching for. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Gaza War (2023-202x) would be best, but Israel-Gaza War is an improvement over the current title. It squares better with the facts and daily coverage on this topic is largely about Gaza. Israel-Hamas is one thread of the tapestry of this war, and arguably, one point of view; it is not the whole, but a part. The war includes more than the IDF, Hamas, and other factions fighting; Gaza has been largely reduced to rubble, reminiscent of WW2 photographs; its people are killed day in and day out, excused as "attacks on Hamas," and they run from place to place with what little they have left. Hospitals, schools, and infrastructure are bombed. Doctors and journalists are killed. History is erased. The Israel-Hamas War title focuses on the part, leaving out the other big pieces, and we know that leaving out information is one technique of lying. It continues a one-sided Western narrative, that it is a war on Hamas and civilians are, unfortunately, in the way, when the facts say otherwise.

GeoffreyA (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So you wish to replace the "Western Narrative" with you narrative? PaPiker (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I only wish for all narratives to be replaced with the truth. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your truth? PaPiker (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't believe in the notion of "one's truth," which is subjective. Rather, truth is the accurate mirroring, at a certain level of abstraction (quarks vs. atoms vs. humans), of Nature or the state of affairs out there. Unfortunately, the medium of human language is prone to a host of problems. Of course, Wikipedia has other principles to go by. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The only "truth" that matters on Wikipedia is the one that is shown by reliable sources, and they consistently call it the Israel-Hamas War rather than the Israel-Gaza War. I wouldn't be opposed to creating a redirect that takes it to this page and including it the lead, though. Jdcomix (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly. That's why I added that last sentence. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is about the war, and by the way, the article still mentions the humanitarian consequences. But if you are concerned about the coverage of humanitarian issues, see Gaza genocide, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), and the many other articles detailing Israeli war crimes. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support, since the current title is a legal, philosophical and logical nonsense IMO. Correctly, wars are either between organisations (Government of Israel – Hamas) or between countries (Israel–Gaza). Mixing up the two feels badly incorrect. Also it smacks of propaganda (to give a feeling that the entire nation is fighting an organisation). Yet we wouldn't say "US – Ba'ath Party war" (rather, a US–Syria war), "US–Taliban war" (it was US–Afghanistan war; NATO–Taliban war would be correct, too), etc. In short, the proposed title sounds infinitely better than the current one, however widespread the latter may be. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, for all intents and purposes Hamas is Gaza. They started this war and that is who Israel is going after. If it was all of Gaza the Gazans would all be fighting back but they are not, it's just Hamas and its sycophants. PaPiker (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas is Gaza. Wow. Going by your logic, Israel is Likud. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas has subverted and replaced the actual authority of Gaza, the Palestine Authority. Hamas is not a political party. Hezbollah is a functioning political party. PaPiker (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The main participants in this war are Hamas and Israel. Gaza is a territory, not a side in the conflict. I don’t see any reason to change the title to something less specific. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Israel is not a territory? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel is a country with an army. Gaza is a territory controlled by a militant group but who’s de jure administrators are the PA. Personisinsterest (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hamas and Israel are the key players. Gaza is just a place, not a combatant. Waqar💬 20:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I think that this seems like a considerably more accurate title than what we currently use for this page, given that the Hamas fighters are only a very small part of the targets. Also, this is not a war, just an extremely onesided massacre. David A (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for moving a page. There has to be consensus among reliable sources to change the name, and there simply isn't at the moment. Jdcomix (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas is the primary target with the other smaller groups less so. The fact that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure and civilians as cover/shields makes said infrastructure/civilians no longer safe. Launch rockets from a hospital the hospital becomes a target, same thing with schools et al, coupled with Hamas not allowing some people to leave some areas. The people that can leave the area are leaving. PaPiker (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Theres going to be no consensus on this issue like what happened last time. Fundamentally the issue is that reliable sources are mostly using the term Israel-Hamas war some use Israel-Gaza war but not much in comparison to Israel-Hamas and I wouldn't include Al Jazeera I think we can all agree they are just a biased news source, we can look at Britannica's article on this event as an example of why we maybe shouldn't move the article. Also I encourage users to be as neutral as possible we can't be using original research I believe whats happening in Gaza is as bad as what happened in Dresden and Tokyo in WW2 but again these are just my opinions and doesn't mean that we can move the article because of said opinion. Black roses124 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  But this is an ongoing war in the future if most non biased articles use the term Israel-Gaza war I would most definitely be in favor of moving the article. My opinions is everyone take their opinion on how ethical the war is and everyone just just look at what most non biased articles are calling it. Black roses124 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also when it comes to Al Jazeera I also support Palestine but a news agency needs to be independent you can be publicly funded and still be independent but Al Jazeera is not an example of that. They have clear position on this conflict their twitter account posts anti Semitic memes, they make videos minimizing the holocaust, they accuse YouTubers of working for Israel etc. One only needs to look at Al Jazeera controversies and criticism to see they are not independent and are not non biased. Black roses124 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom and kashmiri. Country-organization doesn't make sense. CNN has also used "Israel-Gaza war". Outside of exact matches a lot of RS simply mention "war in Gaza". I would definitely prefer something like "Gaza War (2023-2024)" (we already have the precedent of Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War) since that is were the main action/destruction is taking place. That also saves us the headache of having to name the key players in the title. Similar articles are Vietnam War, Korean War, Malvinas War, Iraq War, etc. But the proposed title is still an improvement. - Ïvana (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you Gaza war seems the most sensible but again we need RS. Black roses124 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per my and others' comments on past move requests. The Israel-Hamas framing is an NPOV and an accuracy concern and that outweighs the prevalence of its use in RS, especially since RS are moving toward an Israel-Gaza framing as is the nature of the war with parties other than Hamas taking an increasingly prominent role in the fighting and strategic calculus. Unbandito (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME would be the WP:NPOV move. "Israel-Gaza" and "Israel-Hamas" could both be argued are POV framings. However, the nominator is WP:CHERRYPICKING in favor of one of these POVs here. The "Israel-Hamas" framing actually appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, including in some of the RS nom cites. All/both POVs gripe about what they perceive as media bias. So let's stick to policy.

