Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Israel-Hamas War)

Requested move 13 August 2024

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

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:

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)[reply]

Update to add other RS mentioning Gaza instead of Hamas in one way or another in at least one instance:
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And "Gaza war" blows away both, see here. nableezy - 05:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out the "-" character provides a clearer picture of what people are searching for. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
So you wish to replace the "Western Narrative" with you narrative? PaPiker (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only wish for all narratives to be replaced with the truth. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your truth? PaPiker (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Certainly. That's why I added that last sentence. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    ...or between countries (Israel–Gaza). Gaza, is in fact, not a country. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Hamas is Gaza. Wow. Going by your logic, Israel is Likud. — kashmīrī TALK 23:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 06:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that Israel is not a territory? — kashmīrī TALK 23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose: Hamas and Israel are the key players. Gaza is just a place, not a combatant. Waqar💬 20:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I agree with you Gaza war seems the most sensible but again we need RS. Black roses124 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. One thing about the WP:COMMONNAME of Israel-Hamas war is that Wikipedia partially decided on that common name back in October 2023 when the war first broke out. A year since the attacks, media organizations are shifting towards Gaza War (2023-present), Israel-Gaza War, or variations of the two. Changing the title to either of those two, in particular the former as it falls in line with 2014 Gaza War and the Gaza War (2008–2009), would still remain in COMMONNAME and be less biased due to not having interference from news organizations possibly running with the Wikipedia-generated title. Jebiguess (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Google trends shows Israel Hamas War is more commonly searched for, despite it being obvious that this war isn’t just against Hamas Kowal2701 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also shows Gaza war is more commonly searched than Israel Hamas war. nableezy - 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s seriously flawed to compare counts of a two-word phrase with a three-word phrase. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When comparing how often each phrase is used? nableezy - 23:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Israel-Gaza war. Both Israel-Hamas and Israel-Gaza are commonly used, but recently there has been a trend towards using Israel-Gaza. Israel-Gaza war is more accurate because the war is not just Hamas anymore. I oppose Gaza war (2023-present) because the name of the war should include Israel, per WP:NATURAL, Israel-Gaza war makes more sense than Gaza War. Mast303 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Israel–Gaza war, which is a bit hard to make sense out of considering that Gaza is an Israeli-occupied territory; it's also less widespread than the alternatives. However, I would support Gaza war (2023-present) (I think dates are preferable due to the relative recency of the other "Gaza wars"). This (or "war in Gaza") seem to be much more widespread than Israel–Hamas war based on Google trends, it's also more accurate considering that only a minority of Palestinian casualties are Hamas fighters. WikiFouf (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Oppose An online encyclopedia does not get to name the war. Although personally I think it's plausibly a war waged on the Palestinian people primarily with Hamas merely as collateral damage, that is irrelevant because WP:COMMONNAME applies as supported by Google trends and many media outlets. 'Israel-Gaza war' does not make more sense as there is already Gaza–Israel conflict which this is a subset of anyways and the terms are too similar. Another point is that its simply too late to change it, its been ongoing for months and when people hear or read 'Israel–Hamas war' they know its about this one, 'Israel-Gaza war' is more ambiguous & 'Gaza War' even more so. 'Gaza war (2023-present)' is no better than 'Israel Hamas war (2023-present)' because you are dropping Israel from the label for no reason at all. Colloquially people don't even say 'Gaza war', if they drop Israel & just say Gaza then they say 'Gaza genocide' Drocj (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the proposed title is ambiguous and can refer to several other conflicts which involve Israel and the territory of Gaza (which is why it redirects to Gaza–Israel conflict). Sources appear split on both Israel–Hamas war and Israel–Gaza war, so we cannot explicitly refer to WP:common name. Other editors provide longer alternatives which include date disambiguation; the problem with this is that many of these proposed longer titles fail at both mention in reliable sources as well as concision, which is best explained as The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. The use of Hamas in the title accurately describes the scope of the article as they, alongside Israel, are the main belligerents of the war. While the current title blurs the involvement of other militant groups fighting alongside Hamas, the ambiguous Israel–Gaza war provides no mention of clashes in the West Bank nor confrontations in other territories. Renaming this page to a date-disambiguated title would also require some form of parenthetical disambiguation, whereas Wikipedia prefers the use of natural disambiguation if possible.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for Gaza War (2023 - present) followed by Israel-Gaza war. As pointed out by Kashmiri, wars are between states or between organizations. Since Palestine has now been internationally recognized by the UN as a sovereign state, it's even more relevant that we avoid the incorrect framing of this being about Hamas.
Internet search trends in the last 7 months also clearly shows Gaza War as the most common name and Gaza War + Israel-Gaza war (without the "-" character as helpfully suggested by @PhotogenicScientist) easily outstripping Israel-Hamas War. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Israel-hamas war erases the role of other significant factions within the Palestinian Joint Operations room. That is, the PFLP, DFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees and various Fatah aligned militants. We at wikipedia should be careful to account for these things which may otherwise be swept under the rug.
Gaza war on the other hand allows us to also implicitly include the other parts of the P-JOR. Genabab (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support There are many other factions in the war other than Hamas, including but not limited to, PFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Lions' Den, etc. It isn't just Hamas who is fighting Israel in Gaza. Haskko (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recognition of the State of Palestine
  have recognised the State of Palestine
  have not recognised the State of Palestine
Common use in English is a very skewed POV, anything supported by "common use" in English language sources is going to have a United States / UK / Canada / India (BJP) / etc. bias, so anything in common use in English has a systematic bias wrt this war. Searching war and Hamas حرب حماس gets me European media in Arabic, and half of them still call it the Gaza war even in those search results. Searching all three gets me The war between Hamas and Israel الحرب بين حماس وإسرائيل France24 , The war between Israel and Hamas الحرب بين إسرائيل وحماس Germany's DW , UK, USA, etc. despite the search being in Arabic. As far as I can tell, the current title is exclusively used by media from the minority of countries who refuse to recognize the State of Palestine. FourPi (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is en.wiki - of course we're biased toward English here. What's the issue with that, exactly? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained that above. I'm disputing the claim that "common name" its unbiased. Because, as you say, of course we're biased, we're biased towards points of view in the English speaking world. Too many people seem to think that "reliable sources in English say" = global consensus. It very much doesn't. FourPi (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME, English-Language sources are the scope here. If it helps, it’s a great annoyance for me in other cases, where the German phrasing is significantly different from the English ones. FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I didn't explain very clearly? My point was not that Arabic translation counts as WP:COMMONNAME. I was using that to show that common name in English has a severe WP:POV problem. Common name used in English skews severally pro-Israel / anti-Palestine But we can use translated names to pick which English common name reflects an unbiased view of the war. FourPi (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but that is not what the policy says. In the same way, I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel, particularly considering that arguably all 3 have a non-insignificant bias for one of the factions of the conflict. For example, the alleged commonname Gaza Genocide is arguably a NPOV violation against Israel, as there was no consensus that there was a genocide. Nevertheless, the move was (as of now) done. That term has almost no use in German and Hebrew (afaik).FortunateSons (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel
But you did actually cite hebrew and german-language sources in the move request of gaza genocide article to oppose the move in your large table. Stephan rostie (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because they can be used as an argument that it isn’t a genocide, but not as an argument that it isn’t called a genocide. In the same way, one could use Arabic sources to say that „X % of fighting is against groups other than Hamas“, but can’t be used to show that the name „Israel-Hamas war“ is improper, because non-English sources can be used for facts/claims but not for names. Im with you on the policy being less-than-intuitiv, tho FortunateSons (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons You are still missing the point. My point is NOT that Arabic can be used to determine common name. I probably explained it badly, but my point is that common name in English has a bias towards one side of the conflict. So we shouldn't use common name for this page. I'm not trying to find common name, I'm trying to show that common name is an inappropriate metric to use to name this page.
We should use a descriptive name instead. Or I honestly would support War of Iron Swords, it's attributable and too figurative to be inaccurate. FourPi (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense, sorry, I assumed it was used as an argument against a specific common name. The issue is that no one can agree on a descriptive title, because no one seems to agree on the scope or aims of the war. I’m hesitant to support a title attributable to the parties, because we would have to decide which, but it’s definitely an interesting suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mildly surprised I couldn't find it called a genocide in Hebrew, even B'Telem is being a bit timid on it, but I'm not sure how clearly it translates (I've not tried Local Call yet).
I actually think the official Israeli name "War of Iron Swords" would be a lot better than either of the common name options being debated, I would strongly support that as a name. It's attributable, and it's not pretending to give any substantive information about who or where, so it's not misleading. FourPi (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, outside the English-speaking world, there is a wide variance in the frequency of use. FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@웬디러비: WP:!VOTE - Ïvana (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Apparently, it's "not done" to acknowledge that Gaza is a target. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Move to Gaza war As the source analyses above have demonstrated, neither "Israel-Hamas war" nor "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. However, "Israel-Gaza war" is sub-optimal, as it may seem to imply that Gaza is actually a combatant. Instead, we should title "Gaza war", which accurately reflects the scope of the article. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Exactly RossoSPC (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Hezbollah and Houthis say they are fighting in order to help the Gazans. Havradim leaf a message 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is simpler, graphically accurate, and easier on the brain. (Indeed, I'd expect many to be searching purely on "Gaza" because that's what this war is all about. I checked, and for the sake of interest, yes, Gaza eclipses the other terms: [11]) GeoffreyA (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose : For the 1000th time, no. Per above. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per the sources OP has given, Israel-Gaza war is very common. I've always believed that the current name is a one-sided term which serves only to mask the w:Gaza genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. It is an ideological term and ignores all realities on the ground and is only used by supporters of Israel to frame the war as something that it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Gaza War", with or without dates, is my first choice; I also support Israel–Gaza War. I support moving the page away from Israel–Hamas war to one of those two other titles. If the term Israel–Hamas War is not cleanly used overwhelmingly more than other names (and it isn't, as numerous reliable sources using terms like Gaza war and Israel–Gaza war go to show), then it isn't a common name, and per WP:NCENPOV, we should use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Israel–Hamas war is a POV name that characterizes the war as exclusively happening between the nation-state of Israel and the Hamas organization. As that is not a consensus interpretation in academic secondary literature, with a considerable literature holding the war is against persons in Gaza beyond the Hamas organization, it is a POV interpretation and name and should be avoided for the article name. Gaza war neutrally describes the primary geographic field of the war. That very reputable reliable sources also use the term Gaza war is a reassurance about the suitability of the term. Comments that assert Israel–Hamas War is the common name have not convinced me, sometimes for the evidence (age of cited articles or to the language used therein, irrespective of titles or tags), sometimes for inattention to Gaza war as an alternative and not just Israel–Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - On every news site I look at, the top story about the war is in the West Bank. The current title is bad, but Gaza is even less accurate. Common name is the wrong strategy for this page, we need an accurate descriptive title. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or possibly something attributable, like the IDF operation name, it takes a side, but it's clearly attributable, so it is less misleading than a title that looks factual and neutral but isn't. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the obvious POV issues and weak recognisability of codenames, it's established bad practice to use them, per WP:CODENAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At a quick glance I am not seeing consensus for the change. However, why not added "Gaza War 2023-2024" as a secondary name like how the Iraq War also has the "Second Gulf War"? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I support moving the title to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" (first preference) and if not, "Israel-Gaza war". There are several armed factions in Gaza fighting the Israeli occupation forces. Current title is biased as well as inaccurate. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Hamas isn't the only group involved in this war, and in fact this is the common name for many conflicts. We already have similar names for the 2008 gaza war, 2014 gaza war, and the 2012 war. This is my own opinion RossoSPC (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip This article is a Frankenstein of «Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip» and «Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war» (which itself should be called «Spillover of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip»).
