Home • Search • Translate
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claims of Palestinian victory

I've noticed that in numerous articles on battles that have ended ( Battle of Shuja'iyya (2023), Battle of Beit Hanoun, Siege of Khan Yunis) the result was listed as "Palestinian victory". To me this seems a bit of a stretch, the IDF withdrawing with some Palestinian militants surviving doesn't necessarily mean Palestinian militants "won", it could easily just mean they deemed the objective to be achieved. For example in Khan Yunis the IDF basically demolished Hamas' fighting units as organized forces, does the fact that some Hamas fighters survived and emerged after the IDF left mean they won? It could just as easily be that the IDF simply saw nothing further worth destroying. Certainly the implication that the IDF was militarily defeated is absurd.

I changed the Khan Yunis article to withdrawal because a debate was already brewing in the talk page there, I've left the rest up for now but I think this is worth a serious debate. I think it would be better to just put Israeli withdrawal.-- RM ( Be my friend) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed Israeli withdrawal for now; anything else needs to be sourced to RS. Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
All we can really tell is that the Israeli army made the place practically uninhabitable. NadVolum ( talk) 09:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In that case it sounds like the Siege of Khan Yunis should be an Israeli victory considering their war goal is to make Gaza as uninhabitable as possible /s. ArthropodLover ( talk) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Edited ArthropodLover ( talk) 20:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
According to the opinion of a single French author / former soldier as your source states. Please do not overinterpret the personal opinion of someone as fact (even if said opinion is reported in a reliable source). Arnoutf ( talk) 18:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

extremely outdated map

[ Gaza War Unit Tracker
Possible revision: [ Only one IDF brigade remains in the Gaza Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor
Filled

the map is outdated and shows no accuracy.

Beit hanoun was withdrawn from in December, and the map didn't change. Lukt64 ( talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Because it shows maximum Israel advances not current control. Borysk5 ( talk) 06:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The Institute for the Study of War still displays most of Gaza as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. If you can find a better, more up to date source, I could change the map. So far, ISW has been the only reliable source providing updates on the conflict map. Ecrusized ( talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
ISW is reliable in that sense, but the only thing here is that they show areas cleared as blue even if the IDF has withdrawn so it was basically a 鈥渇urthest extent鈥 map. Note that the areas still remain blue even after the ISW acknowledges that israeli forces withdrew from the area
https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-1-2024 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I added a map with withdrawal areas. Borysk5 ( talk) 09:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

User Borysk5 has made a map citing a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker, it links to a custom Google Maps page. If this source is considered reliable enough, I can update the main map file with it. Let me know what you think. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Here is a possible revision of the map showing only Netzarim corridor as being under Israeli control. According to reports, only one IDF brigade remains in the Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor. Ecrusized ( talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would recommend adding areas they withdrew from Lukt64 ( talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
They are included in blue dashed lines. Ecrusized ( talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone Lukt64 ( talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered. Ecrusized ( talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho. Lukt64 ( talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess. Ecrusized ( talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv. Evaporation123 ( talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The 鈥渆asy鈥 solution in this case is for the map to have 鈥渁reas under Israeli control鈥 renamed to 鈥渕aximum extent of the Israeli invasion鈥 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It would be better if it were just represented by a dashed line (like the maximum extent of the Gazan advance at the beginning of the war) and the respective blue and red colors indicated present control. Maybe blue/red stripes in contested areas if its possible. Evaporation123 ( talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I heard ecrusized has tried that in the past and got into issues because of the 鈥渙riginal research鈥 policy, which is why he is reluctant to deviate from one source. Just changing the label on the caption can be good short term and be less misleading The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree changing the label is a good short-term fix, and should be carried out ASAP. We do need to start thinking long-term, though, because a lead infobox in a highly visible and important article should be as clear to the reader as possible. Evaporation123 ( talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Userd898: Please participate in this discussion before making any changes. It was argued here that a distinction couldn't be made by separating where Israel currently and formerly operates. You also appear to have drawn incorrect boundaries as to where Israel operated. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

He showed an incursion into Rahat, and as the map labels the 鈥渕aximum extent of the Hamas invasion鈥 it should show the incursion there as it appears a few militants launched an incursion into Rahat on October 7-8, quite a few sources back this up
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r1ik1ztva
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-774246
https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-2-gaza-terrorists-found-in-rahat-a-month-after-october-7-assault/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That revision is a complete mess. The user who made it appears to have zero experience with svg's hence they completely removed the Hamas resistance pockets/enclaves in Gaza and Khan Younis, and drawn a made up boundary which does not cite a single source. They also ruined the translations, and drew a weird yet another original research boundary for where Israel currently operates and 7 October incursions. See https://oct7map.com Ecrusized ( talk) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If needed, the original one can remain but with netzarim corridor shown as blue and the rest as purple, based on this source
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-withdraws-ground-troops-from-south-gaza-leaving-just-one-brigade-in-enclave/
If you dont wish to do that with constant updates of movement and don't want synthesis issues even with two sources only the blue on the map can be labelled "maximum extent of the israeli invasion" or "furthest extent of the israeli invasion" instead of "areas under israeli control" without changing any colours and still relying solely on the ISW.
As for the ocotber 7 map it can be modified to include the rahat incursion, which apparently did not include any fatalities and hence isn't included on the october 7 map, but is well-substantiated and confirmed to have happened by several sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 08:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Institute for Study of War is still coloring new areas outside of "Netzarim" corridor as being under Israeli control. I cannot create a synthesis file based on a single news report. If needed, the legend can be changed from "Areas under Israeli control" to "claimed extent of Israeli control". Ecrusized ( talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
How about we have the maximum Israeli advance represented by a blue dotted line, just how the maximum Palestinian advance is represented by a red-dotted line? Then leave the blue and red colors corresponding to what most sources say. If ISW is still claiming Israeli control in certain areas despite many other sources claiming otherwise, then again, it should not be seen as reliable as a basis of this article's map, respectfully. Evaporation123 ( talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I鈥檓 not very well versed in the synthesis policy but I don鈥檛 think it would be an issue to label it 鈥渕aximum advance鈥, the ISW uses 鈥渞eported clearing operations鈥, but they have acknowledged Israel 鈥渃ompleting its mission鈥 or withdrawing from areas even though they鈥檙e still coloured blue which makes it likely that they went for a maximum extent map
refer:
https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think constant updates of movement are necessarily because its what Wikipedia readers deserve. No offense, but we cannot be misleading just because we want to take the easy road. Evaporation123 ( talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Evaporation123 and The Great Mule of Eupatoria: You guys are saying that I should show thing on the map based on my own initiative. I cannot do that since adding content to Wikipedia requires citing reliable source. Above in the discussion, you can see that a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker is talked about. If that can be considered an RS, than I could change the map according to the examples above. However, I doubt that source can ever pass a an RS since its a self published work. You might want to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Ecrusized ( talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you know anything about what sources the Gaza War Unit Tracker depends on? Evaporation123 ( talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No idea. Ecrusized ( talk) 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Spagat

Makeandtoss removed the following: Michael Spagat, an economist at Royal Holloway University of London who specialises in analysing casualty figures, said in December 2023 that there were no reliable figures for the rate of civilian casualties. [1] with this edit summary: WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information; also putting this fringe view at the top of the casualties figure is misleading as there are many more RS saying otherwise; please seek consensus before reinserting. I am therefore seeking consensus. This is very much not fringe; it's from the BBC and he's one of the world's experts on this topic. (PS it wasn't me who included him btw; no idea who did.) BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I think but don't know, if Makeandtoss overreacted a bit there, following on from the #"2:1 ratio" discussion up above, I don't have a problem with that part of Spagat, I think it is a useful statement. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well I think you can guess from what I said there I have no problem with it. It was the BBC and he has the relevant expertise. NadVolum ( talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Just as a factual matter, his statement is undoubtedly true. Given the collapse of infrastructure in Gaza, the unaccounted for dead under the rubble, and Israeli control of certain areas (e.g., Northern Gaza) possibly impeding access of healthcare workers, there's no way that the numbers are accurate at this point. This fact is important enough to share to the readers. I vote inclusion. JDiala ( talk) 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This was wp:undue, and this "he's one of the world's experts on this topic" is wp:original research. The Lancet reduces to nothing this false assertion. Deblinis ( talk) 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
What on earth are you talking about? Have a look at Casualties of the Iraq War, his name is all over it. He certainly wasn't the only one to disagree with the Lancet article! As an aside, if you have a look at that article though you'll be very wary of accepting body counts as being anything like a good estimate of the actual number of deaths! Especially in this war where so many buildings are destroyed by bombs and bulldozers have been used to cover up bodies. This is why I say the Gaza Health Ministy figures should be annotated as recorded deaths. NadVolum ( talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Israel Gaza: What Gaza's death toll says about the war". BBC. 20 December 2023. Retrieved 5 April 2024.

Renaming the page as "Israel-Gaza war"? Adding "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" next to the current name in the Lead聽?

April 2024: several major Western newspapers have decided to rename and present the ongoing war as Israel鈥揋aza war and only under that banner.