• The Conversation also titles its coverage as "Israel-Hamas"
• Reuters actually titles its covered as "Israel and Hamas at war", not the selectively selected articles nom cites
• Associated Press titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• Middle East Eye is a very WP:BIASED source (unless we should use the Jerusalem Post as well)
• Haaretz titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war" (left out by nom)
• NBC News titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• Foreign Affairs titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• Financial Times titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• Foreign Policy titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• Deutsche Welle titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• New York Times titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• Politico EU titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• CNN titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• The Global and Mail titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• ABC titles its coverage "Israel-Hamas war"
• Vox, cited by nom, also uses "Israel-Hamas war"
• Reuters, cited by nom, also uses "Israel-Hamas war"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out that a few of your citations for how outlets also use "Israel-Hamas war", are older articles than those cited by the nominator, so it seems that RS are changing over time from "Israel-Hamas war" to "Israel-Gaza war". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Of those outlets, I spot-checked three and all three also use "the war in Gaza". The term is easy to find in Reuters The Guardian and The Conversation . Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the terms are often used interchangeably, hence the rejection of nom's assertion that there's a WP:COMMONNAME. Point still stands about the overall coverage titling. Longhornsg (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, and copying my comment from the last time we had this discussion.The claim that Israel-Hamas War is a common name is bogus, if it were the common name you wouldnt see the Washington Post, The Guardian and so on all use Israel-Gaza war as the name of the conflict. As before, Gaza is what has been systematically bombed, Gaza's universities have been destroyed, Gaza's hospitals have been destroyed, Gaza's residents have been displaced and starved. This name is and has always been an attempt to push an Israeli POV that it is a war on Hamas. Gaza is what has had its water, electricity, and food cut off, Gaza and Gazans are what have been targeted throughout this campaign. Wikipedia is effectively pushing Israeli propaganda with this title, and it is non-neutral. Since this is a descriptive title, and not like people are falsely claiming the common name, it is required to abide by Wikipedia:NCENPOV: use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. The POV implications here are that Hamas is what is being attacked here, and that is and always has been POV-driven BS. None of these are common names, which requires an overwhelming majority of sources using a single name. They are all descriptive titles, and as a result we need a NPOV one. Not one that parrots the Israeli POV that this is a war against Hamas, despite all of Gaza being in ruin. nableezy - 05:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  The strongest and clearest presentation of what should be the most important argument in this discussion. NPOV must override COMMONNAME in cases when they are opposed, or else Wikipedia can become overrun by systemic bias. Unbandito (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Both “Israel-Hamas” and “Israel-Gaza”/“Gaza war” are all used by reliable sources, however contrary to the beginning of the war which “israel-Hamas” was a somewhat acceptable term back then, the term by now doesn’t make much sense in the current circumstances anymore and reflect nothing than a political agenda (e.g US can declare war on putin or CCP for political agenda but that doesn’t mean that the war in reality/objectively is against russia/china). as by now there are full siege on Gaza not “full siege on Hamas”, a Gaza famine not “Hamas famine”, bombing of Gaza that destroyed or damaged 70% of entire Gaza’s building not “70% of hamas buildings”, and a Gaza genocide that most scholars believe israel has/is committing against all Gaza not a “Hamas genocide”. All now make very little sense to label as “Israel-Hamas conflict” anymore contrary to the beginning of the war. Adding to this older legit arguments that the Palestinian resistance factions fighting in Gaza are not just Hamas but range from the secular marxist as PFLP to salafist islamist as PIJ who are all fighting in one Palestinian front, that Hamas is the political party that rules Gaza government (which itself doesn’t mean every government employee “is hamas”) so it would be like calling it “Likud-Hamas war”, and that “Gaza war”/“israel-Gaza war” would be in correspondence with earlier existing articles (e.g 2009 Gaza war, 2014 Gaza war, 2019 Gaza war, Gaza–Israel conflict, etc). All combined leave very little sense to keep using the current title, especially by now.

Stephan rostie (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. As a previous opposer I now support a title change due to the noticeable and sizable shift in coverage in reliable sources, noted in examples from the proposal above. Yeoutie (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- 웬디러비/Wendy Lovey (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@웬디러비: WP:!VOTE - Ïvana (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Longhornsg. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. My opinion concurs with @Longhornsg's reasoning and examples, though given that there are a number of sources that also suggest Israel Gaza instead of Israel Hamas, I'd suggest including both in the lead if possible. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing has changed since the last time, so what makes the nominator think there will be a consensus this time? The sources call it the Israel-Hamas War (see Longhornsg's comment), and there have been numerous move requests on this page, none of which have succeeded. Jdcomix (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support It is instructive to look back at the 2014 Gaza war (How Does Israel's Last Invasion of Gaza Compare to Now?. Of course we have an article, Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, for the current version and it seems to me that one of the useful things that could be done here is to merge the so-called "Israel-Hamas war" into that, since that title more properly represents the situation than this Israeli POV driven article title does, which purports to say that this is about Hamas, only about Hamas and that Hamas started it, which of course is ideological bullpoo.

In 2014, the "Gaza war" was the same thing, just check the list of belligerents. Israel invaded and said that the aim was to destroy tunnels and stop rockets (sound familiar?). "Gazan civilian casualty estimates range between 70 percent by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65 percent by the United Nations' (UN) Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part on Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36 percent by Israeli officials.(sound familiar?) Israel's "100-eyes-for-an eye spiral of violence" (sound familiar?).

OK, "only" a month and a half and no hostages so that's different but what a f'in waste of time, cos we were right back there again in 2021 and now once more in 2023/24, same adversaries, same Netanyahu, plus la change. This time around, blow Gaza to bits, destroy its hospitals, its schools, mosques, literally trash the place and kill 1 in 50 of the population, while still trying to claim it's all about Hamas. If Israel cannot completely do for Hamas (a likely outcome), then Israel can just colonially occupy and settle the place like they already illegally do in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The very least we might do is acknowledge that Gaza is a target. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, it's "not done" to acknowledge that Gaza is a target. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as delineated by Longhornsg in his comprehensive missive above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  If it's a commonname (we bold those) why isn't it bolded in the lead? Hint: Because its a descriptive title and not a commonname. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  If it were the common name, you wouldnt see The Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC for example using something else. A common name is a single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic. That is not the case here, this is a descriptive title, not a common name. nableezy - 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Israel wages a war on the Palestinian people, not just Hamas. Most wars are labelled by the countries. Calling this the "Israel-Hamas war" is an Israeli POV and not suitable for Wikipedia. When this article was created, some probably thought it would be a short operation against Hamas. I doubt anyone can honestly hold that view anymore. The neutral name is the one proposed in this RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The war is between Israel and Hamas, not Israel and Gaza. Sources are quite clear on that point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — Per Longhornsg, whose evidence makes clear that "Israel–Hamas war" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the war beginning on Oct. 7, 2023. While I can understand the desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, I.M.O. that argument doesn't somehow make "Israel-Hamas" not the war's COMMONNAME and therefore the best article title. DecafPotato (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The war was a response to an attack from Hamas. Gaza is just a region. Nashhinton (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• If a move is to happen, move to Gaza War (2023–present). I think it's borderline impossible to argue whether "Israel–Hamas war" or "Israel–Gaza war" is the COMMONNAME, and both titles present NPOV problems: if it's "Israel–Hamas war", the implication is Israel versus terrorists; if it's "Israel–Gaza war", the implication is Israel versus civilians. Previous wars between Israel and Hamas are referred to on Wikipedia as Gaza Wars (Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War) and using the location gets around the NPOV issues. I know some will note that the war isn't limited to Gaza, but neither were the 2008–2009 and 2014 wars, and this conflict is overwhelmingly unfolding in Gaza. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 22:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza war with or without the dates per Joe and my previous votes for that title in prior RMs. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War or Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and Levivich.Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (2023–present). I already explained why in my previous comment above (I actually proposed 2023–2024 but 2023–present is obviously the best choice). - Ïvana (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would also support Gaza war or Gaza War (2023-present) as my second and third options respectively after Israel-Gaza war. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Gaza War (2023–present) or the proposed title. Gaza war alone may also be appropriate, as the subject appears to have seized the primary topic space, but that may be a separate discussion – though a search for "Gaza war" on Google already directs to the topic. The current title is, by contrast, grossly inaccurate. Hamas is far from the only participant on the Palestinian side, with the PIJ, PFLP, Al-Aqsa Brigades and many more also participating. This non-geographical title also violates the basic tenets of WP:NCWWW, not even stating where the conflict is principally occurring. It is exceptionally odd to not be referring to Gaza at this point in the title, as the whole of Gaza is involved, and even the peripheral conflicts revolve around Gaza: the Houthis and Hezbollah have made a cessation of hostilities contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza. The war has involved the bombing of Gaza and the invasion of Gaza, while the Gaza Strip famine and Gaza genocide pages are corollary events. There are several names for this event, but most incorporate the name "Gaza", including Israel-Gaza war, Gaza war, war in Gaza, and war on Gaza. By contrast, "Israel-Hamas war" – merely one example in an archipelago of names – is the lone exception to the rule. It is far from the common name (and the suggestions to the contrary are rather risible), and it is now diminishing in prevalence. With the likes of the BBC, Guardian and WP now defaulting to Israel-Gaza war, there is little cause for further confusion on this. The current title is one with poor accuracy, lessening applicability, and its usage now pales in comparison (per Nableezy) to the wider discussion of a "Gaza war". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Gaza war with or without dates, also support above Israel-Gaza war. Per the nominator and kashmiri, the current title is misleading as I said in previous discussion. This conflict involves not just Hamas but all Palestinian resistance movements in Gaza. The broader involvement of groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demonstrates that the title "Israel–Gaza war" more accurately reflects the scope of the conflict. Additionally, the existing title suggests a conflict solely between Israel and a single organization, while in reality, it is a war that affects the entire region of Gaza and its inhabitants. Reliable sources (RS) have increasingly used the term "Israel-Gaza war," aligning with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE guidelines. Notable examples include The Guardian, The Washington Post, BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera etc. — Ainty Painty (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: this is not a war only on Gaza's ruling political party, it is a war on Gaza. Nobody is arguing that only Hamas members have been targeted. Multiple sources have used Israel-Gaza war, or simply Gaza war. None of the fighting has occurred in Israel, so Gaza war seems appropriate. 20WattSphere (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The OP says this should be brought in line with the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza war but the big difference here is that this war was started by Hamas and it is who the war is against and thus needs to be recognized as such. There is no war here against Gaza. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas was the "main antagonist" for Israel (as it were), in all of these conflicts (as the governing body of the strip), so all of these were just as much "Israel-Hamas wars" based on the same shakey premise that is being maintained for the current title. Nothing fundamental has changed between these conflicts, so there is no obvious reason to switch for this conflict to an inconsistent and simultaneously imprecise and ambiguous descriptive title. The fuller truth is that the current title fails on numerous other levels as well, as elucidated by many editors further up this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! So it would be much more precise, accurate and correct to rename all of them to Israel-Hamas wars and then differentiate them by the year, etc.