Something that infuriates me about this article is that it treats Israel as if it was a battlefield in a state comparable to Gaza's, when that is far from the case. Life standards in Israel are pretty much unscathed; contrast that with the systemic destruction of Gazan society, and you will see why I have such strong feeling about this narrative given by the article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and Coffeeandcrumbs. मल्ल (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gaza War as a first preference as "the war in Gaza" is what I most commonly hear this war described as, both from the media and from politicians, and it avoids the above bickering over whether to call it the Israel-Hamas war or the Israel-Gaza war. Very easy to argue it's the common name. I also still support the proposed title (Israel-Gaza war), as it makes more sense for both halves of the title to be polities/locations, but I suspect that proposal is less likely to get a consensus. I will be pasting this !vote in both subsections because Makeandtoss requested "Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well?"  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am unconvinced that the current title is no longer the common name per many prior arguments. However, even were that to be the case, it would establish that there's no longer consensus for WP:COMMONNAME (it certainly has not established that the proposed title has consensus). If that is the case, "non-neutral but common names" under WP:NPOVNAME would be impossible (no accepted common name, neutral or otherwise) and thus WP:NDESC would take over: the Israeli declaration of war specifies Hamas as the target of the war - one of the few explicit declarations of war since 1945 and thus easier than most conflicts to objectively describe. The current title is accurately descriptive of that. That there are other groups involved (whose level of involvement is certainly different) does not change the fact that it is a declared war by Israel against Hamas specifically, and changing its description on the basis of whether one thinks the involvement of other parties is significant enough is ultimately a subjective judgment call, not a basis for a title. (Edit to add: this also provides a very convenient example of natural disambiguation in consideration of WP:NATDIS, in the way that iterations and variations of "Gaza war" do not.) Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the Israeli declaration of war in any way NPOV? It’s the definition of POV Kowal2701 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 – the logic that "one side asserted a POV, so we should adopt that POV" is a prototypical NPOV violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument isn't underpinned by anything Israel puts out being neutral, and I certainly don't see it as neutral. (Though as a point of order: you did read WP:NPOVNAME, right? That in the absence of a neutral common name, a non-neutral common name can be used? Neutrality isn't the highest-order priority of Wikipedia titles.) The article describes a war, an official state of armed conflict, traditionally established by a formal declaration of war, and more commonly nowadays by a statement referring to "a state of war existing". As it so happens, this one is one of the rare few to have a formal declaration to define the state of war. Other conflicts which do not have official states of war, and do not have concrete statements to refer back to, are titled as conflicts, not wars, (e.g. Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)) unless WP:COMMON overrides that (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War which until very recently had neither declaration nor "existence of a state etc."). This is a factual statement of who the official state of war is between; should other belligerents (such as Hamas or Hezbollah) issue similar statements, then by nature the Israeli declaration no longer adequately describes the official state of war. But until that happens (if it happens), Israel and Hamas remain the only parties you can point at and confidently say there is a formal state of war between. I don't rate the Israeli declaration for supposed "neutrality", I rate it for being descriptive of a legal and political interaction between two entities. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Benjitheijneb. The current title describes the conflict in the best way. "Gaza war" and all of it's alternates do not. Swordman97 talk to me 20:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose per Longhornsg . Additionally, in the month since these arguments were set down, this editor observes that the same mainstream media outlets (i.e., TNYT etc) continue to employ "Israel-Hamas War". "Israel–Hamas War is the most accurate description, is the most commonly used name. " Additionally, "Gaza War" is ambiguous, not commonly in use, and does not describe the war as well. Drsruli (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support; as per the rationales listed above. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and WP:CONSISTENT. Avoids any POV considerations. Havradim leaf a message 14:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 02:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) per OP's sources. The only flaw in either of these names is that they are, if anything, too limited - Israel has been attacking the West Bank, and ramped up attacks on Lebanon and Yemen since the last time I participated in this discussion. However, either Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) are at least far more accurate than Israel-Hamas War, an increasingly confusing name which doesn't even cover all of the parties involved in Gaza itself. Albert Mond (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any title with the word Gaza in it (Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) or even Gaza war etc), per many RS presented above.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why hasn't this been closed yet? Can someone make a request at WP:CR? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Middle East war (2023–present). Now that Israel has launched a ground invasion of Lebanon, the scope of the war is broad enough that I think it needs a more general title. The Houthis in Yemen had already been involved but now the scope of the war is broader. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on Google Trends data which suggests the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. Awesome Aasim 17:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the trends data for the last 8 months. Gaza war is almost always more frequently searched for instead of Israel-Hamas, and also has spikes when particularly gruesome atrocities are committed by Israel. It's almost as if the world doesn't think that all of Gaza is Hamas. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we take a look at the full picture? [12] The only spikes I see are those related to past conflicts. Only since the beginning of this year has the title "Gaza war" actually overtook "Israel-Hamas war". Also "Gaza war" is too vague as there are many wars in Gaza, the last one being 2014 it seems. Awesome Aasim 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This war is the WP:PT above the other Gaza wars, having lasted ten times longer and caused at least fifteen times more deaths than all other wars in Gaza combined - so your vagueness argument is moot. I do agree with your point about the views, though, it is intriguing how new the spike for Gaza war is. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for agreeing that Gaza War is the term that is WP:COMMON throughout 2024. Are you in support of Gaza War (2023 - Present)? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend that you reread WP:COMMONNAME Abo Yemen✉ 16:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make things up without evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I moved my comment and the thread attached to it to the correct section. Awesome Aasim 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (but preferably Gaza War (2023–present)), same arguments I made in previous discussions here and here, plus consistency with all previous Gaza war articles, and recognizability (see Google Trends argument above). DFlhb (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME and per the arguments and evidence by Longhornsg. Perhaps "Gaza War (2023–present)" would be a better alternative?? IJA (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the lead sentence states: An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups... so I think the current article title is fine. Some1 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I remember the 2006 Gaza–Israel conflict well; media sources at the time often simply used shorthand terms like "Gaza war" or "Gaza conflict" the same way they use them today. Declaring "Israel-Gaza War" to be the correct common name now because these terms are used currently to describe the current conflict ignores the fact they were also used in the past to describe past conflicts. It's an exceptionalist fallacy being peddled by contributors with extraordinarily short memories, or maybe just too young to remember the 2006 war. To them, this is the Gaza war because it's the only one receiving coverage now, and that is problematic from an encyclopedic timeline perspective. --Katangais (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mast303 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you !voted twice? Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is under the Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Common ground subsection where folks supporting the move in the main section clarify if they also support a move to Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, apologies. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Engine Gaza+war Israel+Hamas+war
Google scholar 590 257
JSTOR 26 24
PubMed 57 17
Taylor & Francis 60 24
ScienceDirect 15 9