Here are a few significant instances:
Washington Post - "Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key"
BBC - "Israel Gaza war: History of the conflict explained"
Le Monde - "Israel's war in Gaza"
El Pa铆s - "La Guerra entre Israel y Gaza"
The Guardian - "Israel-Gaza war聽: Which countries supply Israel with arms"

Time for a change as Wikipedia has to reflect sources' content per wp:Neutrality and wp:Be Bold. Deblinis ( talk) 06:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Personally I would stick to the current title, as the state of Israel and Hamas are the main players.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Israel and Hamas are the main players" is the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's. Six months later, the story doesn't look the same from the ground and from the sky. Deblinis ( talk) 07:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It should definitely be up there as an alt name. I hadn't realised it wasn't, and I'm going to add it now. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There are many alt names; as such, per WP:ALTNAME, we shouldn鈥檛 include them in the lede. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Says who? What other examples of alt names are there for the whole war? I can't think of any other examples that are both unique to the conflict and routinely used in independent RS media. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Many. Even just looking at the source provided by Delinis, we have two alt names - "Israel Gaza war" and "Israel's war in Gaza". Elsewhere, we get "Gaza war", "Israel's war on Gaza", "Swords of Iron", and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" - and looking at our recent move requests, there are yet more options used by reliable sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is totally bogus reasoning, as I'm sure you're well aware, just as you are aware that repeatedly reverting other editors on this is borderline edit warring. "Israel鈥揋aza war" is far more prevalent than any of the other alternatives; it's not even a contest. "Israel's war in/on Gaza" is more prose than title, and rarely used (mainly just Al Jazeera I believe). "Gaza war" is generic and not specific to the conflict. "Swords of Iron" is an operation name, not the war. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", same, and specific to the initial Palestinian incursion. The last two are clearly specific operational names, and it's taking the micky a little to suggest these are valid alt names for the entire war. What are you up to? Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Gaza war might be generic, but it's also a commonly used name for this war - we would need to disambiguate it, but that doesn't make it any less of an alt-name.
Regardless of whether you consider "Israel's war in Gaza"/"Israel's war on Gaza" to be prose, reliable sources consider it a title.
I don't have a source at hand for "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", but I have a source that makes it clear "Swords of Iron" is a name for the entire war.
Generally, I don't think we need any names in the lede, including "Israel-Hamas war"; there is much more relevant information to include in an already very crowded lede, and thus we are better off including this information in an etymology section as instructed to my MOS:ALTNAME. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It's three words (four with "or"). It's clearly not going to crowd out the lead. Come off it. And still with the operational names? An Israeli operational name cannot, by definition represent be the entire war because it doesn't include the original Palestinian incursion, which started the war. (And it would incidentally be a names section, not an etymology one 鈥 there's no meaning to explain in any of these names.) Clearly you don't want the alt name in the lead, but you're going to need to come up with better reason than any of the above to justify why it actively shouldn't be added/should be excluded. I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
My understanding of the name "Swords of Iron", supported by reliable sources, is that it includes the initial fighting in Israel.
I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. If you read my comment, you would see that I support excluding both the primary name and the alt names from the lede. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure why we would exclude all names when "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israel-Gaza war" are the prevailing ones 鈥 there are not really many other options here, whether based on prevalence or descriptive titling. Articles without names often invite hamfisted intros. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That first step /change has to be made now. Deblinis ( talk) 08:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The far right wing Israeli source The Times of Israel doesn't have any Editorial Independence Policy [1], and they don't cover Israeli settlers' violence [2]. TToI doesn't provide factual, distinctive journalism for a diverse audience. And it is not a Western media either, contrary to the five major newspapers mentioned earlier. Deblinis ( talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We could include each parties name of it: Battle of Al-Aqsa flood and the war of Iron swords. Same has been applied to the 2014 and 2009 war The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You are referring to month-long conflicts that readily fitted within the confines of a single operation. This is a six-month long conflict and Al-Aqsa Flood war just the initial part. There is also no evidence that the initial Israeli name for its carpet bombing is still the name for its highly confused ongoing activities in Gaza. We now appear to be on "operation meander about, damage infrastructure, kill aid workers and starve people". Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Important point; in April 2024, each one of the following major Western newspapers gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category:
  • Washington Post - see >
  • Le Monde - see >
  • BBC - see >
  • The Guardian - see >
  • El Pa铆s writes the "GUERRA ENTRE ISRAEL Y GAZA" (= "Israel-Gaza war") category under the title of each article. - see >
Deblinis ( talk) 07:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
These RSP alone are frankly more than enough to establish it as a clearly RS prevalent alt name. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Regarding renaming the page, there is a moratorium on move requests until 27 May 2024. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a link to see that 'moratorium' discussion聽? Deblinis ( talk) 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Here is that discussion. Note that it is also linked in the FAQ. Nasssa Nser 09:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The South China Morning Post and NDTV also use Israel-Gaza war, the UN uses "Israel-Gaza" as the framing to describe events (crisis or whatnot) in the conflict, MSF uses "Gaza-Israel war" and ABC uses "Israel-Gaza conflict". Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
[3] [4] [5] etc...
Someone should add the "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" words in the lead today; otherwise I would be forced to stick a bias tag at the top of the page. Deblinis ( talk) 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please don't accuse other editors of bias simply because you are not allowed to make a certain edit. You are not forced to add a bias tag and should seek consensus on the talk page.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
A Neutrality tag is indeed a better term . Deblinis ( talk) 08:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Israel-Gaza war is more descriptive; although unfortunately it seems less used as a common name than Israel-Hamas war. So I would support the inclusion of also known as Israel-Gaza war in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss ( talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is not a question of figures, it is about content and context.
These Five major newspapers known worldwide (among many others) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner.
The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media.
On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict" in this article "Why this Israel-Gaza conflict is so complicated for Biden". [6].
On October 8, CNN announced "Israel formally declares war against Hamas" and followed Israeli narrative like any other Western corporate media. [7]
All the journalists in newsrooms then had been hugely pressured and they had to reuse the Israeli state's narrative with key fake atrocities, (beheading babies) and the "horrific" and "barbaric" adjectives in frontlines. A lot of journalists after the South African request of last January have realized that the " Israel against Hamas" tag is not the right one. Deblinis ( talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Three of the sources already used Israel鈥揋aza War by the time the last RM concluded; only Le Monde of the list has switched over. I can't grep mentions of El Pais from that discussion.
The current title is kept only because there were too many move requests in a quick succession; there is no clear rationale or consensus supporting the current title (I am involved in the last discussion). We could start another move discussion by the expiry of this moratorium.
The alternative 2023 Gaza War was also brought up then, though not thoroughly discussed. Nasssa Nser 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
For El Pais here are the links [8] [9]. @ NasssaNser: Deblinis ( talk) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree, it's time for a change. There's more than enough evidence for Israel-Gaza War to be included as an alternate name, and moreover it should be the actual title of the article. Israel-Hamas War is inaccurate given the number of participating Palestinian factions and the Yemen and Lebanon theaters of war and the scope of destruction in Gaza which has significantly affected civilian infrastructure. It is likely to become more inaccurate if escalation toward a regional war continues. It was always a pro-Israel framing of the war adopted by the Western press. While we don't want to insert our biases as editors into the article, the fact that it is still given a title that reflects a framing of the war that is clearly biased to the point of inaccuracy shows that there is a hazard in letting the sources do all of the thinking for us in instances where they have a uniform bias that is out of alignment with common sense and the realities on the ground. Unbandito ( talk) 12:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The difficulty here is that Israel Hamas war is a descriptive title rather than a common name imo. Although many editors in the last move request argued that it was commonname. Those that would keep the current title (the pro Israel crowd for the most part) dislike allowing the intrusion of any other name (BilledMammal has reverted probably half a dozen attempts to do so, including one of mine). However since the name has now been bolded in the lead then that allows at least two altnames to go in as well and I would suggest Israel Gaza war and Gaza war as the two. An alternative method is to debold the name in the lead and treat it as descriptive, in which case I agree to have a names section, which will be good prep for the inevitable debate over the title once the moratorium has expired. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am not member of the "pro Israel crowd". However, I went along with Israel-Hamas war for the article name because it did appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME at the time of the discussion in 2023. What some people seem to be trying to say here is that the war has moved on and that its defining feature is now the suffering caused to civilians in Gaza; I would not argue with that assessment. The article will not be renamed without a new move request, and any WP:ALTNAME in the opening sentence should also have consensus to prevent back and forth arguments. The problem here is that news stories have come up with different names for this conflict, and as of April 2024, none of them really qualifies as the COMMONNAME.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 10:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please realize that in April 2024 five major Western newspapers (and there are many others) gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. Deblinis ( talk) 11:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is true and that was also the case at the most recent move request (+ the UN), what is more important for a future move is what has changed since then. Example, Haaretz has taken to using Gaza war quite often now, first crack in the Israeli coverage, CNN is tying itself in knots, "Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas" and others seem to alternate between different names depending the story. But the key to the altnames is whether or not the title is considered descriptive, if the name is bolded in the opening sentence that is saying it is commonname rather than descriptive. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Deblinis: five is not a lot. Take a look at the prior move discussions in the talk page archives; you'll see editors looked at dozens of sources, not just five. Back then, it was pretty evenly split between "Hamas" and "Gaza" IIRC. I don't know if that's changed, but if so, it would take more than five to find out. Levivich ( talk) 02:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Deblinis Note that there is a current moratorium to suspend/close any Requested Move discussion until 27 May 2024, unless you can provide a substantive set of evidence that there is a clear majority in the sources (not just five) on the change in the common name/descriptive name used. 鈥 robertsky ( talk) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Robertsky @ Levivich, Is considering average sources as the same importance as The Washington Post, a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, relevant聽? Are some average sources as important as Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, El Pa铆s which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, and The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper? Deblinis ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You obviously haven't read the previous discussions. Why don't you put together a list of all the sources mentioned and then you can sort them into average and prestigious sources. Levivich ( talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Those corporate media owned by billionaires, is a scourge and only serves their own interest and business partners's. That 'Israel-Hamas war' label they took on, is the narrative created by Israeli state and it became the one of Israel allys overnight. Six months later, the story is no longer the same from the ground and from the sky in Gaza. Journalists say it [10]. Deblinis ( talk) 04:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Since editors keep inserting the titles despite a lack of consensus I've opened an RfC to conclusively resolve this dispute below. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

RFC: Primary title and alt titles in the lede

There are two primary questions.

  1. Should the article include, bolded in the lede, the primary title ("Israel鈥揌amas war")?
  2. If so, should the article also include, bolded in the lede, any or all of the various alt titles?:
    1. Israel鈥揋aza war
    2. Gaza war
    3. Israel's war in Gaza
    4. Israel's war on Gaza
    5. Operation Swords of Iron
    6. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
    7. Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood

07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood added 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Any additional alt names should be added to the list, with a timestamp noting when they were added 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

RFCbefore

Survey

  • Oppose. Including the primary title is not necessary here, and given the size of the lede we are better off omitting it in the interest of conciseness. We should exclude the alt names for the same reason, as well as, since there are at least three alt names of sufficient significance to warrant inclusion, MOS:ALTNAME which instructs us If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per BilledMammal. Lead is already far too large. JDiala ( talk) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please, could you read the discussion that has been open yesterday here and answer there as well. Deblinis ( talk) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The number of sources mentioned in that last RM discussion is far more than the 5 sources you cited, with editors putting forth sources from both sides. I recommend reading that entire thread and also skim through the sources mentioned, and decide from there. Nasssa Nser 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Appendix:
    Everyone is invited to read this before commenting and answering    .

It shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources respondingto the highest standard of journalism, are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. As of April 2024, fact is that the following major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. The Washington Post which is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, does it - see link archived. Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, does it - see link. El Pa铆s which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, does it - see link1 see see link2. BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, does it - see link. The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner, does it - see link. This new discussion and rfc happen because of that factor.
The "Israel鈥揌amas war" also known as the "Israel-Gaza war" - bolded in the lead for now until May as there is a moratorium on move requests Deblinis ( talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Deblinis ( talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)war" category. reply

  • Israel-Gaza war or Israel's war on Gaza per Nasssa in the discussion. This is how the war is being referred to in reliables sources. NadVolum ( talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • (invited by the bot) No need to bold, and it only needs one title, the current one Israel鈥揌amas war. That is the two parties engaged in the war. North8000 ( talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per above, no need bold in the lead. Yeoutie ( talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please, could you read the "Appendix" written above and answer after聽? Deblinis ( talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the inclusion of any name in the article lead, in other words treat the article title as purely descriptive, as it is currently ("An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups[s] has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023."). If, otoh, the consensus is to include "Israel鈥揌amas war" (whether bolded or not) then the altnames 1 and 2 should be included as well on the same basis. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as unnecessary. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please, could you read the Appendix" written above and answer after聽? Deblinis ( talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per length, strongest possible opposition for any measure replacing/excluding Hamas in one of the primary titles.Weak oppose to alt titles per footnote due to number,Oppose other inclusion. The first and third position are primarily based on LEAD and conciseness to prevent excessive length per the arguments made above. The second is based on NPOV, secondarily IAR should the primary lack strength: searchability, 'common sense' and the move to a (more) NPOV title are the significant arguments against. FortunateSons ( talk) 10:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Regarding Israel鈥揌amas: this is not an RM and we aren't discussing the primary title anytime soon. Nasssa Nser 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am aware of it. This is specifically about listing a secondary title in the style of Israel-Gaza, as implied by some above. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify聽:) FortunateSons ( talk) 08:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

  • On the alts, "Israel's war in Gaza" is effectively identical to "Israel's war on Gaza", and mostly synonymous with "Israel鈥揋aza war". "Operation Swords of Iron" and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. Nasssa Nser 09:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think if we are going to include alt names we should include "Operation Swords of Iron", which is Israel's official name for the war. I think I remember "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" being used in a similar manner, but I can't find any sources for that. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Reliable sources hardly ever mention those names. NadVolum ( talk) 10:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:MILMOS#CODENAME says no. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nah, official names are just POV and no-one really calls them that anyway except those that create them. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Al-Aqsa Flood generally strictly refers to the initial attacks from Hamas, and I guess Swords of Iron is a similar situation of strictly referring to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Both has their dedicated articles. Nasssa Nser 07:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Palestinian militants use 鈥渂attle of Al aqsa flood鈥 to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and 鈥渙peration of Al aqsa flood鈥 or 鈥渂attle of October 7鈥 to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has 鈥溬呚关辟冐 胤賵賮丕賳 丕賱兀賯氐賶鈥 even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for that clarification; I've found a source that supports that. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There are really only two altnames of any significance, the first two. So the 3 or more thing doesn't really apply.
  • The new rfc doesn't present what are the challenges of the terminology and the presentation in the lead. Some users already reply without answering and they don't take in view the editorial line of some of the most prestigious journalism sources worldwide, this is what the discussion (and rfc) should be about. That dead end in the first sentence of the lead is political: the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text, the fact that it is not the case serves Israeli narrative's state.
    If this rfc is about voting with this in view [11] and that [12]: the wp:neutrality issue in the lead will remain. @ Selfstudier:, can one write a new rfc below this one聽? Deblinis ( talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    At this point it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". Nasssa Nser 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Everyone has their own opinions", indeed > [13] [14] Deblinis ( talk) 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text This isn't necessarily the case for descriptive titles, MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY, for example, we don't want to say "The Israel鈥揌amas war is a war between Israel and Hamas."
    There can be another RFC that asks a different question, and that does not conflict with this RFC, "Is the existing title NPOV?", for example. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I think we should consider whether confining the name of this war to Gaza is even appropriate. Gaza is the main front, but the Israel鈥揌ezbollah conflict (2023鈥損resent) is obviously another front of this war, albeit a less intense one. That includes the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel. You could classify the Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel鈥揌amas war as yet a third front as well. We should maybe think of a name that incorporates this fact. If the northern front intensifies into a full-scale invasion of southern Lebanon and/or a wider conflict with Iran I don't there will be any doubt about the need to do that.-- RM ( Be my friend) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The name of the war is already confined to "Hamas", which is already even more of a mis-scoping than 'Gaza'. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes and my point is we need to start thinking of alternative names. I'm not satisfied with the current name either. RM ( Be my friend) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Neutrality?

There is a neutrality notice on the top of the article. The person who put this in claims the article has a pro-Israel bias. In fact I find the article to be fairly evenhanded (we've all done a decent job, overall, despite heated discussions for several months). I propose this be removed. JDiala ( talk) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Deblinis: Pinging tagger for courtesy. Nasssa Nser 08:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The tag placed in this edit is a classic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response to the user failing to get their own way in a talk page discussion. There is also the obvious problem of failing to assume good faith simply because some users disagreed with the edit.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Valid points have been raised [15] and in the end it shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. 'The Washington Post" is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work. Le Monde is the most prestigious newspaper in France. El Pa铆s is the most read newspaper in Spanish online. BBC is the most famous British media worldwide. The Guardian is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner. As of April 2024, fact is that each one of those major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category.. Deblinis ( talk) 10:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There is an RFC now to resolve the names business so might as well see what that throws up and go from there. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Proportion of civilian casualties

Question 1. How should we describe the proportion of civilian casualties

  • A: state that there are no reliable figures, per [16] (with or without in-text attribution)
  • B: give several estimates or a range (e.g., "10% according to X, 90% according to Y", or "10-90% according to various estimates")

(Options A and B can be combined)

  • C: other (don't include at all or anything else that's not covered by A and B)

Question 2. If we were to provide estimates (Option B of Q1), then which sources should be taken into account (I've listed the ones that were brought up in the discussion here so far and had explicit percentages or ratios)

  • A: "Prof Michael Spagat, said he would "not be at all surprised" if around 80% of those killed were civilians" [17] (December 2023)
  • C: 60% (1:1.5 ratio) according to John Spencer [18] (March 2024)
  • B: 61%, according to the IDF [19] (December 2023)
  • D: 66% (1:2 ratio), according to Andrew Roberts [20] (February 2024)
  • E: Other estimates.

Alaexis 驴question? 08:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

RFCbefore at #"2:1 ratio" and #Spagat Selfstudier ( talk) 09:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Survey

  • Giving percentage estimates seems like the way to go to me. It was also the method used in the 2014 Gaza War. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Include Spagat or No change. Spagat is the only one with any expertise in the matter of those in A-D. They should have included the figures already there in the RfC, the Health Ministry, an Arab estimate and the IDF for balance to give the end points. Since I'm pretty certain the direct deaths now exceed fifty thousand I find it very difficult to fit in the IDF estimates but I suppose we go by 'reliable' sources. Then again if they are including people like Dr.Youssef Abu Al-Rish deputy head of the Ministry of Health in their Hamas most wanted playing cards who can say what they mean by their figures? NadVolum ( talk) 11:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    John Spencer is an expert is urban warfare. Alaexis 驴question? 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    We're not talking about expertise in killing people. We're talking about expertise in estimation of casualty numbers. Have you any evidence he has expertise in that? NadVolum ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Even if he were, publication in an opinion-piece in Newsweek would require a very high level of expertise to use, especially in a situation like this where many better sources are available. I don't think that it's reasonable to consider that as a source, especially not in an infobox where we wouldn't be able to provide context (is this discussion about the infobox? The RFC is vague.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • ( Summoned by bot) No change. -- Andreas JN 466 12:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No change for now. Nobody has raised any serious objections to the current sources, and the ones presented here are not better. An opinion piece in Newsweek? A commentary piece from the Telegraph? "Not at all surprised?" For something that has received this much coverage, these are unserious. Why would we replace the Euro-Med HRM number with these? And why would we even consider complete removal when so many sources offer ranges of numbers? Spagat is the best available source out of the ones presented here (since he's an expert on death tolls in particular and is cited in a non-opinion piece) but even then it's hard to see it as an improvement over what we have currently; and since he's attributed in the source, he's more someone we would mention with attribution in the body, not the infobox. I'd definitely push for complete omission of the opinion pieces (the Spencer and Roberts ones) - this isn't a topic where we want to use opinion pieces from talking heads whose expertise is tangential to the main subject of casualty counts. I also somewhat object to the wording of this RFC; it clearly quotes Spagat selectively in a manner intended to make readers skeptical of him, while omitting details of the other sources that would similarly call them into question (like the fact that half of them are opinion pieces.) It also stacks the deck with a bunch of low-quality or WP:BIASED sources stating 60%, while omitting sources in the other direction that we already have in the article. Generally speaking this needed more WP:RFCBEFORE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No change John Spencer is not a reliable source, and his numbers appear to be taken straight from the IDF (it's a "democratic American ally" so it should be trusted, in his view, ignoring the fact that many regard it as a fascist apartheid state by many). JDiala ( talk) 19:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No Change Better to quote the IDF directly than an American army officer stating the same thing. All that would do is obscure the origin of the claim. ArthropodLover ( talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No change (IDF and EuroMed estimates in infobox, concise mention of main estimates in body), plus maybe put Spagat back in as major expert. Spencer and Roberts definitely not due here. This section should be a short summary of the Casualties article, where we can go in to more detail and quote more commentary. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Comment @ Alexis: Atm, the article says "...70% of them are women and minors. In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed." Shouldn't "no change" be an option? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Good point. Since a couple of editors have already !voted for No change, I guess it is now a de facto option. Alaexis 驴question? 12:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • So, wait, what about what we are saying currently? Those don't seem to be options. The current infobox says 90% civilians (per Euro-Med HRM[38]); 66% civilians (per Israel[39]) Those aren't listed in B - does that mean that the Euro-Med HRM number would remain no matter what, or is it being taken as a given that it would be removed, and if so, why? Nobody that I can see has given any rationales for removal, so my assumption is that it would remain regardless of the outcome of option B. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is my oversight. This source wasn't brought up at the talkpage in the RFCbefore discussions (2:1 ratio & Spagat) and this is why I didn't include it. Alaexis 驴question? 21:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Jordan

Should be added as a co-belligerent on the Israeli side, cooperating with them and intercepting Iran鈥檚 drones from yesterday