What is Gaza? There is no war with Gaza. Israel left Gaza on its own accord. To say there's a war with Gaza is a complete misnomer.

Thank you for agreeing with me. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

“Of its own accord” is quite a euphemistic way of saying “putting it under full siege, controlling all aspects of its population including heir registry, resources, borders, water, and airspace, while continuing to commit crimes against its nationals int he West Bank, forcing them to live under occupation, settler pogroms, deprivation of rights, and administrative detention” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Well said. If anyone lives under occupation, it's the people of Gaza under the occupation of Hamas. Can other religions be practiced freely there? Can people be openly homosexual? Israel is liberating Gaza from the rule of Hamas. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Christianity also has a small presence in Gaza Strip per sources. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel is doing a mighty fine job "liberating Gaza," flattening it to the ground. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I also said "based on the same shakey premise", but those past events are not named that for good reason – and there's every reason to be consistent here. Since you're ignoring every single serious point being made here, however, it seems you have little interest in properly engaging with the naming discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No not at all. My vote isn't disqualified just because you don't like it. Sorry to inform you, but this isn't Iskypedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s disqualified because you’re wrong. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's your preferred approach, why not name it the Likud-Hamas war, then? 20WattSphere (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: An extremely regretful oppose, but Israel–Gaza war should refer to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip rather than the entirety of the war from 2023/10/07 to the present-day. This is what seems to be the most neutral reception from what I do see anyway. Josethewikier (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support 2023 Gaza War or something similar, with the year (either "2023 to present" or "2023"): best reflects the accuracy and truthfulness of this very war. Josethewikier (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Josethewikier: Why would there be two separate "named war" titles for different, overlapping periods of the same conflict? It's the same war, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas is the political party that has been causing problems for Israel, rather than Gazans. Naming the article with "Gaza" incorrectly places the fault of the initial attack of 10/07 on "Gaza" rather than the accurate Hamas. Israel remains the way it does because the country/state voted Likud in; Hamas should be seen differently from "Gaza" as Gazans did not elect Hamas in in the last 18 years, and none of the war crimes are the fault of Gazans and/or Gaza. Josethewikier (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas attacks did not happen 'in a vacuum', Guterres says

  ""It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation," Guterres said." Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I could say the same for the Israeli people, they were just luckier that its allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help even from its closest of allies. Point is that this remains a war between Israel and Hamas, just that the victims are predominantly Gazan civilians caught between yet another Israeli invasion and much crossfire from both sides (though mostly Israeli). This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents. Josethewikier (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help What Palestinian government? There was no Palestinian government in 1948 or 1967. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  you're correct, and I never meant that. Compare Israel vs Palestine in the last 30 years or so, and their governments; anyway that is not relevant. If someone convinces me that a change in the title benefits the truth-telling of the atrocities the residents of Gaza face and have faced in the last 317 days specifically, I will retract my opposition. Josethewikier (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, calling it "Israel-Hamas" war suggests it's a war between Israel and Hamas. Calling it "Gaza war" suggests it's a war in Gaza. Which of the two do you consider more accurate? Levivich (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do apologise this is turning into an argument. I sincerely request for convincing factors and not rhetorical questions. Asking me questions do not guide me towards the truth. Josethewikier (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Accuracy is a convincing factor. Which of the titles (current or proposed) is more accurate is not a rhetorical question. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also I'd disagree with had nothing at all to do with Gaza. They lived on the border of Gaza. This does NOT mean that what happened to them was in any way justified, but they were targeted because they lived on the border of Gaza, which is something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents.

  if the above is inaccurate, please point any and all errors out; else, do not misquote me. Josethewikier (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  The 1,100 victims is who I'm talking about; they lived on the border of Gaza, that's not "nothing at all to do with Gaza," it's something to do with Gaza. They got attacked because they were next to Gaza. And the attack came from Gaza. That's all something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct and I do apologise for the above statement. It's definitely not as straightforward as that, but I do get your point and agree with much of it. Josethewikier (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The current title is ok, although various titles are found in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support the proposed title (second choice) orGaza War or equally Gaza War (2023–present) (first choice) or another title that names Gaza. By now the main reason the war is notable is the mass casualties and destruction, not the underlying motives or the names of the belligerents. These details can go in the text of the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent comments have persuaded me that "Israel-Gaza war" could make it appear that Gaza is a belligerent. I'm not against "Israel-Gaza war" but I don't think it's an improvement either. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

To make things clearer for the closer: I do not support a move to "Israel-Gaza war" at this time as it could appear POV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The current title is ok. Between media outlets, the title of this war vary. But the majority still say "Israel-Hamas". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: It doesn't seem like anything has changed since last time; Israel-Hamas War remains the WP:COMMONNAME per Longhornsg. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Now that the BBC has moved to Israel-Gaza, who is one of the most accurate mainstream sources in the en-world, im my opinion. I think a lot of the mainstream US-based media is still using Israel-Hamas, but given the US support for the war, they are probably less reliable as sources in this topic area. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I live outside the US and I have most often heard it called "Israel's war on Gaza". I'm not sure I've actually heard the current title outside of Wikipedia. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well in Australia ABC have used "Israel-Hamas war" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-10/six-months-of-war-destroys-gaza-strip/103684830 Black roses124 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  A quick search of the ABC website reveals:

  • Israel-Gaza war - 53 pages of results
  • Israel-Hamas war - 7 pages of results