VR (Please ping on reply) 06:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one Gaza war, so a google search might be referring to the one from 2005. It's also therefore less WP:PRECISE Andre🚐 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also more than one war between Israel and Hamas, however, this war overshadows all previous ones.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't less precise if we use the year in brackets as has been suggested by numerous editors. Do share if there's a shortcoming with that approach as well and we can try and workshop a solution. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick tally of opinions here shows a 34-7-1 vote in favor of changing the name of the article to "Gaza War" (with or without dates). While of course we must take into mind WP:DEMOCRACY, this seems to be reflect a quite strong consensus (or at the very least, supermajority approval) for this name change; one much stronger than "Israel-Gaza War". The specific points made against this change appear to be:

  1. That "Gaza War" does not reflect the true situation on the ground, and that since "Hamas started the war", it should be included in the title. I'll refrain from adding my own opinion other than to say that our job as Wikipedia editors is not to editorialize or imprint our own opinions onto sensitive matters like this other than to follow the media consensus as best we can.
  2. That "Israel-Hamas War" is still the COMMONNAME and is more commonly used in the press than "Gaza War". This point is stronger in my opinion. If there is real reason to suggest that "Israel-Hamas War" is notably more commonly used than "Gaza War" then I think this would be a good reason to not move. Otherwise - if "Gaza War" is used as commonly or more commonly than "Israel-Hamas War" - then the case for moving seems pretty airtight.

What are yall's thoughts? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeSaucer9: I think "Gaza War" is more common, see table above.VR (Please ping on reply) 06:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of views I think should be considered too in the above discussion. In general at this point it seems that there is no consensus to move Galamore (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did you count !votes? There are certainly more Oppose votes since August 13. Alaexis¿question? 20:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AwesomeSaucer9 pinging you in case you no longer monitor this thread. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! A recount on my end shows a 35-8-2 tally.
Given the table that @Vice regent: mentions, the true consensus to move to "Gaza War" remains. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Please could someone close this particular requested move, as it has been running for two months now. Everyone has had their two cents by now.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request has already been submitted at WP:CR on September 30, two weeks ago. Hope someone will take this on soon. मल्ल (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties in Gaza

In Infobox: Casualties and losses, we have "Gaza Strip: 42,126+ killed[j][45] "

and below we have "Since the start of the Israeli invasion, over 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed".


The 40,000  and 42,126 numbers are misleading. I would propose that a more realistic number be used.

The 40,000 number is from the Gaza Ministry of Health and the method that number is produced is rigorous: "The Ministry of Health is committed to registering only those who reach its hospitals or other emergency medical care facilities in the Gaza Strip. Consequently, the number of martyrs announced by the ministry does not necessarily represent the total number of casualties but only those that have been officially documented." [source interview with MoH in https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/how-gaza-health-ministry-counts-dead]

The methodology means that each recorded death has the associated ID number and name recorded and can be independently verified. However this also means that due to the widespread destruction of MoH infrastructure the unrecorded deaths will be high, as admitted in the above interview.


The Lancet letter uses an estimate for the number of  indirect deaths.