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/latest-israel-hails-interception-drones-missiles-unprecedented-attack-109214109 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 10:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The statement "The Jordanian Council of Ministers says that its forces 鈥渄ealt with鈥 parts of the Iranian attack that flew over its territory, 鈥渢o prevent them from endangering the safety of our citizens and residential and inhabited areas." in the source you cite is inconsistent with the notion of Jordan being a belligerent. It's not a belligerent engaged in war, it's shooting things down that are unauthorized to fly through its airspace. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 10:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
An Iran Israel affair has nothing directly to do with this war anyway. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It has everything to do with this war, Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria because of its support to Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran retaliated because of it. How is that no linked to the war in Gaza. Daran755 ( talk) 21:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No one said it has nothing to do with this war. Carrying out actions linked to a war doesn't make the party a belligerent. The source describes what happened and why from Jordan's perspective. There is nothing in there supporting the notion that Jordan is a belligerent in a war. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing that Jordan is a belligerent in this war, but that Iran is. Jordan only shot down Iranian drones and missiles to "protect its airspace", but Iran directly attacked Israel, making it a direct belligerent against Israel. Daran755 ( talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This would be inappropriate without a reliable source making the claim that Jordan is a co-belligerent on the Israeli side. Please review our policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sourcing. Further, there's no logical reason why Jordan's self-defense of its airspace against Iranian intrusions would be added as a co-belligerent in the Israel-Hamas War. 鈬 SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Removing or improving the "names" section

The section only states that "Western media outlets have shifted from calling the war the Israel-Hamas war to the Israel-Gaza war"鈥攍isting and citing examples of articles calling it 'Israel鈥揋aza war' and names other than 'Israel-Hamas war'. None of the cited sources discuss this shift. ( permanent link to the section; normal link to the section) FunLater ( talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

(Self-reply) I think moving it to the "media coverage" section may make more sense, as the names section discusses what the media calls it, but I still think that the section needs sources that discuss such a shift, or how naming affects people's perception of the war, etc. FunLater ( talk) 22:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I removed it as WP:SYNTH for the reasons you explained. Levivich ( talk) 05:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Good move; it was pure WP:SYNTH. 鈥 Czello ( music) 08:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks聽:) FunLater ( talk) 13:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Levivich It's now been restored by @ Deblinis. Isi96 ( talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The presentation has been changed to be factual, mentioning that "as of April 2024 certain Western media outlets have called the war as the Israel-Gaza war". WP:NEUTRALITY is the rule in this case. Deblinis ( talk) 00:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Also etymology/name is not a significant WP:ASPECT of this topic (at least not per the sources cited), so not suitable for a separate subsection. A section about etymology/name would require sources talking about etymology/name. And for Wikipedia to say there's been a shift in the name would require sources saying there's been a shift in the name. Levivich ( talk) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is completely insane. The article is already too long. This is an unimportant issue (Israel-Hamas, Israel-Gaza --- who cares?) and the whole topic is just WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. I removed it again after it was reincluded by @ Deblinis. JDiala ( talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to add my support for what appears to be the consensus anyway, per Levivich, Czello, and FunLater, that this is not a significant aspect and would be OR. I'm also not sure it's also appropriate to have made the edit this pending completion of the RfC about naming above, as they are closely connected. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
who cares? I do, for one. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Rfc: Media coverage > Several media outlets (Washington Post, The Guardian), name it the "Israel鈥揋aza war": a mention of that in "Media coverage"聽?

Western media outlets ( The Washington Post, BBC, El Pa铆s, The Guardian, CPJ), name it the "Israel鈥揋aza war";.

Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section聽?

If so, could this draft work聽?

In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments". [27] BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war". [28] El Pa铆s called it the "war between Israel and Gaza". [29] The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views. [30] CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties. [31] Deblinis ( talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Survey

  • Support per WP:NPOV. Deblinis ( talk) 05:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is (i) not significant enough to warrant an entire subsection in an already unusually large article, (ii) an instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the meta-narrative of a naming controversy isn't discussed in the cited sources. Rather, you are yourself inferring that there is a controversy because there is disparate naming, (iii) not relevant to WP:NPOV as I'm not sure why "Israel-Hamas war" is somehow a pro-Israel characterization. Elaborating on (iii), the irony is that the claim itself that "'Israel-Hamas war' is biased" is tacitly making a pro-Israel assumption, namely that Hamas is somehow a bad actor and mentions of Hamas are shameful to pro-Palestinian people. Many pro-Palestinian people are proud of the resistance of Hamas fighters against what they consider a genocidal onslaught; thus the exclusion of Hamas in the title is itself biased against Palestinians as it fails to credit the bravery of Hamas fighters. JDiala ( talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being factual with these sources that are some of the highest standard sources of journalism is WP:NPOV. Some users should realize that they have to search compromise with valid suggestions, wikipedia is a collaborative project.
    Many people and journalists have realized that initial name of this conflict, doesn't fit anymore with the actual situation six months after. Around 16,000 children killed in Gaza (without counting the disappeared children), potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza, potential incitement to genocide and possible genocidal intent in Gaza, starvation as a weapon of war on an entire population; urbicide with destruction of all the ancient buildings, destruction of all the universities, destruction of all the schools, will to erase any trace of Palestinian culture, an entire area made uninhabitable. And Hamas only got 30篓% of votes in Gaza. Whatever, these Western sources known worldwide and their approach to the conflict and how they name the conflict, should be brought to the attention of the readers. Deblinis ( talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Might this be better as part of an etymology section? Many conflicts have multiple names, so it wouldn't be out of place to have a short etymology section to explain the different names that are used. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 鈿 07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    On condition of relying on Western media sources.
    Middle East sources in this case are irrelevant, because history is not written and named by the belligerents in power and patriotic partisan media. Deblinis ( talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Per u:JDiala. This is WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources examining the coverage itself. Alaexis 驴question? 08:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Time to underline that even just one another conciser sentence like this one "In April 2024 certain Western media outlets including The Washington Post, BBC, El Pa铆s, The Guardian, CPJ, called the war as the Israel-Gaza war" in the 'Media coverage' section, would be seen as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for some users. The WP:NPOV rule looks trampled and wikipedia is in a cul de sac. Deblinis ( talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry to throw a curveball into this RfC, however, based on the sources cited I Support overturning all prior consensus and renaming the entire article Israel-Gaza War per sources cited. With recent (as opposed to early) RS coalescing around the term "Israel-Gaza War" (as cited in the examples uncovered by OP), maintaining the term "Israel-Hamas War" is outdated. It's also, per OP, violative of WP:NPOV, as well as simply being confusing and inconsistent with the infobox, by inaccurately aggregating the conflict into a binary engagement between exactly two belligerents. Beyond that, I'm neutral about listing it in the "media coverage" section as this seems WP:EXCESSDETAIL, unless we are to spin out a separate etymology section as suggested above, in which case that seems fine. Chetsford ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Hi I think most people know it by Israel-Hamas war, if anything maybe change it around (to Hamas Israel cause of the alphabet) but it really should stay the same. And I think it's kind of stated that the goal of Israel is to destroy Hamas in this war and Hamas is the main power so it makes sense. I mean it's also like the US went to fight Houthis in Yemen, they aren't at war with Yemen but with the Houthis. ElLuzDelSur ( talk) 07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Major media outlets known worldwide (see also RTBF [32]) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner. The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media. [33] On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict". [34] Deblinis ( talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I think we need sourcing more along the lines of The media navigates a war of words for reporting on Gaza and Israel ("who are the adversaries? Israel and Gaza, Israel and Hamas or Israel and the Palestinians" @ 2'25). We know that CNN were instructed from on high to go with the second version. It is possible that it is too soon to expect scholarly coverage of the issue, which is what is really needed. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate Deblinis ( talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    But then you also need to mention what all the other sources call it? You can't cherry pick just to suit a POV. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Israel's war in Gaza" is used only by Le Monde, among the high standard Western sources. Adding it might be wp:undue. Deblinis ( talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I mean you also need to mention all the sources that call it the Israel-Hamas war. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks. Deblinis ( talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Here is the latest on NYT bias "..restrict the use of the terms 鈥済enocide鈥 and 鈥渆thnic cleansing鈥 and to 鈥渁void鈥 using the phrase 鈥渙ccupied territory鈥 when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine 鈥渆xcept in very rare cases鈥 and to steer clear of the term 鈥渞efugee camps鈥.." There is plenty of material out there to make the case that major newsmedia have a bias and we should be focusing on that. This, plus actual facts on the ground, together with the fact that IH war is not commonname but descriptive was the basis for the "no consensus" outcome at the last RM and that is what will be replayed at the next RM. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Article size and child articles

Currently the prose size is 23,000+ words, which is WP:TOOBIG by at least 8,000 words.

Regarding numerous child articles that have been split off, most notably but not exclusively:

WP:SUMMARY guidelines appear pretty clear but not followed here: Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.

None of these sections are lead-like summaries, whereas ideally they would simply be lead excerpts of the main article. I'm also aware this is similar to many other articles that are too big, but this shouldn't be an argument for why these guidelines aren't being upheld elsewhere. The bottom line is this article could easily be around 10,000 words(*) if guidelines were correctly followed and upheld, as well as encourage improvement of the child articles, namely the lead sections that aren't all as strong as they could be (some are very weak). (*) Excluding excerpted content that wouldn't contribute to article size but probably still be upto 5,000 words from numerous strong child leads.

Digging deeper, the Humanitarian impact section contains "grandchildren"(*) article content which simply don't belong in the "grandparent" article, but instead simply summarised in the parent and referenced in the lead of that article, ie: Casualties, Healthcare collapse, Gaza famine, Scale of destruction and Environmental damage (assuming these all are correctly referencing main articles). This is also the case with other grandchild type articles in other sections, whereas the child article should be referencing this all in the lead sections, for a summary in the grandparent. (*) Ie, a child of a child article.

To make this article readable, ideally it would only "directly" contain the events and other confrontations (where this is the main article), and the other split off sections are treated as the child sections that they are. For example 7 October attack is a lead-like summary of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023, and much of these two sections have their child articles well summarised (excluding Invasion of the Gaza Strip that goes a bit beyond). So why can't the rest of the article follow suit?

I'm aware this is a controversial suggestion, because of the importance of documenting the other aspects of the war, but this is exactly why they have their own articles as children and are treated as "a complete encyclopedic article in [their] own right". For example next up would be a split of Reactions, which is all that's left to split, but this wouldn't bring the article down to a readable size anyway. So without summarising/excerpting the child sections and removing the grandchildren, this article will otherwise never be a readable size.

CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 11:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Which means when reading between the lines basically erasing almost everything that could tarnish and goes against a certain narrative. Strong oppose. Instead erasing any view/quote from patriotic partisan media advocacing their own country, would be a good thing, to start. Deblinis ( talk) 12:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Why not "do" one of them, Allegations of war crimes, say, so we can see what effect it would have? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This wouldn't be a good idea for now I don't think, as the lead section only has two paragraphs to excerpt (basically just one really). At 13,000 words, it should easily be four paragraphs at minimum, probably even 5-6. It also fails to reference the grandchildren articles such as; Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel鈥揌amas war and Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, among others, that would all require referencing and linking in a single summary.
My suggestion wasn't so much as to reduce these sections to lead excerpts immediately, but more so to encourage improving the leads of the child articles so they can be used as excerpts in the future. The closest example would be Regional effects, but the lead doesn't reference the Economics child article (which it should). This is more of a bottom up proposal rather than top down, ie improving the child article leads to include the links and references to the grandchildren would be the way to reduce article size here. Naturally this wouldn't erase anything, it would simply be summarising it per guidelines. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As an example 鈥 and this is by no means intended as a comparison between conflicts but simply article size management 鈥 if you look at Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and attacks on civilians, it's a lead-like summary of the main articles (that totals a combined 23,000 words), and an example of how child articles should be summarised in the parent, as well as how to keep an article around 15,000 words as opposed to 23,000. By comparison, this articles Allegations of war crimes section is clearly not a summary of the child article. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Jeaucques Qu艙ure ( talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree The article literally contains an entire list containing the full text of resolutions adopted by the UNSC on 5 April. Editors on this article are frankly being highly irresponsible or are inexperienced in their liberal decisions to include additional material in this already giant document. JDiala ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Like the man said, the problem is the child articles, that's what needs fixing first, then the leads of them form content here. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree and support the spirit of this edit made following this suggestion even if it may have jumped the gun. Yeoutie ( talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Example (sort of)

  • See this diff: [35] shown here [36] regarding Humanitarian impact section. It's not a big reduction article length wise, even if removes 2,000 words. Other sections are more difficult. @ Moxy section doesn't require references as doesn't contain any content, per Template:Excerpt. --CommunityNotesContributor
First... Wikipedia:Template documentation " Editors should also avoid "quoting" template documentation pages as though they are policy". Sub pages not ready for this yet. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for 'statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic sources ..even more so on " contentious topics" like this. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. As linked at MOS:CITELEAD... H:TRANSDRAWBACKS "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors...." plus "Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. " Moxy馃崄 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not sure what your saying? this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy馃崄 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The articles leads would need to be sourced.....or do your own summary. Moxy馃崄 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Off-wiki concerns regarding reliability of source

An off-wiki thread on Reddit contests, among other things, that the page cite[s] the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med) to falsely claim that 90% of casualties were civilians. On the surface, the Euro-Med Monitor looks like a generic human rights organization however, the Euro-Med Monitor has actually been a significant source of pro-Hamas propaganda on social media. In fact, it is owned by a man named Ramy Abdu, who is a literal Hamas lobbyist.

I have no issue with the article citing an ostensible Hamas lobbyist so long as it is in conjunction with someone from the opposite side, which it is (an IDF spokesperson and the State of Isreal). After all, NPOV reads A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. However, I'm posting this A) to make editors aware of the possibility of canvassing and B) to see if anyone agrees with the post. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We have an article on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, there was a recent inconclusive RSN discussion and there is in addition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination) (no consensus).
So best go through those before answering your question, methinks, don't want to go through all that again. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It pretty certainly is an overestimate but I can see how they could have come by it using the recorded casualty figures. Those don't include all the people under the rubble and a large portion of the militants that have been killed are probably under the rubble or otherwise missing from those figures. So I wouldn't call it a false claim, just a claim from earlier in the conflict and where they haven't taken account of all the facts. NadVolum ( talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
On the general business of balance Wikipedia doesn't do the TV business of WP:FALSEBALANCE where they bring in an expert on flat earth for balance against round earthers but it does try and give all sides a due balance. NadVolum ( talk) 18:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've removed it from the infobox; while it probably warrants mentioning in an article, it's unclear why their opinion is so significant as to warrant inclusion in the infobox. (I've also removed the Israeli estimate, for a similar reason). BilledMammal ( talk) 06:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The Euro-Med Monitor has been described as being "close to Hamas" ( 2024 2014) so I think we should always attribute what they say and make sure we don't give them undue weight. Alaexis 驴question? 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As explained at the article talk page, those are ridiculous sources based on an unreliable source, NGO monitor, in turn based on spurious allegations by the Israeli government. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It's actually close to the UN, and those are daft, unreliable sources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not sure that being close to the UN is a good sign, considering that the UNHRC now includes such countries like China and Cuba known for their respect for human rights.
Anyway, the fact that they referenced a source which we consider GUNREL is not a policy-based argument against them. Plenty or sources are not admissible per se, but are used by reliable sources which can in turn be used on Wikipedia.
It's quite amazing how you try to erase the EMEM-Hamas connection. Its current head, Ramy Abdu, has a history of working for Hamas-affiliated organisations. Alaexis 驴question? 12:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Bash the UN in your own time. Your last point here is a claim in that source by Shin-bet, not a fact, and your repeating of it is closer to a BLP violation than it is to a reasonable point to make. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nope, the clause between the dashes in the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis 驴question? 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't know how to help you: it's clearly part of the Shin-bet quote. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article says Moshe Ya鈥檃lon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) 鈥 a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government 鈥 using emergency defence regulations.
Where did you see Shin-Bet here? There are no quotes or attribution in the subordinate clause. Alaexis 驴question? 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Where it actually talks about Ramy Abdu? The guy you're talking about? (Though
the IDF is unreliable too.) Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Israel outlawed a whole bunch of NGOs, everybody is still shaking their heads over it. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
He was the assistant director there [37]. Alaexis 驴question? 07:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Assistant to the Director" is not the same as "assistant director". And what about the rest? "He was a project and investment coordinator for the World Bank and other internationally-funded projects addressing the financial sector and the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. He holds two Masters, in Research and Finance. His fields of interests include international aid to developing countries and economic cooperation between EU and the MENA region. He is PhD candidate in Law and Finance at the Manchester Metropolitan University, UK."
Anyway, any of that is for the article about them, not EMM. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
One bad apple spoils the bunch. His work at World Bank isn't likely to indicate a bias to one side of the conflict. Alaexis 驴question? 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
So what? Should we not cite anything with an IDF connection? nableezy - 11:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Any organisation which lobbies on behalf of Israel would be a biased source as well. Alaexis 驴question? 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The thread you cite is from the Steven Bonnell subreddit, which is a juvenile internet streaming subculture well-known for aggressive brigading and (recently) aggressive promotion of Israeli propaganda. The thread cites nothing of import except alleging a "double standard." It suggests a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (notably with respect to WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RS) in general. There is no reason to take this seriously. JDiala ( talk) 08:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh my, it seems I attracted some attention... JDiala ( talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Someone there accused you of schochastic terrorism for editing Wikipedia. What little point the people there originally had wrt this article is losing any trace of credibility. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Is there a reason for the map?

Given that this is a constantly changing situation, should the map simply be deleted? Valereee ( talk) 02:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Blackmamba31248 has requested that the map should be updated here. He can't post here himself as this page is extended confirmed protected.- Haani40 ( talk) 04:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav reply

Citation errors

The named reference ToI was invoked but never defined for reference no. 54

Only the webpage, without the full citation is mentioned for reference no. 52
The named reference Iran Update, December 27, 2023 was invoked but never defined for reference no. 33
The named reference "auto" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 24
The named reference "national" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 13.- Haani40 ( talk) 05:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav reply

Fathom journal article - assess?

https://fathomjournal.org/statistically-impossible-a-critical-analysis-of-hamass-women-and-children-casualty-figures/ I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Another Israeli magazine saying the figures are falsified. That's so easy now they've gone and destroyed most of the the hospitals. It is quite long and would need a good study and it is not peer reviewed so it would be best to see what some other sources say first. They refer to Wyner's similar thing for support but if they can't see what a piece of rubbish that is I rather doubt it amounts to anything more. NadVolum ( talk) 11:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article Casualties of the Israel鈥揌amas war might be okay for it as it cand accomodate more of this sort of stuff. By the way there's also an article Misinformation in the Israel鈥揌amas war where a lot of these stories could go. NadVolum ( talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This should clarify where Fathom sympathies lie. Anything from there needs attribution, assuming it is due in the first place. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
One can see their bias from the start talking about a pretence of verification at the start when Israel had the ID numbers and if they had ever found a live person with one of these ID's I'm sure they'd have shouted it from the roofs. NadVolum ( talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of problems with that article. I think the really big major one is that they assume that women and children and men are all equally likely to go into hospital if injured or dying. This is simply not so. Even before the hospitals were mostly put out of action one could see that the numbers of children killed in the statistics compared to women was too low - one should expect about twice as many children killed by the bombs as women as they are both protected status. In the later figures from the hospitals compared to the ones from outside the ratio got even smaller so you got less children registered killed than women in the hospitals. The hospitals are warning people to stay away unless desperate. Children can be looked after by their parents but adults are less able to stay away from hopital if injured. I'd guess women would try harder to stay awy with their children we have no basis for estimating that effect.
Then there's the problem that once they allowed people to tell them about deaths rather than needing to have actually seen each one people would have told them about deaths they had previously not been recorded, in particular all those children that had died away from the hospitals. Since we know from other information that they were probably only registering about two thirds of the deaths in the first couple of months, their figures for the missing dead were only about half the true figure and I guess they are still about that but it is an unknown. They'd be getting more reports from outside but the hospital system is broken and communications are down. And another big unknown is the number of militants under the rubble.
I haven't checked if it is happening here but a problem with Wyner's 'study' with the negative correnlations was the assumption that when a person is killed the figures sort of go up like in a shooting gallery whereas the different categories are almost certainly checked and tallied up in batches separately and take a couple of days to be added in.
I don't know why the figures for men were reduced. There was a case of data being duplicated by mistake and removed but I don't think that is it. Mistakes are possible when you've just got a few people working with spreadsheets trying to check through such masses of data. Overall it would help if they had a look at the obvious alternatives rather than trying to prove their hypothesis. NadVolum ( talk) 22:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

News compliation

The article is increasingly turning into a news compilation articles instead of something encyclopaedic. While this is understandable considering that the war is ongoing, I think more care should be taken when inserting day-to-day events, and we should instead insert a more broad and general narrative. Makeandtoss ( talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There are quite a number of sub articles that could be used certainly. How does one achieve that is the problem though. NadVolum ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Needs work, per #Article size and child articles above. Happy to team up with some people and fix them up, one at a time. Maybe start with an easy one. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Suggestion for a subsection on destruction of Gaza's education system?