  So looks like ABC are leaning heavily to the side of Israel-Gaza war. 20WattSphere (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again as other editors have stated multiple news agencies of many different nations use both. I don’t disagree with you, I just disagree with the characterization that the United States uses “Israel-Hamas” and the rest of the world exclusively uses “Israel-Gaza” and Wikipedia is perpetuating American narrative it’s just not the case I don’t believe there’s any non biased news agency that has not used both. I don’t like Israel-Hamas or Israel-Gaza these are both POVs I believe Gaza war is the most sensible but even though I personally like Gaza war the issue is compared to Israel-Hamas, the Gaza war is barely being used a small minority just from a neutral perspective a majority of the coverage on this conflict is Israel-Hamas I’m not saying I agree with it but that is the COMMON NAME. Black roses124 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but it sounds plausible that US media are more likely to use "Israel-Hamas war" than the average global outlet. For example, many of the outlets listed above as using "Israel-Hamas war" are American. This could lead to US readers considering "Israel-Hamas war" to be the COMMON NAME, while global audiences do not. 20WattSphere (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree definitely Anerican media is extremely likely to push that narrative due to the country’s strategic relationship with Israel. Extremely similar to how Al Jazeera will always push a pro Palestine narrative due to them being owned by Qatar when another conflict arises which it definitely will we all know which media will say what. I’m not really in a disagreement with you if this gets moved to Gaza war I’m all for it, that is the most neutral way to frame this war Gaza war is no POV but right now I don’t think there’s any consensus for our opinion. This situation is too controversial once this war ends I’m hoping people can be more open minded and consider a different title and take their personal opinions on how ethical the war is aside and just try to make a article that is the most non biased and neutral. Black roses124 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is sufficient for the time being. By the end of the war (hopefully soon) we should then revisit the discussion.--Excel23 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Black roses124 (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title, "Israel–Hamas war," remains the WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by the majority of reliable sources, including in Eastern Europe, where I read the news. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Israel and Hamas have been at war for 30 plus years. This conflict is Israel using "Hamas" as a pretext to destroy Gaza. Kire1975 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support The new title will finally correct the gross inaccuracies of the current title; Hamas is not the only organization fighting Israel in this war, not by a long shot. Furthermore, as the post notes, the majority of sources have moved from using the inherently biased "Israel-Hamas war" to "Israel-Gaza war." RealKnockout (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas is by far the most important military fighting Israel. Names of wars usually aren't perfect, see e.g. Franco-Prussian War (many German states participated), the Hundred Years' War (not 100 years), etc. We still use them since they're WP:COMMONNAMEs. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Slightly oppose - Proposed title is better than the current title, but still inaccurate. Previous "Gaza War" pages (disambiguation link) are about wars that were only in Gaza? Whereas the page, 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis says "Palestine" and not "Gaza", despite the majority of the casualties being in the Gaza Strip. FourPi (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also support the opinion of FourPi. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  The least inaccurate name I can think of is 2023 Palestine war or just "Palestine war" (currently a redirect to 1948 Palestine war, which covers 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine + 1948 Arab–Israeli War). "Israel-Palestine war" doesn't quite fit, because it implies that the State of Palestine and the State of Israel are mutual belligerents? but the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority etc. are not taking part in the fighting. Whereas "Palestine war" doesn't imply belligerents? "Palestine war" describes a war in Palestine (region) or a war about Palestine? Both of those describe the situation better than anything else that's less than a paragraph long? 2023 Palestine war is not a common name, but it is consistent and descriptive? (and no need to add 2024 if 1948 Palestine war can cover 1947-1949?) FourPi (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Seems pretty straightforward that Israel-Gaza war is the term to use here, first because it is not merely a military conflict between Hamas and Israel but also other Palestinian factions, and second and more important because the entirety of the Gazan population and area has been subjected to the war.

As noted by others, the change also follows WP:COMMONTERM and WP:NAMECHANGES guidelines to accurately reflect how it is generally referred to now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per Raskolnikov.Rev it's not the Likud-Hamas war either.Wellington Bay (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The WP:COMMONNAME argument grows weaker and weaker, leaving this article title as somewhat aberrant among Gaza–Israel conflict articles. The argument based on WP:CONSISTENT has yet to be effectively rebutted in this thread. Arguments that WP:CONSISTENT is not engaged tend to be based on the idea that this latest episode in the conflict is incomparable to earlier episodes in the conflict, or that the proposed title is (somehow) itself inconsistent. The former argument is at best subjective and, at worst, impossible to prove; the latter argument is semantic and not in keeping with the spirit of the policy. More importantly, the current title is partisan and continues to violate NPOV (see my earlier comments on this point here). WillowCity^(talk) 17:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also support a move to Gaza War (or Gaza war) with or without dates. I still think "Israel-Gaza war" is WP:CONSISTENT, but "Gaza War" is arguably even moreso. Moving to either of these articles would address my main concerns (consistency and NPOV). WillowCity^(talk) 15:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, see the sources in u:Longhornsg's !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War, without the dates. No other war in Gaza has lasted this long or caused this many deaths. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per every argument listed. I don't really remember anyone still referring to this war as the "Israel-Hamas war" anymore Abo Yemen✉ 11:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is NOT how RMs work... Abo Yemen✉ 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (This has been argued before, but I still believe it’s an important point) The current title, "Israel–Hamas war," is more accurate because it specifically identifies the primary combatants in the conflict: Israel on one side and Hamas, the military and political organization that controls Gaza, on the other. Gaza is a geographic region, not a combatant entity, so it is misleading to label the conflict as the "Israel–Gaza war." The war is against Hamas and its affiliated groups, not against the people of Gaza as a whole. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  By your logic, Korean War is misleading because Korea is a geographic region, and we should call it the China-Soviet Union-United States War. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Clayoquot: The situation of the Korean War is different. Korean War is, and has been for decades, the near-universally accepted common name for that conflict. If this war has a WP:COMMONNAME, then it's by a small margin. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, we're in violent agreement. What I'm saying is that naming a war after a geographic region is not misleading, which is what Eladkarmel suggested. Most wars probably do end up being named after the region they're in. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and per Wikipedia:Article titles. This would be consistent with Gaza War, Gaza War (2008–2009), 2012 Gaza War, and 2014 Gaza War. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is the most widely recognized for the war, supported by all major reliable sources, and it accurately reflects the two sides involved. Maybe a different, more recognizable name would emerge in the future (as with the Six-Day War or Yom Kippur War) but at this point I don't believe any change is necessary. Galamore (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment. both "israel-Hamas" and "Israel-Gaza"/"Gaza war" are WP:COMMONNAME, and both are sufficiently and equally used by all reliable sources. Contrary to Longhornsg and probably everyone argue with WP:COMMONNAME for "Israel-Hamas war", google trends shows that both "Israel Hamas war" and "Gaza war" are roughly equal, it in fact shows that "Gaza war" is slightly more frequent and used now than "Israel Hamas war". Thus the COMMONNAME argument for "Israel Hamas" is void. I had explained my reason for why should the article be renamed "Gaza war" above, so I am not rewriting it again. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm didn’t know that I now change my opinion I support the change to “Gaza war”. Black roses124 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t no if it is wrong to do that, but i think everyone who cited WP:COMMONNAME here should be aware of that: @Makeandtoss @Longhornsg @Clayoquot @Unbandito@Nableezy@Figureofnine@Selfstudier@DecafPotato@TheJoebro64@Ainty Painty@IntrepidContributor@WillowCity Stephan rostie (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. "Gaza War" has merit due to its neutrality and consistency with former article titles. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