"In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death[9] to the 37 396 deaths reported , it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. " [source peer reviewed journal https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext ]

Note that this estimate of 186,000 total deaths is dated June 19, 2024.


In The Guardian  on Thu 5 Sep 2024, Devi Sridhar (Professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh) uses the Lancet number to project total deaths at 23,000 deaths a month giving a total death of 355,000 at the end of 2024.  [source  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/05/scientists-death-disease-gaza-polio-vaccinations-israel ]

This gives 278,000 for 2024-10-19 and I propose that this number be used as the estimate for deaths in October 2024 in Gaza.


For context, the same author makes another estimate using a different method, also in the Guardian, that produces a figure of 500,000 by end of 2024  [

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/29/health-organisations-disease-gaza-population-outbreaks-conflict  ]

Isoceles-sai (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the deaths are likely to be higher than the official number, it is best, and policy, to stick to that number, rather than speculative ones or estimates. Also, for us to calculate an estimate based on the referenced methods would be original research. The lead section's rounded-to-a-thousand figure is more of a longer-term summary, since each day, the deaths increase. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The calculation should be covered by WP:CALC Isoceles-sai (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:CALC is for "routine calculations," usually simple arithmetic. It also says explicitly to "not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies," of which you're using a few. I don't see any source using the figure of 278,000 - best I can figure, you're doing some sort of weighted average to arrive at it. Which is absolutely not a CALC. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all a reliable source is needed, the figures are all over the place. We can't just make up our own numbers. Secondly the best I can see is that about 100,000 have died in Gaza in the last year with about half being direct casualties and half due to 'natural' causes and seven or eight thousand would have died anyway. The higher figure of 186,000 was if they'd continued blockading food and it had gone into full scale famine. NadVolum (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the 100,000 figure? Gabi S. (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza Health Ministry five the figures for bombs etc and the Palestinians give an estimate that 'natural' deaths were more than six times up. That gives the figure given the death rate was 3.85 per thousand just before the war. However they didn't give an actual figure. By the way it seems that the business of blocking food aid is ramping up again - as far as I can make out it had been eased off considerably after the military confronted the government and refused to implement its policy. +1 for the IDF if so I think. But they may have just delayed the famine. NadVolum (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a source for that data. Gabi S. (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I didn't put it in as I saw no point wasting my time. But if you're interested here's a source Palestinian Government Report: Number of Natural Deaths in Gaza Increased by More Than Six times Due to Israeli Aggression. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the numbers are from cited Reliable Sources, except for 278,000 which is produced using arithmetic using the 23,000 per month deaths referenced by Prof Devi Sridhar in The Guardian article. I have not made up any numbers.
The figure of 186,000 is deaths upto June 2024, and is from the Lancet letter. Isoceles-sai (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said a famine looked like it was starting at the time. The figure is disputed - and for good reasons too. NadVolum (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All figures are disputed. I would like the best number to be used. Isoceles-sai (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a routine calculation, it isn't an accurate calculation, and it doesn't meaningfully reflect the intent of specifically the authors of the Lancet article. The 186,000 figure is not how many people have died as of 19 June 2024. As the authors explain before providing their estimate, [e]ven if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases (emphasis added). The figure is a projection of total deaths well after a cessation to the hostilities that could be attributed to it. So to write that there have been an estimated 278,000 deaths as of October 2024 from that is plain wrong.
Sridhar's estimate has its own limitations. It's an opinion piece in the Guardian and so WP:RSOPINION would apply. It would not belong in the infobox or lede, and especially not in wikivoice. She bases her estimate on a different Lancet source, but misrepresents it when she writes that [e]xperts analysing previous refugee displacements estimate in the Lancet that crude mortality rates (that is deaths per 1,000 people) were more than 60 times higher than when each conflict began, on average (emphasis added). The Lancet article does not support this claim. Connolly and Heymann write that [d]uring conflict, populations are often suddenly displaced and relocated to temporary settlements or camps. Crude mortality rates over 60 times higher than baseline rates have been recorded after such displacement. This is not an average, nor is it being presented as an average. The estimate arrived at by applying a 60 times increased crude mortality rate thus lacks basis in the facts. It is an opinion, and not a well substantiated one.
In brief, the figures currently present in the infobox and lede from the MoH in Gaza are vastly superior to the proposed replacement. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