Hi all

Can I suggest the article covers the damage and destruction done to the education system in Gaza? I found these sources on the topic, the most recent one I can find states that Israeli forces have destroyed every university in Gaza and killed dozens of academics, hundreds of teachers and thousands of students.

More widely there is List of universities and colleges in the State of Palestine and articles for most universities but they appear to be very out of date. I don't know about this topic so if anyone else would like to add it that would be great.

Thanks

John Cummings ( talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This would be better summarised in the child article Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023鈥損resent)#Impact on children and documented in Effect of the Israel鈥揌amas war on children in the Gaza Strip#Education. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi CommunityNotesContributor thanks, I agree for including information in that article describing the impact on schools but most of the information I can find is for adult education, universities and colleges. John Cummings ( talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree. There's a quite good NBC report I added to the Further reading section of the List of universities that summarises this, and it's worth its own subsection. Specifically higher education (rather than children's education) has been discussed, labelled " epistemicide by some scholars. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Photos

As with other I/P war articlesm while editors strive for narrative balance, some editors surharge the images in favour of one party, here and elsewhere Israel. Alaexis insists that we need to strengthen the already existing imbalance in Israel's warpics, one of a blooded room in a kibbutz. For every such photo, probably a hundred exist of blood-strewn homes in Gaza, or pictures like this. So we need to analyse the existing body of pics to determine the ratios between the two sides Nishidani ( talk) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The subsection from which the photo was removed (7 October attack#Towns and rural communities) is about the attack by Hamas and the images should illustrate the content. The subsection currently has just one image (the satellite view of fires) and surely it's not unreasonable to have one photo showing the destruction wrought by the attackers. Alaexis 驴question? 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed; the minimal visual representation of the attack on Israel is an NPOV issue - and Nishidani, I note Alaexis wasn鈥檛 adding the image, they were restoring it. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Don't sidestep the point, as you both do. The article throughout on its range of photos shows a strong bias towards representations of an Israeli perspective. One cannot tinker with one subsection after another with complete disregard to the imbalance already present on our page. Address that and you may have, later, a reasonable argument for the inclusion of a picture like the blood-stained image, next to one showing a parallel scene, and there are thousands to choose from, of bloodshed among Palestinians. Not to observe parity is to privilege the victimizer as victim strain in the Israeli official spin (the war coverage must focus overwhelmingly on the devastations of the kibbutzim on Oct.7 and sideline the same havoc, repeated everyday over the succeeding 400 days, under the most massive bombing of Gazan civilians and their homes in modern history). The article is about the 7 month war, not only about day 1. It is about what happened to Israelis and Palestinians. Nishidani ( talk) 08:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The only "tinkering" here is by those removing these long-standing images.
We have pictures of the days after day one - and in a ratio that favours the Palestinian POV, with five images showing the impact on Israel and eleven on Palestine. What you are trying to do is make the ratio even more disparate, and that鈥檚 not NPOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
A good reminder that the war has been ongoing for 200 days; the attack on 7 October was finished by 9 October. 1:100 ratio is the reality on the ground. Makeandtoss ( talk) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Hamas didn't stop fighting on Oct. 9. I think the more accurate ratio to assess relative impact or harm is number of casualties (1:30). And to elaborate on the OP, balance isn't just about numbers but also about content of the photos. We don't want a situation where we have gruesome photos on one side and sanitized photos on the other, regardless of numerical quantity or ratios. Levivich ( talk) 05:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Although, neither is a good way to assess what is WP:DUE; 30 times more Chinese people died in WWII than French people, but that doesn鈥檛 mean we should have 30 times the coverage in WWII. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not the context we are discussing. The war has been overwhelmingly taking place in the Gaza Strip, as attested by the number of casualties, as attested by the few days of the attack in Israel. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This *section* is about the 7 October attack on the towns and rural communities. It's not overly long and reflects the weight given to the initial attack by RS, e.g., [38]. The sections describing the situation in Gaza are illustrated with images as well. Alaexis 驴question? 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is about notions of parity and imbalance as there is no blood image of the other victims. Every reader hopefully already knows that crime with arms = blood. Redundancy. Deblinis ( talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, there is - in the image captioned "Wounded child and man receive treatment on the floor at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City". However, there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚 - your logic would require we remove images of wounded Palestinians. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚"
Because there aren't any, and if there were they probably aren't even free images Abo Yemen 鉁 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed. We have an entire video of first-responders responding to the scene of the rave attack with dozens of bodies visible. This is already unprecedented and not done for any comparable military operation. I can accept the one video, but the bloody home photo on top of that is too much. Reminder that the ratio of Israeli deaths to Palestinian is like 1:30 or something (and this is an underestimate 鈥 only God knows how many bodies are under the rubble, or how many additional undiscovered mass graves there are). With the exception of perhaps two days (7-8 October), the now six-month long war has not taken place in Israel proper at all. Thus for proper balance the overwhelming majority of media should be from Gaza. JDiala ( talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
To complete the chain, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV necessitate a balanced representation of the conflict. The war鈥檚 impact is not confined to a single day or location, and the majority of the conflict has occurred in Gaza. The image selection should reflect this reality. While it鈥檚 important to depict the impact on all sides, we should be mindful of the overall narrative the images convey. A disproportionate focus on one side could inadvertently skew the reader鈥檚 perception of the events. -- Mhhossein talk 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
With the removal of this photograph, we don鈥檛 have any photographs showing the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians - are people really saying that this is in line with WP:DUE? BilledMammal ( talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We have a video which is worth more than a photo! JDiala ( talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You're right, I overlooked the video - which is why I don't believe it is worth more, as it is only if the reader views the video (and most won't) that they'll see the murdered civilians. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd be happy to replace the video with a photo. How do you feel about that? JDiala ( talk) 04:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not ideal; it doesn鈥檛 address the issue caused by the removal of this image, which is that we now have too few depictions of the impact on Israel.
In addition, the video, while less accessible than the photograph, provides important context for readers who choose to watch it - we shouldn鈥檛 make it less accessible. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, sure, but I've already given my arguments for why there should be at most one piece of media from 7 October, for sake of balance. You haven't engaged with this point. JDiala ( talk) 05:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Your argument isn鈥檛 based in policy; sources give sufficient weight to the events that started this war that more than one piece of media is warranted. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The only applicable policy here is WP:DUE. But that applies to viewpoints, not events. We're not promoting a particular viewpoint here. We're chronicling an ongoing armed conflict. Naturally, the start of the conflict will attract more attention from media sources, but that doesn't mean it should figure disproportionately in a chronology of the war. Consider the War in Afghanistan article. It has only one photograph from 9/11, despite 9/11 figuring far more in reliable sources than any particular engagements in Afghanistan. JDiala ( talk) 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:BALASP is the relevant policy, and it does cover events. Coverage isn鈥檛 disproportionate if it is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources - however, it is if it isn鈥檛, and at the moment, particularly with the removal of this image, it isn鈥檛. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I disagree, and think it is perfectly appropriate, all things considered. We should also count the satellite photograph as it displays burning homes. Thus, we have at least two pieces of media for the 7 October resistance operation. That's more than enough. I find that you're engaged in WP:LAWYERING right now, and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the project's goals. The goal here is to create a coherent article chronicling an ongoing war. We are also allowed to ignore rules if they interfere with this ( WP:IGNOREALLRULES). In this case, a great chunk of the photos of the war being on the events of a single day undermines that goal. Your other arguments are also tendentious. You're claiming that most people won't view the video so it shouldn't count more. But where is this argument based in policy? Do you have any evidence proving that people don't watch videos on Wikipedia articles? And is viewing rate a consideration in media selection? Even if I grant that's true, those that do watch the video will get a far more intimate scene in Israel than anything in Gaza. JDiala ( talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Israel鈥揌amas_war&oldid=1221012007"
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claims of Palestinian victory

I've noticed that in numerous articles on battles that have ended ( Battle of Shuja'iyya (2023), Battle of Beit Hanoun, Siege of Khan Yunis) the result was listed as "Palestinian victory". To me this seems a bit of a stretch, the IDF withdrawing with some Palestinian militants surviving doesn't necessarily mean Palestinian militants "won", it could easily just mean they deemed the objective to be achieved. For example in Khan Yunis the IDF basically demolished Hamas' fighting units as organized forces, does the fact that some Hamas fighters survived and emerged after the IDF left mean they won? It could just as easily be that the IDF simply saw nothing further worth destroying. Certainly the implication that the IDF was militarily defeated is absurd.

I changed the Khan Yunis article to withdrawal because a debate was already brewing in the talk page there, I've left the rest up for now but I think this is worth a serious debate. I think it would be better to just put Israeli withdrawal.-- RM ( Be my friend) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed Israeli withdrawal for now; anything else needs to be sourced to RS. Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
All we can really tell is that the Israeli army made the place practically uninhabitable. NadVolum ( talk) 09:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In that case it sounds like the Siege of Khan Yunis should be an Israeli victory considering their war goal is to make Gaza as uninhabitable as possible /s. ArthropodLover ( talk) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Edited ArthropodLover ( talk) 20:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
According to the opinion of a single French author / former soldier as your source states. Please do not overinterpret the personal opinion of someone as fact (even if said opinion is reported in a reliable source). Arnoutf ( talk) 18:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

extremely outdated map

[ Gaza War Unit Tracker
Possible revision: [ Only one IDF brigade remains in the Gaza Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor
Filled

the map is outdated and shows no accuracy.