My point exactly I’m against “Israel-Gaza” war due to POV but Gaza war is no POV just identifying geographical location of the war. Black roses124 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a simple solution but a good one. Props to Stephan rostie. This is one of those situations where you smack your head and say "why didn't I think of that?" Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Gaza War" is arguably more NPOV than "Israel–Gaza War" in fact. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Been on board with that from the start as well. nableezy - 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Really in what sense? Black roses124 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In the sense that "Israel–Gaza War", as an A–B construction, might tend to imply that Gaza is a belligerent in the conflict rather than the location of the conflict. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is determined by use in reliable sources, not Google searches (which are WP:USERG). DecafPotato (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer Gaza war but above all, support any of the proposed changes away from Israel-Hamas war. Unbandito (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Gaza War or 2023 Gaza War or similar. As others have said, "Gaza War" is a widespread name for this war too. First, the examples at WP:COMMONNAME demonstrate that for a name to be the "common name," there has to be no widely recognizable alternative which is not cumbersome or overly formal. But that is not the case here: the alternatives to "Israel–Hamas War" proposed here are not used negligibly in comparison to "Israel–Hamas War", so the latter is not a common name. Indeed these alternatives are used interchangeably with "Israel–Hamas War", e.g. by Reuters, which others have shown using "Israel–Gaza War" and uses "Gaza war" here (and which has a record of neutral reporting on this topic).

Since "Israel–Hamas War" is not the common name, the alternatives used in RS are at least viable options for the title. "Gaza War" or one of the variations on that is best for a few reasons: (1) it is consistent with the titles of previous armed conflicts between Hamas in Gaza and Israel, conflicts which RS identify as forming a continuous pattern; (2) it reflects the highly localized nature of the warfare; and (3) it represents a neutral middle ground between "Israel–Hamas War" and "Israel–Gaza War." ByVarying | talk 03:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support: it is daylight clear this is not simply a war on Hamas, but a broader war on Gaza (or Palestinians in general, including the natives of West Bank and Golan Heights). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support As the source analyses above have demonstrated, neither "Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel-Gaza war" are clear commonames, so that is not my main point of concern. Instead, the problem with the title is that many other groups besides Hamas have taken part in the conflict in Gaza, so the title is innacurate. Simply titling "Gaza war" doesn't work (because of the 7 October attacks), but "Israel-Gaza war" accurately describes the situation. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the source analysis above, Israel-Hamas is the commonname and arguably also the optimal descriptive title, naming the two primary combatant groups. There is no overwhelming use of any other name.

Of the titles that include Gaza, Gaza War (in whichever variety) is probably optimal. While it doesn’t geographically include the area in which the Casus belli occurred (which was in the Gaza Envelope, but not within Gaza proper), it does solve the consistency issue: Gaza is a territory, that may or may not (depending on where the editor lives) be part of the State of Palestine, but it’s not a State. Making a title State vs. Territory is less consistent than “entity controlling combatants on side one vs. entity controlling the majority of combatants on side two”, which we have now. Nevertheless, the exclusion of Oct. 7 makes Gaza war a significantly worse title than the current one, by excluding both areas of combat (thereby being worse as a descriptive title), and lacking the necessary common use. Due to the significant combat outside of Gaza, consistency with the other Gaza wars would be undesirable because of their diverging nature.

There is no consensus among RS that the primary target of the war is all Palestinian people, and as such, there can’t be a title based on that premise without deviating from the WP:PAGS. Therefore, Israel-Hamas is the title that is most consistent with the way other pages are titled, such as War against the Islamic State also being States vs. non-state actor. FortunateSons (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Like the previous RM(s), some editors are once again injecting their personal opinions about the article subject into this RM, which are non-arguments that should be summarily discarded by the closer. To reiterate, Wikipedia doesn't care about what individual editors think about a subject; we care about what reliable sources use (in order to ensure article titles are recognizable to a general audience) and what title best meets Wikipedia's article naming policies. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOVNAME, WP:PRECISE, and WP:NATURAL. For starters, the nominator's examples have been cherry-picked to create the false impression of sources pivoting to "Israel–Gaza war". A closer inspection paints a different picture: AP, NYT, CNN, The Times, The Telegraph, LA Times, Time, Bloomberg, Financial Times, NPR, Sky News, The Hill, PBS, ABC, NBC, DW, CBC, New York, The Globe and Mail, Politico, Axios, The Verge, Wired, Chicago Sun-Times, The Conversation, Vox, Seattle Times, Euronews, Foreign Policy, Toronto Star, France 24, Le Monde, USA Today, Pew, and New York Post (note: unreliable) all use "Israel–Hamas war", as does the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's difficult to pin down sources that don't have a "hub" page for their topical coverage, so in some cases we have articles from the same publication that use different names, or none at all. In addition to COMMONNAME and NPOVNAME, we have PRECISE and NATURAL. Israel–Gaza war currently redirects to Gaza–Israel conflict, so if this page moves, we will either need to add a non-natural parenthetical qualifier to this page or move the other page. In any case, "Israel–Gaza war" and other variants are evidently less PRECISE than the current title, irrespective of editors' opinions regarding its accuracy and neutrality, because we have similar articles of similar names. We are source-summarizers, not truth-finders. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Due diligence wasn't done here. These are just page tags, and you haven't looked into whether they are current/old and/or complemented by other tags. For instance, The Hill also uses "Israel-Gaza war". You have identified only one tag, presumably based on a Google search, and assumed that the platforms that popped up don't tag the same war stories under multiple competing tags and titles. That is cherrypicking par excellence. It is also worth noting that page tags are not actually a very useful indicator of the language used in the actual coverage. They are in fact more unreliable still than WP:HEADLINES, which we also do not use to determine page titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was going to add a paragraph explaining why, but everyone opposing this has said all of my opinions and more. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Concur in that "Israel-Hamas" no longer accurately describes the scope of the war, since Israel is fighting other groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. However, "Gaza War" doesn't really describe it accurately either, since the war is being fought on more fronts than just Gaza, such as the West Bank and Lebanon.

But I can't really think of a title that's both concise and fully describes the scope. Benpiano800 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "a lot has changed since then and RS have converged to use this name"; what an incredibly slanted way to re-open this discussion. Again. For the 10th time in the past year.

RS have not "converged" on that name for the conflict, as plenty high-quality RS still use "Israel-Hamas war" or its variants:

• Associated Press: Israel-Hamas War
• Reuters: "Israel and Hamas at war"
• New York Times: Israel-Hamas War
• NBC: Israel-Hamas War
• CNN: Israel-Hamas War
• France 24: Israel-Hamas War
• CBS: "Israel and Hamas at war"
• Foreign Affairs: Israel-Hamas War
• Deutsche Welle: Israel-Hamas War
• Foreign Policy: Israel-Hamas War
• Politico: Israel-Hamas War

Moreover, despite the opener's claim, nothing has really changed regarding RS usage since the last RFC in May, and the one before that in January - the same sources that are using the term "Israel-Gaza War" now (BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, Al Jazeera...) are the same sources being cited as using the term now. Consensus can change, but there are no "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" being raised here.