60 times? The estimate from there has been that deaths other than direct casualties had gone up by a factor of more than 6. Nobody there has talked about anything as high as 60! 12 if you include the bombs etc. NadVolum (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sridhar's other estimate (the half-a-million one) is derived from a separate Lancet article that isn't discussing the war in Gaza. Sorry, I should have linked it: here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't dispute that if Israel does what many of them want to do then that sort of death toll is altogether possible. I really don't see how it fits into the article though. It can go into Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war easily enough, but how would such a speculation fit here? NadVolum (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the Lancet letter cited above, "In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza"
186,000 is the estimate of how many people have died upto June 2024, and the basis of the estimate is the MoH cumulative deaths data point for 2024-06-19 which is 37,396 deaths recorded; 37396 x 5 = 186980. Rounding that off gives us 186,000 deaths for June 2024.
I have cross checked the 2024-06-19 datapoint in the MoH data and the 37,396 number is there. Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
186,000 is the estimate of how many people have died upto June 2024 - No, it isn't. Read the full Lancet article, not just that paragraph in isolation. Here's a couple of reliable sources that have previously been discussed on this talk page that discuss the Lancet article, such as Haaretz and Al Jazeera, which also discussed the 186,000 figure specifically: [t]he accumulative effects of Israel’s war on Gaza could mean the true death toll could reach more than 186,000 people, according to a study published in the journal Lancet. They are estimating the total deaths as a result of the war, including those that occur well into the future. The Lancet article authors explicitly say so with, and I quote it again, [e]ven if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases (emphasis added). That 186,000 figure includes those post-war deaths. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that the letter (and the 2 RS articles your link to) say indirect deaths will continue into the future.
My interpretation of the paragraph I quoted from the Lancet letter is that the cumulative indirect deaths in June 2024 are 186,000. Your quoted paragraph says that indirect deaths will continue.
It makes no sense to forcast a specific number like 186,000 for an undefined future. Is it 1 year from now, 10 years from now? Isoceles-sai (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the technical reasons why figures beyond the 42,000 (killed)+ and 98,000 (wounded) remain in the area of hypothesis is that the registration centres were hospitals. Gaza, it is said, has roughly 17 functional hospitals of the original 34, but this was a misnomer, since most of these are private clinics and not involved in assessments used by the GMH. I believe only 4 hospitals have sufficient means, when their activities are not suspended, to ascertain deaths and feed the data into the GMH system, and they cannot cover the Strip-wide deaths. So I would suggest caution.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, you are not alone in that interpretation and it has been a point of much confusion on this talk page and even in reliable sources since the article was published. So much so that one of the authors, Martin McKee, has responded about it repeatedly on X (formerly Twitter). I don't use social media, but some of our editors have previously posted McKee's public responses. You can find them here. Reproducing some of the material: And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative1 and The letter is clear. It is an illustrative example of possible scale of direct and indirect deaths resulting from conflict so far, some already happened and some of which it is not implausible to expect in the future. The point (as in the title) is need for better data.2 I cannot tell if he has since deleted those as when I open the links I receive an error, but that could also be because I don't have an account.
The goal of the authors, as I understand it, is: to determine the absolute loss of life attributable to this war assuming it were to end immediately (i.e. end on 19 June 2024). If so, then they need to account for people who have already died and who will die from causes such as starvation and malnutrition (or famine if triggered), lack of access to sanitation and clean drinking water, epidemic diseases such as cholera, lack of access to reproductive health services and medical services due to the destruction of health infrastructure, among others. It's the case that people will continue to die from these issues long after the guns have fallen silent.
Why an undefined future? They're using a ratio of direct to indirect deaths, and settling on 1:4. However many people have been killed by bomb or bullet, four more will be killed by indirect causes. In that regard, does it matter whether the date of the last death is June 19, 2025 or June 19, 2034? The death toll from the war in Gaza is to be 186,000 regardless (again assuming that it ended on 19 June 2024). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The death toll from the war in Gaza is to be 186,000 regardless (again assuming that it ended on 19 June 2024)"
I agree with that statement ! Maybe not in exactly the way that you mean it, but yes. So let us use that number where it gives people a better idea of the the death toll, rather than having 40,000 as the headline number?
My purpose in starting this talk was to improve on the numbers being used now. I am open to any suggestion that you may have. Isoceles-sai (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CRYSTAL. The most one can write up from the Lancet article is. 'One estimation, based on comparative evidence, has conjectured that at least 186,000 deaths will result, if one includes the future collateral effects of the Gaza war.' Nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas' chariots