Beit hanoun was withdrawn from in December, and the map didn't change. Lukt64 ( talk) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Because it shows maximum Israel advances not current control. Borysk5 ( talk) 06:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The Institute for the Study of War still displays most of Gaza as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. If you can find a better, more up to date source, I could change the map. So far, ISW has been the only reliable source providing updates on the conflict map. Ecrusized ( talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
ISW is reliable in that sense, but the only thing here is that they show areas cleared as blue even if the IDF has withdrawn so it was basically a 鈥渇urthest extent鈥 map. Note that the areas still remain blue even after the ISW acknowledges that israeli forces withdrew from the area
https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-1-2024 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I added a map with withdrawal areas. Borysk5 ( talk) 09:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

User Borysk5 has made a map citing a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker, it links to a custom Google Maps page. If this source is considered reliable enough, I can update the main map file with it. Let me know what you think. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Here is a possible revision of the map showing only Netzarim corridor as being under Israeli control. According to reports, only one IDF brigade remains in the Strip, guarding the Netzarim Corridor. Ecrusized ( talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would recommend adding areas they withdrew from Lukt64 ( talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
They are included in blue dashed lines. Ecrusized ( talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
IMO the blue dashed lines look like an evacuation zone Lukt64 ( talk) 21:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Here is a possible revision. Neither are perfect but I like the first one better since its less cluttered. Ecrusized ( talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Personally i prefer the second one, as its more informative. Maybe make it purple tho. Lukt64 ( talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It might be best to leave the map as it is for the time being. Institute Study of War still displays most of Gaza Strip as having ongoing Israeli clearing operations. And IDF launched a military operation in central Gaza this morning, a place they hadn't attacked so far. Additionally, I will not be able to distinguish where IDF is actively and formerly engaged since ISW won't be making a distinction and map would likely turn into a synthesized mess. Ecrusized ( talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If ISW is not making any distinction between where the IDF presently has control and where it previously held control, then it should not be seen as reliable as a basis for this article's map. Imagine if for Russian invasion of Ukraine the map still marked Russian forces as being around Kyiv. Evaporation123 ( talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The 鈥渆asy鈥 solution in this case is for the map to have 鈥渁reas under Israeli control鈥 renamed to 鈥渕aximum extent of the Israeli invasion鈥 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It would be better if it were just represented by a dashed line (like the maximum extent of the Gazan advance at the beginning of the war) and the respective blue and red colors indicated present control. Maybe blue/red stripes in contested areas if its possible. Evaporation123 ( talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I heard ecrusized has tried that in the past and got into issues because of the 鈥渙riginal research鈥 policy, which is why he is reluctant to deviate from one source. Just changing the label on the caption can be good short term and be less misleading The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree changing the label is a good short-term fix, and should be carried out ASAP. We do need to start thinking long-term, though, because a lead infobox in a highly visible and important article should be as clear to the reader as possible. Evaporation123 ( talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Userd898: Please participate in this discussion before making any changes. It was argued here that a distinction couldn't be made by separating where Israel currently and formerly operates. You also appear to have drawn incorrect boundaries as to where Israel operated. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

He showed an incursion into Rahat, and as the map labels the 鈥渕aximum extent of the Hamas invasion鈥 it should show the incursion there as it appears a few militants launched an incursion into Rahat on October 7-8, quite a few sources back this up
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r1ik1ztva
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-774246
https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-2-gaza-terrorists-found-in-rahat-a-month-after-october-7-assault/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That revision is a complete mess. The user who made it appears to have zero experience with svg's hence they completely removed the Hamas resistance pockets/enclaves in Gaza and Khan Younis, and drawn a made up boundary which does not cite a single source. They also ruined the translations, and drew a weird yet another original research boundary for where Israel currently operates and 7 October incursions. See https://oct7map.com Ecrusized ( talk) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If needed, the original one can remain but with netzarim corridor shown as blue and the rest as purple, based on this source
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-withdraws-ground-troops-from-south-gaza-leaving-just-one-brigade-in-enclave/
If you dont wish to do that with constant updates of movement and don't want synthesis issues even with two sources only the blue on the map can be labelled "maximum extent of the israeli invasion" or "furthest extent of the israeli invasion" instead of "areas under israeli control" without changing any colours and still relying solely on the ISW.
As for the ocotber 7 map it can be modified to include the rahat incursion, which apparently did not include any fatalities and hence isn't included on the october 7 map, but is well-substantiated and confirmed to have happened by several sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 08:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Institute for Study of War is still coloring new areas outside of "Netzarim" corridor as being under Israeli control. I cannot create a synthesis file based on a single news report. If needed, the legend can be changed from "Areas under Israeli control" to "claimed extent of Israeli control". Ecrusized ( talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
How about we have the maximum Israeli advance represented by a blue dotted line, just how the maximum Palestinian advance is represented by a red-dotted line? Then leave the blue and red colors corresponding to what most sources say. If ISW is still claiming Israeli control in certain areas despite many other sources claiming otherwise, then again, it should not be seen as reliable as a basis of this article's map, respectfully. Evaporation123 ( talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I鈥檓 not very well versed in the synthesis policy but I don鈥檛 think it would be an issue to label it 鈥渕aximum advance鈥, the ISW uses 鈥渞eported clearing operations鈥, but they have acknowledged Israel 鈥渃ompleting its mission鈥 or withdrawing from areas even though they鈥檙e still coloured blue which makes it likely that they went for a maximum extent map
refer:
https://www.iswresearch.org/2024/04/iran-update-april-7-2024.html?m=1 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think constant updates of movement are necessarily because its what Wikipedia readers deserve. No offense, but we cannot be misleading just because we want to take the easy road. Evaporation123 ( talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Evaporation123 and The Great Mule of Eupatoria: You guys are saying that I should show thing on the map based on my own initiative. I cannot do that since adding content to Wikipedia requires citing reliable source. Above in the discussion, you can see that a source called Gaza War Unit Tracker is talked about. If that can be considered an RS, than I could change the map according to the examples above. However, I doubt that source can ever pass a an RS since its a self published work. You might want to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Ecrusized ( talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you know anything about what sources the Gaza War Unit Tracker depends on? Evaporation123 ( talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No idea. Ecrusized ( talk) 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Spagat

Makeandtoss removed the following: Michael Spagat, an economist at Royal Holloway University of London who specialises in analysing casualty figures, said in December 2023 that there were no reliable figures for the rate of civilian casualties. [1] with this edit summary: WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information; also putting this fringe view at the top of the casualties figure is misleading as there are many more RS saying otherwise; please seek consensus before reinserting. I am therefore seeking consensus. This is very much not fringe; it's from the BBC and he's one of the world's experts on this topic. (PS it wasn't me who included him btw; no idea who did.) BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I think but don't know, if Makeandtoss overreacted a bit there, following on from the #"2:1 ratio" discussion up above, I don't have a problem with that part of Spagat, I think it is a useful statement. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well I think you can guess from what I said there I have no problem with it. It was the BBC and he has the relevant expertise. NadVolum ( talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Just as a factual matter, his statement is undoubtedly true. Given the collapse of infrastructure in Gaza, the unaccounted for dead under the rubble, and Israeli control of certain areas (e.g., Northern Gaza) possibly impeding access of healthcare workers, there's no way that the numbers are accurate at this point. This fact is important enough to share to the readers. I vote inclusion. JDiala ( talk) 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This was wp:undue, and this "he's one of the world's experts on this topic" is wp:original research. The Lancet reduces to nothing this false assertion. Deblinis ( talk) 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
What on earth are you talking about? Have a look at Casualties of the Iraq War, his name is all over it. He certainly wasn't the only one to disagree with the Lancet article! As an aside, if you have a look at that article though you'll be very wary of accepting body counts as being anything like a good estimate of the actual number of deaths! Especially in this war where so many buildings are destroyed by bombs and bulldozers have been used to cover up bodies. This is why I say the Gaza Health Ministy figures should be annotated as recorded deaths. NadVolum ( talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Israel Gaza: What Gaza's death toll says about the war". BBC. 20 December 2023. Retrieved 5 April 2024.

Renaming the page as "Israel-Gaza war"? Adding "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" next to the current name in the Lead聽?

April 2024: several major Western newspapers have decided to rename and present the ongoing war as Israel鈥揋aza war and only under that banner.

Here are a few significant instances:
Washington Post - "Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key"
BBC - "Israel Gaza war: History of the conflict explained"
Le Monde - "Israel's war in Gaza"
El Pa铆s - "La Guerra entre Israel y Gaza"
The Guardian - "Israel-Gaza war聽: Which countries supply Israel with arms"