RS publications aside, "Israel Hamas war" continues to lead "Israel Gaza war" in English searche interest worldwide by a fair margin, as it has since the beginning of the conflict. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the terms people are searching for, "Gaza war" is more common than "Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel-Gaza war" and its share has been growing for the past few months. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which shows Gaza war to be the most searched for thing in the majority of the world, including universally across Europe and the Middle East, and prevalently across South Africa, compared to quite a bit of Southeast Asia, but otherwise largely just the US, India, a few countries in central Africa for the current term. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The past 90 days shows the recent trend better. Gaza war is globally prevalent in that period. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

oppose : For the 1000th time, no. Per above. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Common ground

Do supporters of the Israel-Gaza war support the Gaza war (with or without dates); and vice versa? Also do opposers of the Israel-Gaza war title support Gaza war (with or without dates)? I think answering these two questions will help reach better consensus for one of the three proposed options. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need dates here. This is the biggest war of them all and does not need to be disambiguated Abo Yemen✉ 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The only conflicting point here is “Gaza war” usually refers to the 2008 one, since it is he first full scale war it was often just called the “Gaza war”, otherwise I completely agree The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Stephan rostie (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Black roses124 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support I support Gaza war (with or without dates) and Israel-Gaza war as title. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Either/or is fine with me. nableezy - 16:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for Gaza War, with or without dates. No for Israel-Gaza War. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for Gaza War, with or without dates. No for Israel-Gaza War. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• The problem with "Gaza War" is that it may imply that the fighting is restricted to Gaza, though this does not reflect the scope of this article. For instance, it also includes the October 7 attack on Israel. However, as others have pointed out, "Israel-Gaza war" is also somewhat problematic, as it may seem to imply that Gaza is actually a combatant. So both titles have slight issues. My personal preference is "Israel-Gaza war", though I wouldn't per se be opposed to "Gaza war". Gödel2200 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Gaza war for choice but either will do.Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes for Gaza war. I would not capitalize "war" because it's not a proper noun but a descriptive term, but I'd support "Gaza War" too. With or without dates, but preference for without dates. I'm neutral on "Israel-Gaza war", I don't support it, but I don't oppose it either. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment (uninvolved in RM). While I support Gaza War as title per WP:PRIMARY, the ongoing battle in gaining consensus for Israel–Gaza war that has failed before and appears to be failing again is the clear issue here. Regardless of the arguments for/against, the current RM proposal remains too close to Israel–Hamas war, which is also a WP:COMMONNAME, and becomes a dispute over one CN and another. However, based on the reason for opposing the current RM, I struggle to believe this proposed title has any better chance in passing either at present.

From skimming through the Oppose !votes, most of the arguments are based on the fact that the war is against Hamas and not a war against Gaza. Which while I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars, given Hamas governs Gaza; Longhornsg raises a very valid point, somewhat unintentionally here. Both "Israel–Hamas war" and "Israel–Gaza war" are arguably POV-framing titles, an argument being reiterated as an oppose vote ironically. The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs. Without getting into semantics of where Gaza starts and Hamas ends, there is seemingly no moving forward between that current stale mate.

The only hope is that the current Oppose !votes are more accepting over a title that describes a war in Gaza, as opposed to against Gaza. The fact that arguments against moving to a POV title in order to remain at a POV title would ideally be acknowledged by all here at a minimum. Likewise with supporting one POV title over another. We are clearly never going to find common ground in this matter otherwise.

The only realistic issue with the title "Gaza War" would be based on October 7 context, which could simply be moved to part of the Background section, given everything after this has been based in Gaza, not elsewhere. I'm also excluding "Other confrontations" from this, as per description of the section itself, these confrontations are disconnected (geographically at least) from the war in the Gaza strip, and only included in the article for context. Apologies for the long-winded reply, but based on the opening question, I think some further analysis was very much due here.

CNC (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: "The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs." The war is actually not against Hamas, but against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and etc; all of which are based in Gaza. So I do not think there is a POV here. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with this and argued it before, hence my point prior to this "I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars", but the CN counter-argument is that it doesn't matter as Hamas is considered the primary target. There are two POV-based CNs by default, as they are literally opposing viewpoints – whether intentional or not, or whether one is more accurate than the other or not – which is why I believe Gaza war is the only correct NPOV title here. You only need to skim through the RM to see that this is the issue imo: supporters believe the proposed title is the accurate CN, Opposers believe the current title is the accurate CN. CNC (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think whoever is going to close this move request will get gray hair by the end of it while trying to determine the consensus. Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Either/or is fine with me. Prefer dates for clarity but I don't think they're strictly necessary. Unbandito (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I support Gaza War. I do not support Israel–Gaza war. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Gaza War (with or without dates) as a first choice, and Israel-Gaza war as a second choice. - Ïvana (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Indirect deaths

Forgive my ignorance if this has already been discussed. A letter was published in The Lancet a month ago which estimated that 186,000 Gazans could have died in this conflict (the lead author was quoted clarifying that this is a very conservative estimate). The estimate includes indirect deaths, including from lack of health care, food and water.

Is this worth a mention? I suppose the question is whether these are attributable to the war. Even if these deaths are not directly due to violence, you could argue they are a result of war through loss of functioning hospitals, food supply chains, international aid or other reasons.

The Lancet letter: [11]

Snopes: [12] 20WattSphere (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed recently, and there was disagreement. For now, it's best to stick with the numbers that we've got. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It was already in the article and was removed. It should definitely be in the article in the former concise phrasing that "indirect deaths are likely to be magnitudes higher." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet piece is still cited in the infobox with the estimate of 186,000+. However, the infobox incorrectly reports that the Lancet letter estimated 186,000+ indirect deaths. Their estimate is 186,000+ total deaths after including indirect deaths at a 4:1 ratio. That number comprises 37,396 direct deaths + 37,396 x 4 indirect deaths or 37,396 direct + 149,584 indirect equalling 186,980 total dead. It should not say "likely to be magnitudes higher" because that's just wrong. A magnitude higher is 10x, two magnitudes is 100x, three magnitudes is 1000x. Magnitudes are logarithmic. "Magnitudes higher" – plural – implies a minimum of 3.74 million+ deaths. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then multiple times higher. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Either 'multiple' or 'four-fold' to comport / accord with the Lancet appear fine to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It is worthy to note that this the lancet paper received 8 academic citations since the time it was published just a month ago, so it is definitely credible and worthy of mentioning in the article imo Stephan rostie (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to handle the infobox side of this matter. There are several options that come to mind, so I'll put them forward and allow other editors to comment on them. The infobox improperly reports the 186,000 figure as being indirect deaths, when it is the combined direct and indirect deaths. The possibilities all citable to the Lancet article are:

Option A1: Indirect deaths likely to be multiple times higher

Option A2: Indirect deaths likely to be three to fifteen times higher

Option B: 149,584+ indirect deaths

Option C: 186,000+ dead including from indirect causes

Any of these options can have their wording altered as needed, these are just generalizations of available approaches. Option B invokes WP:CALC using the Lancet's precise figure for direct deaths. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Option A1 seems to be the best option, until the war ends and body collecting and counting goes on to determine the true death toll The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox content should be as inarguably factual as possible so I agree with A1 as well. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever is put there, it should be written to avoid the common misconception that can be seen in the first post of this section: "186,000 Gazans could have died". That's wrong; it isn't an estimate of people having died, but an estimate of people who will die in the future due to indirect effects of the war. The Lancet letter is very clear on that but I see the erroneous interpretation quite often. Zero^talk 15:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It arises from reading the paragraph where the figure is presented in isolation without the context of the preceding paragraph where the meaning of the figure is explained in detail. Even having read it when it was released and knowing that at the time, I'd presently neglected it as well. This is a rather difficult letter to introduce properly without including inadvertent errors. I'm thinking A1 has the fewest potential issues, as its core premise holds true irrespective of the moment of the cessation of conflict: the indirect death toll being multiple times larger than the direct death toll. The IB aside, we now have the problem in the article prose that it states that the death toll in Gaza could already surpass 186,000. This indicates a current death toll of 186,000 rather than a future one. I considered altering 'already' to 'eventually' but that too could cause confusion. The conflict, being that it is on-going, necessarily, could 'eventually' surpass any figure death toll in the future (both directly and indirectly). I don't know how to rectify that sentence at present.