I removed this report[14] released two days ago, that Hamas had fantastical plans of invading Israel with three-wheeled horse drawn chariots. Whether or not this is true, this report is WP:UNDUE in this article at this time, though it can be covered in Background to the Israel-Hamas war.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Total deaths

The following study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University establishes that, in addition to the officially reported deaths, over 10,000 people in Gaza are dead under the rubble and at least 67,413 have been killed from starvation and diseases, due to lack of access to healthcare, based on reliable data, making the total number of estimated Palestinian deaths over 120,000.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/IndirectDeathsGaza

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/10/08/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120-000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/ar-AA1rQIOg

I think that these numbers should be reported within this article.

David A (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out the Palestinian estimate of indirect deaths so far [15] from September 12 is about 6.5 times that before the war meaning about 55,000 deaths where normally it would be about 8,500. This is about 12,000 less that the estimate in the citations above but given the circumstances the figure is credible enough I think. NadVolum (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the US actually given $22 billion away or will Israel repay that? That's a large amount. It is about $18 million for each person killed on October 7 or $180,000 per dead Palestinian at a ratio of 100 Palestinians per Israeli. NadVolum (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out.
I think that the United States government has given away 17.9 Billion USD of taxpayer money to Israel in return for AIPAC support to government election campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, but I noticed that this information had already been added to this and other pages, so I removed that part of my text above earlier. David A (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 'documented' is appropriate, total estimated deaths would be better. THe Gaza Health Ministry identified or recorded figures for deaths are not the same as the extimated number of direct Gazan casualties. NadVolum (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember and understood correctly, this was based on quite specific numbers that were sent to the United States government, but please read the pdf file yourself if you wish.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2023/2024/Costs%20of%20War_Human%20Toll%20Since%20Oct%207.pdf
David A (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the figures are of documented deaths but theres also estimates like > and a entry with on a question mark in it. And by the way the Palestinians counted most of the deaths as due to disease from the lack of drinking water, sanitation and medicine. The very high death rate probably is caused by acute malnutrition but actual starvation as a cause of death has not been the major factor so far. The overall figures are estimates. NadVolum (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again, and you are correct about that these deaths are estimated rather than confirmed, even though 62,413 sounded very specific. However, that number was specifically from actual starvation, and seems to come from a highly reliable source, so I still think that it is very valid to add to this page. David A (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Permit me a small snort about Estimated Deaths from Starvation 62,413, but I'm definitely not objecting to you sticking it in the article. NadVolum (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will attempt to do so in a proper manner then. Help with improvements in that regard would obviously be appreciated. David A (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done my best to properly do so: [16] [17] [18] [19]
Help with improving the quality of my edits is obviously still greatly appreciated. David A (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mother Jones article [20] would be better as a sources as it is green at WP:RSP. The National (Abu Dhabi) doesn't appear there, it's not terrible - it's main bias lies in strongly avoiding anything the UAE doesn't like - but that is a strong bias and it is not a major source. NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out. I have added it. David A (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Came onto the talk page to ask the exact same question. I think the number should be cited in the infobox, but with brakets as an estimate or even as a conservative estimate (the numbers are probably way higher), at least for the time being. I've already edited the numbers into the Gaza Strip famine infobox and think they should be shown here in a similar format.ThePaganUK (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in any infobox, at least until their methodology has been supported by experts in secondary sources. It's an extraordinary claim, considering that there have been only 38 recorded deaths in hospitals (per HRW) from malnutrition and dehydration. Not everyone gets treated in a hospital, but it's hard to see how 99.94% of starvations could have occrred outside of a hospital.
No objection to mentioning it somewhere with appropriate attribution, but putting it in the infobox (even with "estimate" or similar language) implies a certain level of authoritativeness. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can go both ways on this, that's why I think it should be liable for a discussion amongst editors. I agree it should make an appearance in the article at the very least.ThePaganUK (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and agreed, at the moment there are a few small discussions, it might make sense to close most of them with a link to one main discussion. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the systematic assault on healthcare facilities in Gaza to consider. The argument that most starvation deaths should show up in hospital records doesn't hold up in this specific context. Unbandito (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly agreed. David A (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the report put in famine as the reason for deaths in its table whereas it is clear from reading it that the deaths they describe were due to people not recovering from illness or injury because of extreme malnutrition. Technically that is not the same thing as famine, which is something the UN can declare and has real world consequences. It looks to me like the report used the word because Biden might respond to it, but not if they are described as natural deaths like Euro-Med and other reports in the area do. I don't see what can be done except with an agreement that the word is just inappropriate. NadVolum (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I would suppose the figures are in the right ballpark rather than "the real figures being way higher". The last figure I've seen was from Euro-Med with about 51,000 at the end of June. NadVolum (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately after reading the Brown University report again I have come to the conclusion that they very likely have their figure swrong - that they did mean direct starvation and have a ? for the huge number that have died of disease and injuries they did not recover from because hey were starving. The 51,000 by June from Euro-Med for total deaths other than direct casualties is probably closer to the truth. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been several months of killing, mutilation, starvation, and diseases since then. It does not seem unreasonable at all that the number of dead not stemming from direct violence would increase from roughly 51,000 to 67,000 during that time period. David A (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David A I'm not yet convinced by the BU report's methodology. It claims 62,413 starvation deaths, and for that it cites the analysis in Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024. That letter's analysis synthesizes (on page 5) the well known IPC scale with the classification of Gaza's population in accordance with that scale (I've added that data here). In fact, the appendix claims "in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to at least 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day". But the IPC report instead states "It is likely that these extreme levels of malnutrition have not yet translated into 2/10,000/day Crude Death Rate" (page 27). And a later report (page 19) attempted to measure the crude death rate, but it came out to be 0.55 deaths 10,000 per day. Now certainly FEWS NET cautions (page 12) that this data is not very transparent (methods weren't published, data wasn't disaggregated by governorate) nor will gathering such data from a constantly displaced population be reliable.
I think all of these sources should be presented at Gaza famine, where this material will be more WP:DUE.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, Cdjp1, Levivich, and Kashmiri: I am likely unqualified to properly evaluate this information. What do you think should be done here? David A (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think for purposes of this article, there have been a number of RSes publishing estimates of indirect deaths, and these should be summarized in the body, probably expressed as a range (between X and Y indirect deaths) or possibly a multiple (3x or 6x direct deaths or whatever is supported by the RS), and the summaries included in the lead and maybe the infobox here, with more detailed discussions (individually cataloguing the estimates, with attribution) in sub-articles (like the famine one). Alternatively, maybe we should attribute specific estimates in the body of this article and summarize in the lead. But these seem to me to be the reasonable options for proceeding. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per other editors, I also believe the numbers, to some degree, warrant mention in the article (the question is whether there is the weight to attribute specific estimates and methods, or whether we provide a broader "there are likely to be many more dead currently uncounted" statement cited to the multiple studies). While I would like mention in the infobox, about the best we could hope for is an "efn"-style note with a full paragraph explainer in it, due to the current weight these studies have. And even that is likely to face immense push back from other editors.
As Levivich and VR suggested, more detailed discussion of the estimates and analyses of this and the other studies will be more appropriate for relevant related sub-articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a note Kashmiri was blocked. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your replies. I also think that Levivich seems to have made a good suggestion above.
Also, it is very unfortunate that Kashmiri was blocked. From what I could notice, I thought that he was a constructive and knowledgeable editor. David A (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add America to Israeli Allies

It was one thing when America was sending military and economic aid to Israel. But very recently as much as 100 American soldiers have been deployed in Israel alongside a THAAD missile system meant to plug up the low-running supplies of anti-air missiles for Iron Dome.