I should, while I am available, note that an estimate of people who will die in the future due to indirect effects of the war isn't strictly correct either. It's an estimate of the final death toll once all present indirect and future indirect deaths have occurred and includes all present direct deaths up until July 5th, 2024, the day the letter was published. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't see the letter before a correction was made on July 10, but the present version does not say "death toll in Gaza could already surpass 186,000". The only place where that figure appears is "..it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza." If one only reads that sentence it would be easy to mistake it for deaths up to that point, but in the context established by the previous paragraph it means both past (agreed on that) and future deaths. Zero^talk 04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. Our article – the Wikipedia article – presents that the death toll in Gaza could already surpass 186,000 citing the Lancet letter. The letter does not say that. See the last paragraph of the humanitarian crisis section. I'm saying that needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure how to re-write that sentence. I thought about replacing 'already' with 'eventually', but that won't work for the aforementioned reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood you. I changed that sentence. Zero^talk 07:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A1 to avoid false precision. Levivich (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Option A1 seems like a good idea.

Also, does anyone know how missing people are counted? This NYT article earlier in the year stated that "it is unclear how much the estimate of those unaccounted for is already reflected in the official death toll." Back then the official toll was 31,000, and 7,000 were missing.

[13]

More recently, when the official death toll was 35,000, it included 25,000 identified individuals and 10,000 unidentified bodies. So I'm very unclear on how missing people are considered here. [14] 20WattSphere (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

While I would like to avoid using the article at all, as I have stated in previous discussions on other pages, the fact that multiple RS have made stories about it means it has spread greatly and so is part of the discussion. This being the case, if we are to reference in numbers, where it's not directly quoting with attribution and context, then Option A1 should be used. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't initially oppose including this, but after observing

• The confusion about what the authors meant, like whether 186k includes past + future deaths, etc.
• The messy attempted clarifications, like one author's characterization of the 186k figure as "purely illustrative" (in a deleted tweet)
• The critical analysis by Michael Spagat, which calls the estimate "implausible"

I think it's best to wait for a more clear, well-researched and broadly accepted estimate, rather than including this one. If we do include it, we need to be very careful about how we frame it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing to convince me since last time this was raised that it is a reasonable thing to add to this article. This article should stay reasonably close to the facts rather than even scientific speculation. I am quite happy for it to be used in the casualties article but not in this one. NadVolum (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a reliable source, and the fact that it confuses some people is not a reason to avoid it. It is quite clear if read carefully. However, the numbers which are not claimed to be more than very rough estimates don't need to be quoted and so option A1 is fine. Zero^talk 04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

OptionA. Given the vast documentation of dire conditions in Gaza since October 23, and the predictable epidemiological consequences of both war and the total breakdown of basic sanitary infrastructure, mentioning the forecast in these general terms is the correct option to choose.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Option A. Also note that while the Palestinian sources (PMO, MoH) seem to focus on violent deaths, Israel has also employed as warfare – with ample evidence – starvation, destruction of healthcare services, and multiple forced relocations that normally kill those most frail. Their respective victim counts should normally be included in the totals. much like we have included all the starvation deaths in Holodomor. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have implemented option A1, given that this is the most widely supported format in this discussion. There are a few editors who have indicated that they'd prefer wholesale exclusion, basically an Option D, which may be discussed further. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas militants killed

How many Hamas militants were killed during the war? I didn't find any data in the article or in the infobox. -- Gabi S. (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

To my understanding, the short answer is that no one can reliably say right now. Unbandito (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

According to IDF, 17,000+ Hamas militants were killed per https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-it-razed-over-50-tunnels-in-gaza-egypt-border-area-in-past-week/. It is mentioned in the infobox. There is no total data from Hamas, they only announce some deaths of their militants. Pachu Kannan (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I see it only in the article notes, not in the infobox on the top right. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Their last update from April 2024 was less than 20% of their militants killed per https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-casualties-toll-65e18f3362674245356c539e4bc0b67a. It is also mentioned in the infobox. Pachu Kannan (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The numbers of Palestinians and Hamas militants supposedly killed is incredibly blurred. Doubt the actual number either way will ever be accurate. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We should include the reported numbers with source attribution. I can't understand how such important data is still missing in the infobox. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. We can use the ToI figure with attribution unless and until we have better sources. Alaexis_¿question? 18:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It is easy to see the figure of 17,000 is complete rubbish but I've no objection to editors sticking it in with an attribution to the IDF. NadVolum (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It should be stated that it is solely Israel’s claim, as well as the reasons that it should be doubted, for example the IDF listing single digit age children as “Hamas militants”

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-mideast-latest-06-07-2024-cbc1aa84bc30b5f27dc1823155448f86 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Qualifier

@Josethewikier: The addition of this qualifier relating to Gaza casualties while the RFC is ongoing is problematic; especially considering that the RFC will result in a clear no consensus for the addition of this qualifier. [15] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait for the formal close. It has been requested so not that long to wait. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not mind one bit the removal of it, however, I believe it provides better concision and precision, without any downsides. Josethewikier (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Josethewikier: There is no consensus for its inclusion, neither here on this talk page, nor on the soon-to-be-closed RFC discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I am aware. The upsides are obvious (concision and precision) and the downsides less so. Ultimately, I do not have an opinion of my own, and I will respect what any current or future consensuses feel regarding its inclusion (or not). Josethewikier (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The bodies of six hostages have been recovered.

Source:https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/1825803252925169745?t=CV56UKp80amdygsoKY530Q&s=19 NesserWiki (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Reputable media outlets have reported on it: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-20/ty-article-live/aoc-at-dnc-kamala-harris-is-working-tirelessly-to-secure-gaza-cease-fire-hostage-release/00000191-6d8d-d5f6-abf9-ef8d5d8b0000 NesserWiki (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ben-Gvir also tweeted about it: https://x.com/itamarbengvir/status/1825792893648343517?t=1HW1fzPquTYiro-3zUjt_w&s=19 NesserWiki (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I updated it. If any improvement is necessary, please improve it without double counting. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Recentism in the most recent events section?

There has been a bit of a content dispute over the Continued operations throughout Gaza section, which catalogs the most recent events in the war. In general, @Pachu Kannan has added the most content to this section (I have also contributed a significant amount) and @JohnAdams1800 has called the section too detailed, and said it suffers from recentism. I thought it would be a good idea to discuss the section and what does or doesn't belong in it to cut down to reverts, edits to the wrong pages, etc.

I agree that the section has become too detailed. However, I don't think everything JohnAdams is removing should be relegated to the timeline. I'm hoping we can all agree on some criteria for including events in the main article.

Personally, I agree with JohnAdams that daily updates do not belong in this article. Pachu Kannan, I think you should add those sorts of edits directly to the timeline. However, I do think that notable battles and military maneuvers, massacres of maybe more than 10 people that have received significant media coverage, events where a notable individual such as a journalist, local civilian leader, aid worker, etc is killed, or where a school, hospital or facility usually outside the bounds of war is attacked, should be included in this article. The main article receives many thousands more pageviews than this timeline article. Moving these events to the timeline will impact the reader's perception of the war, and of its relative intensity over time, and make this article less true to events on the ground.

When it comes to the events in this section, I think we also want to keep as many blue links in the article as possible, to respect the work of editors writing detailed accounts of these specific battles and attacks and to promote Wikipedia's unique ability to organize information as a live, interlinked encyclopedia.

So, here is an example of a move I agree with: 1 and one that I don't: 2

To address the issue of recentism, I think it's worth being patient with this section because the events are still fresh and we are waiting for better aggregate information and a historical view on them to form. You can already see this starting to happen with the UN's latest report on school attacks in the last two months. As we get more information like this over the next several months, we can make the section sound like less of a daily press release. In the meantime, people are coming to this article looking for up to date information on the war, so we should be extra careful about events in maybe the last two weeks or so.

It may also be the case that the better way to solve recentism and the the relative size of this section is to go back into previous sections and pick out a few more important details from their child articles, now that we have the historical perspective to do so. In the sections between the November ceasefire and the Rafah offensive, we were able to make things a little more readable by adding subheadings, per the suggestion of @CommunityNotesContributor. I think that would be more challenging here because it is harder to differentiate things at this stage of the war, but it's worth keeping an eye on this idea as things develop. It may become a lot easier to contextualize this section after we find out what comes next.

Interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Unbandito (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts:

Support including sentences like "By August 2024, almost 84% of Gaza was under evacuation orders from Israel."

Oppose including sentences like "On 7 August, at least 10 including at least three members of a family were killed in an Israeli artillery shell strike in a tent camp in Abasan al-Kabira and in an Israeli strike against a tent in Bani Suheila for displaced Palestinians, both areas designated as a "safe zone" by Israeli forces."

As an example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine article doesn't include daily updates and events, but instead presents an over-arching narrative and important facts for specific sections of time. It also has its own timeline articles. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is generally the point and always been the issue. The other is that all other events sections are summaries of child articles, but it appears the current "Continued operations" section is not considered a summary of a child in the same way. Ideally we'd just assign the timelines of (7 May – 12 July 2024) and (13 July 2024 – present) as the main article(s) for the current events, if there is no other main article to consider here, and therefore summarise the section based on an actual the summary of these child articles (where applicable of course based on time-frame). At present none of it is a summary and therefore by default will always give undue weight to the events section, given the other events are summarised. It also appears to be highlights from the timeline, which to be clear is not a summary either, similar to how a lead section is not the highlights of the article, but instead a summary of it. There's only so many times I can say that we need to summarise before it eventually get's summarised, similar to nearly all other sections. I don't think there's otherwise any need to provide specific examples here, given the entire section is written per JohnAdams1800's example. CNC (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am also deeply worried about its extremely heavy load, although due to fears of 1RR I refrain from making wholesale reversals. I definitely support limiting mention of events to incidents of extraordinary weight. At this rate not every rocket launch or airstrike is notable in the main frame, especially if these projectiles repetitively land in an empty yard, and as much as editors describe this war in more loaded words, this article is not the tally for how many people get killed every day. I would like to notify everyone that similar instances have been happening in Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) involving some of the same editors here. Borgenland (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I had also previously advised the editor in question on where to put such items instead. Borgenland (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that some of my edits violate WP:RECENTISM and due weight. I think that this problem is more in some of my edits in Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). If anyone can help me by removing or rewriting those sentences which violate these policies, please do it. Pachu Kannan (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Response I don't remember ever suggesting sub-headings, instead I only ever suggested summarising sections to their child articles. I would/do support more sub-headings if there are child articles to reference and summarise from though. CNC (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone help me by summarising this section and two other sections in Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I can have have a go later at the continued operations section. I assume you mean July and August for the other article? The latter looks like the timeline just re-formatted into paragraphs. All of the "Further clashes" sub-sections need re-doing by looks of it, at least based on page size. Ideally it would just be one section summarising all of the months combined. 😬 CNC (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed some sentences added by me in this article per these policies. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Update Have done an example of a summary for June.[16] I fail to see why other months can't be summarised into single paragraphs also. Will give July and August a go unless there is strong opposition to such a proposal. CNC (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I support your proposal and thank you for your summarising for June. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your June summary does a good job trimming the section without sacrificing substance. One thing I might have done differently would be to keep more of the sources in, so that more detail is available to those who seek it out. For example, I think it was a good idea to remove the controversy over whether or not an aid vehicle was used by Israel in its hostage rescue, but it might be a good idea to leave the sources in that discuss that. Unbandito (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that was the intention to simply remove unnecessary detail and content. For citations, it's best to only leave citations for the content that remains, otherwise it'd effectively be a ref bomb (ie adding citations that aren't verifying the content in question). The way to do as suggested would be to summarise the "he said she said" controversy over the aid vehicle, with "and a disagreement over the rescue vehicle involved", and add the relevant citations to that. But personally with 274 dead, I think the type of vehicle they used to do this "the how part" is somewhat irrelevant to the summary. CNC (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have also removed some sentences added by me from Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Update #2 Have summarised July & August per support above. [17] Enough of this was either unnecessary detail, or specifying the number of women and children killed, as well as those injured. Without intending to sound insensitive here, these are none the less details of the timeline, and are undue as part of a summary of the timelines. Ideally readers would understand that with XXX dead, this included women, children, and injuries, but I digress. Ideally there would be a summary of number of casualties for these months, but ultimately this doesn't seem to exist. For a better summary, a note should be created to include the number of those killed per month/section, with women, children, elderly, and other injuries defined. I've otherwise removed the templates as I believe this has been resolved for now, as well as moved the note to the bottom of the section (where editors contribute new information) in the hope to quell unnecessary further content. CNC (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

August 21 edit requests at RFPP

I have declined a couple of edit requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit because they didn't cite sources and weren't specific enough; however, they do identify some actual inconsistencies that should be examined by the regulars here.

Quoting from RFPP in case the archive bot removes them too quickly, the inconsistencies identified are:

• "On 28 March, the IDF shot and killed two unarmed men in central Gaza, before burying them in sand with bulldozers.[397]" needs to be altered, the source gives two contradicting stories which CNN (the source) didn't clear up. In the article AJ argues without evidence the two videos they present are from the same people, the IDF tells those were two separate incidents. This has to be cleared up to remain factual.
• The casualty figures for Syria and Lebanon need updating as they are now out of date, the page states that 326 Hezbollah fighters have been killed in Lebanon and 60 in Syria for a total of 386 but Hezbollah itself has admitted that over 410 of its fighters have been killed, the IDF has also provided consistent on the number of Hezbollah fighters eliminated.

~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding US to the Belligerents section

The military support provided to Israel in terms of increased weapons and munitions for the war by US is well-recorded in sources. I think the US should be added under belligerent section as a supporting partner of Israel. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been very long discussions in the last two years about whether providing weapons should count as belligerent on Wikipedia, with a clear consensus against it. Jeppiz (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Military supplies are not a cause to insert a country as a belligerent; same for Iran's partial military supplies to Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the difference here would be that Iran supplied Hamas before the war, while the USA is continuing to give Israel the bombs it uses to blow up kids, even while participating in sham “ceasefire talks” or claims of pressuring Israel like in rafah The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nuseirat rescue operation

There's a long pending merge discussion at Nuseirat rescue operation with no recent comments. We might want to close it. Pg 6475 ^TM 19:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Schools

[18] Both ToI and Jerusalem Post are basing their reporting without pushback on statements by the Israeli military , which is obviously not known for its credibility historically. Whoever seeks to restore this should provide independent sources discussing it. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

West Bank

RS are increasingly reporting that the Israeli settlements expansion and land theft in the West Bank are being carried out under the cover of this war, not to mention Israel's latest crusade there. So does anyone still have objections to its re-inclusion in the lede as the last sentence phrased as: "The war has also spilled over into the West Bank, which has seen an increase in Israeli settlements expansion, as well as settler attacks and military raids, which has killed hundreds of Palestinians." [19][20] [21] Makeandtoss (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's another ref, this has become a significant feature by now and should be in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)