If America is placing boots on the ground, I think that is good enough reason to add America under an Allies category, in much the same way Iran is now.

Reliable sources have also reported on the significance of this:

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

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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13961393/israel-iron-dome-hezbollah-iran-missile-strike-tehran-air-defence.html

"It comes as the White House declared the US military had dispatched a state-of-the-art Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system to Israel along with some 100 troops. [...] 'It projects the message to Iran that (Israel's expected retaliation for a recent missile strike) is likely to be significant yet restrained... it also suggests that a continued tit-for-tat will only be further devastating to Iran, with the US willing to back its allies with boots-on-the-ground deployment.'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html

"It is the first deployment of U.S. forces to Israel since the Hamas-led attacks there on Oct. 7, 2023."

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/israel-iran-antimissile-system-us-troops/index.html

"But the deployment of additional US troops to Israel is notable amid the heightened tensions between Israel and Iran, and as the region braces for a potential Israeli attack on Iran that could continue to escalate hostilities. Approximately 100 US troops are deploying to Israel to operate the THAAD battery, according to a US defense official. It is rare for US troops to deploy inside Israel, but this is a typical number of troops to operate the anti-missile defense system."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-sending-100-troops-and-missile-defence-system-israel

"The presence of these US troops also possibly places them in the direct line of fire if another Iranian strike on Israel similar to the strike earlier this month were to happen." Genabab (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your suggestion here seems reasonable. David A (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if US troops directly engage with Hamas. From what I understand from the sources, the deployment of US troops is in response to a possible Iranian strike, not Hamas, which would make this part of the broader 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. - ZLEA T\C 09:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But the Iran-Israel conflict in 2024 is part of the Israel-hamas war in turn.
If we applied this principle universally, Iran would have to be removed from the infoboks as well Genabab (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the difference here is that Iran's attack on Israel is in support of Hamas, while those that helped Israel against Iranian strikes were doing it against Iran specifically, not Hamas. If you really wanted to list any country which helped Israel against Iranian strikes you'd have to list Jordan as well (as per the list in the article on the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict), when that clearly is not the case. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is another discussion happening here with more details. - Ïvana (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I agree Hu741f4 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iran has fired off direct attacks on Israel twice now, by their own words as retribution for the ongoing war effort in Gaza and against Hezbollah.
Call me when the U.S. acts in a similarly belligerent capacity, rather than staging 100 troops to man a defensive system. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be splitting discussions, like what's happened over at the template page for the infobox. That template page exists solely to serve this article - if we're going to discuss the content within, it should be at this article page. Moreover, a discussion on this page should get much more attention and participation (801 watchers, 999,117 pageviews) than the template page (42 watchers, 2,843 pageviews ). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede structure

@Personisinsterest: I disagree with this edit [21]. Clearly, the second lede paragraph talks about events in the lead up to the war, while the third lede paragraph talks about the events of the war. Israel's assassinations of Hamas leaders belongs to the events of the war, not the lead up. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the second paragraph talks about the war and the third talks about the humanitarian crisis. I dunno. I don’t mind if you put it back Personisinsterest (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will move it back down then given the non-objection. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM closure

Finally that rm had been closed. Yall up for a new one? or should we do another 3 month moratorium? Abo Yemen✉ 10:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be shown that a majority of RS are now referring to it as something other than the current title, best just wait per comments in the close. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth suggested waiting for a few months and this is correct. It is not good practice to reopen discussions as soon as they have closed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we aren't going to place a moratorium then i bet you a wikilove cookie that someone is going to open a new rm before the end of this month (or year) Abo Yemen✉ 10:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, editor IanMacM, for the notification! Just to be clear, on Wikipedia moratoriums are pretty much voluntary ongoing suspension activities. Actual waiting times are a matter of common sense. Essential to success is the strengthening of arguments and, if possible, the study and research that results in the discovery of new and stronger args. This takes time, and the longer the patience and work ethic, the better is the chance of success. Usually. Of course, I've been privileged to see both short- and long-term approaches many times, and yes I have seen quick reopenings work sometimes. However that's usually the result of meticulously overcoming the previous objections with a much stronger rationale than before. More than twice I've seen RM reopenings that happen too soon and just piss editors off, which results in massive opposition. Being patient is like listening to music – it can have a soothing effect!>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm up for a new one - what exactly counts as a "firm" consensus in favor of moving? That is an unclear definition open to interpretation, while in reality the arguments in favor of not moving to "Gaza War" were not upheld. To be clear, if there are more arguments to be made in favor of keeping the current name that have not already been discussed, it is more fair to say that no consensus has been reached - but wouldn't this strengthen the case for further discussion. In my opinion, the RM was prematurely closed. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the RM was prematurely closed The RM was open for over 2 months and has been at the bottom of the RM backlog for a while now. If that isn’t long enough to develop a consensus to move, there is no consensus to move. I say wait at least the same amount of time that this discussion was open before starting the next one. cyberdog958Talk 00:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but think it is best to wait. At any rate, since the main chord of that discussion was struck, circumstances have certainly changed, with the incursion into Lebanon, talk of resettling Gaza, etc., so the grounds for "Israel-Hamas" grow weaker and weaker. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a Levant war than a Gaza war now. Too bad no sources use that name Abo Yemen✉ 08:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1253867544"