Time for a change as Wikipedia has to reflect sources' content per wp:Neutrality and wp:Be Bold. Deblinis ( talk) 06:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Personally I would stick to the current title, as the state of Israel and Hamas are the main players.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Israel and Hamas are the main players" is the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's. Six months later, the story doesn't look the same from the ground and from the sky. Deblinis ( talk) 07:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It should definitely be up there as an alt name. I hadn't realised it wasn't, and I'm going to add it now. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There are many alt names; as such, per WP:ALTNAME, we shouldn鈥檛 include them in the lede. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Says who? What other examples of alt names are there for the whole war? I can't think of any other examples that are both unique to the conflict and routinely used in independent RS media. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Many. Even just looking at the source provided by Delinis, we have two alt names - "Israel Gaza war" and "Israel's war in Gaza". Elsewhere, we get "Gaza war", "Israel's war on Gaza", "Swords of Iron", and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" - and looking at our recent move requests, there are yet more options used by reliable sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is totally bogus reasoning, as I'm sure you're well aware, just as you are aware that repeatedly reverting other editors on this is borderline edit warring. "Israel鈥揋aza war" is far more prevalent than any of the other alternatives; it's not even a contest. "Israel's war in/on Gaza" is more prose than title, and rarely used (mainly just Al Jazeera I believe). "Gaza war" is generic and not specific to the conflict. "Swords of Iron" is an operation name, not the war. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", same, and specific to the initial Palestinian incursion. The last two are clearly specific operational names, and it's taking the micky a little to suggest these are valid alt names for the entire war. What are you up to? Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Gaza war might be generic, but it's also a commonly used name for this war - we would need to disambiguate it, but that doesn't make it any less of an alt-name.
Regardless of whether you consider "Israel's war in Gaza"/"Israel's war on Gaza" to be prose, reliable sources consider it a title.
I don't have a source at hand for "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", but I have a source that makes it clear "Swords of Iron" is a name for the entire war.
Generally, I don't think we need any names in the lede, including "Israel-Hamas war"; there is much more relevant information to include in an already very crowded lede, and thus we are better off including this information in an etymology section as instructed to my MOS:ALTNAME. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It's three words (four with "or"). It's clearly not going to crowd out the lead. Come off it. And still with the operational names? An Israeli operational name cannot, by definition represent be the entire war because it doesn't include the original Palestinian incursion, which started the war. (And it would incidentally be a names section, not an etymology one 鈥 there's no meaning to explain in any of these names.) Clearly you don't want the alt name in the lead, but you're going to need to come up with better reason than any of the above to justify why it actively shouldn't be added/should be excluded. I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
My understanding of the name "Swords of Iron", supported by reliable sources, is that it includes the initial fighting in Israel.
I can think of POV-pushing reasons why people would want to keep "Israel-Hamas war" as they only name in the lead, i.e. "focus on Hamas, not Gaza!", but not any policy-based reasons. If you read my comment, you would see that I support excluding both the primary name and the alt names from the lede. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure why we would exclude all names when "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israel-Gaza war" are the prevailing ones 鈥 there are not really many other options here, whether based on prevalence or descriptive titling. Articles without names often invite hamfisted intros. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That first step /change has to be made now. Deblinis ( talk) 08:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The far right wing Israeli source The Times of Israel doesn't have any Editorial Independence Policy [1], and they don't cover Israeli settlers' violence [2]. TToI doesn't provide factual, distinctive journalism for a diverse audience. And it is not a Western media either, contrary to the five major newspapers mentioned earlier. Deblinis ( talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We could include each parties name of it: Battle of Al-Aqsa flood and the war of Iron swords. Same has been applied to the 2014 and 2009 war The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 03:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You are referring to month-long conflicts that readily fitted within the confines of a single operation. This is a six-month long conflict and Al-Aqsa Flood war just the initial part. There is also no evidence that the initial Israeli name for its carpet bombing is still the name for its highly confused ongoing activities in Gaza. We now appear to be on "operation meander about, damage infrastructure, kill aid workers and starve people". Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Important point; in April 2024, each one of the following major Western newspapers gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category:
  • Washington Post - see >
  • Le Monde - see >
  • BBC - see >
  • The Guardian - see >
  • El Pa铆s writes the "GUERRA ENTRE ISRAEL Y GAZA" (= "Israel-Gaza war") category under the title of each article. - see >
Deblinis ( talk) 07:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
These RSP alone are frankly more than enough to establish it as a clearly RS prevalent alt name. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Regarding renaming the page, there is a moratorium on move requests until 27 May 2024. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a link to see that 'moratorium' discussion聽? Deblinis ( talk) 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Here is that discussion. Note that it is also linked in the FAQ. Nasssa Nser 09:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The South China Morning Post and NDTV also use Israel-Gaza war, the UN uses "Israel-Gaza" as the framing to describe events (crisis or whatnot) in the conflict, MSF uses "Gaza-Israel war" and ABC uses "Israel-Gaza conflict". Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
[3] [4] [5] etc...
Someone should add the "Also known as the 'Israel-Gaza war'" words in the lead today; otherwise I would be forced to stick a bias tag at the top of the page. Deblinis ( talk) 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please don't accuse other editors of bias simply because you are not allowed to make a certain edit. You are not forced to add a bias tag and should seek consensus on the talk page.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 08:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
A Neutrality tag is indeed a better term . Deblinis ( talk) 08:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Israel-Gaza war is more descriptive; although unfortunately it seems less used as a common name than Israel-Hamas war. So I would support the inclusion of also known as Israel-Gaza war in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss ( talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is not a question of figures, it is about content and context.
These Five major newspapers known worldwide (among many others) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner.
The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media.
On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict" in this article "Why this Israel-Gaza conflict is so complicated for Biden". [6].
On October 8, CNN announced "Israel formally declares war against Hamas" and followed Israeli narrative like any other Western corporate media. [7]
All the journalists in newsrooms then had been hugely pressured and they had to reuse the Israeli state's narrative with key fake atrocities, (beheading babies) and the "horrific" and "barbaric" adjectives in frontlines. A lot of journalists after the South African request of last January have realized that the " Israel against Hamas" tag is not the right one. Deblinis ( talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Three of the sources already used Israel鈥揋aza War by the time the last RM concluded; only Le Monde of the list has switched over. I can't grep mentions of El Pais from that discussion.
The current title is kept only because there were too many move requests in a quick succession; there is no clear rationale or consensus supporting the current title (I am involved in the last discussion). We could start another move discussion by the expiry of this moratorium.
The alternative 2023 Gaza War was also brought up then, though not thoroughly discussed. Nasssa Nser 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
For El Pais here are the links [8] [9]. @ NasssaNser: Deblinis ( talk) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree, it's time for a change. There's more than enough evidence for Israel-Gaza War to be included as an alternate name, and moreover it should be the actual title of the article. Israel-Hamas War is inaccurate given the number of participating Palestinian factions and the Yemen and Lebanon theaters of war and the scope of destruction in Gaza which has significantly affected civilian infrastructure. It is likely to become more inaccurate if escalation toward a regional war continues. It was always a pro-Israel framing of the war adopted by the Western press. While we don't want to insert our biases as editors into the article, the fact that it is still given a title that reflects a framing of the war that is clearly biased to the point of inaccuracy shows that there is a hazard in letting the sources do all of the thinking for us in instances where they have a uniform bias that is out of alignment with common sense and the realities on the ground. Unbandito ( talk) 12:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The difficulty here is that Israel Hamas war is a descriptive title rather than a common name imo. Although many editors in the last move request argued that it was commonname. Those that would keep the current title (the pro Israel crowd for the most part) dislike allowing the intrusion of any other name (BilledMammal has reverted probably half a dozen attempts to do so, including one of mine). However since the name has now been bolded in the lead then that allows at least two altnames to go in as well and I would suggest Israel Gaza war and Gaza war as the two. An alternative method is to debold the name in the lead and treat it as descriptive, in which case I agree to have a names section, which will be good prep for the inevitable debate over the title once the moratorium has expired. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am not member of the "pro Israel crowd". However, I went along with Israel-Hamas war for the article name because it did appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME at the time of the discussion in 2023. What some people seem to be trying to say here is that the war has moved on and that its defining feature is now the suffering caused to civilians in Gaza; I would not argue with that assessment. The article will not be renamed without a new move request, and any WP:ALTNAME in the opening sentence should also have consensus to prevent back and forth arguments. The problem here is that news stories have come up with different names for this conflict, and as of April 2024, none of them really qualifies as the COMMONNAME.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 10:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please realize that in April 2024 five major Western newspapers (and there are many others) gather all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. Deblinis ( talk) 11:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is true and that was also the case at the most recent move request (+ the UN), what is more important for a future move is what has changed since then. Example, Haaretz has taken to using Gaza war quite often now, first crack in the Israeli coverage, CNN is tying itself in knots, "Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas" and others seem to alternate between different names depending the story. But the key to the altnames is whether or not the title is considered descriptive, if the name is bolded in the opening sentence that is saying it is commonname rather than descriptive. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Deblinis: five is not a lot. Take a look at the prior move discussions in the talk page archives; you'll see editors looked at dozens of sources, not just five. Back then, it was pretty evenly split between "Hamas" and "Gaza" IIRC. I don't know if that's changed, but if so, it would take more than five to find out. Levivich ( talk) 02:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Deblinis Note that there is a current moratorium to suspend/close any Requested Move discussion until 27 May 2024, unless you can provide a substantive set of evidence that there is a clear majority in the sources (not just five) on the change in the common name/descriptive name used. 鈥 robertsky ( talk) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Robertsky @ Levivich, Is considering average sources as the same importance as The Washington Post, a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, relevant聽? Are some average sources as important as Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, El Pa铆s which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, and The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper? Deblinis ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You obviously haven't read the previous discussions. Why don't you put together a list of all the sources mentioned and then you can sort them into average and prestigious sources. Levivich ( talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Those corporate media owned by billionaires, is a scourge and only serves their own interest and business partners's. That 'Israel-Hamas war' label they took on, is the narrative created by Israeli state and it became the one of Israel allys overnight. Six months later, the story is no longer the same from the ground and from the sky in Gaza. Journalists say it [10]. Deblinis ( talk) 04:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Since editors keep inserting the titles despite a lack of consensus I've opened an RfC to conclusively resolve this dispute below. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

RFC: Primary title and alt titles in the lede

There are two primary questions.

  1. Should the article include, bolded in the lede, the primary title ("Israel鈥揌amas war")?
  2. If so, should the article also include, bolded in the lede, any or all of the various alt titles?:
    1. Israel鈥揋aza war
    2. Gaza war
    3. Israel's war in Gaza
    4. Israel's war on Gaza
    5. Operation Swords of Iron
    6. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
    7. Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood

07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood added 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Any additional alt names should be added to the list, with a timestamp noting when they were added 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

RFCbefore

Survey

  • Oppose. Including the primary title is not necessary here, and given the size of the lede we are better off omitting it in the interest of conciseness. We should exclude the alt names for the same reason, as well as, since there are at least three alt names of sufficient significance to warrant inclusion, MOS:ALTNAME which instructs us If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per BilledMammal. Lead is already far too large. JDiala ( talk) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please, could you read the discussion that has been open yesterday here and answer there as well. Deblinis ( talk) 09:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The number of sources mentioned in that last RM discussion is far more than the 5 sources you cited, with editors putting forth sources from both sides. I recommend reading that entire thread and also skim through the sources mentioned, and decide from there. Nasssa Nser 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Appendix:
    Everyone is invited to read this before commenting and answering    .

It shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources respondingto the highest standard of journalism, are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. As of April 2024, fact is that the following major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category. The Washington Post which is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work, does it - see link archived. Le Monde which is the most prestigious newspaper in France, does it - see link. El Pa铆s which is the most read newspaper in Spanish online, does it - see link1 see see link2. BBC which is the most famous British media worldwide, does it - see link. The Guardian which is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner, does it - see link. This new discussion and rfc happen because of that factor.
The "Israel鈥揌amas war" also known as the "Israel-Gaza war" - bolded in the lead for now until May as there is a moratorium on move requests Deblinis ( talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Deblinis ( talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)war" category. reply

  • Israel-Gaza war or Israel's war on Gaza per Nasssa in the discussion. This is how the war is being referred to in reliables sources. NadVolum ( talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • (invited by the bot) No need to bold, and it only needs one title, the current one Israel鈥揌amas war. That is the two parties engaged in the war. North8000 ( talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per above, no need bold in the lead. Yeoutie ( talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please, could you read the "Appendix" written above and answer after聽? Deblinis ( talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the inclusion of any name in the article lead, in other words treat the article title as purely descriptive, as it is currently ("An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups[s] has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023."). If, otoh, the consensus is to include "Israel鈥揌amas war" (whether bolded or not) then the altnames 1 and 2 should be included as well on the same basis. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as unnecessary. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please, could you read the Appendix" written above and answer after聽? Deblinis ( talk) 23:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per length, strongest possible opposition for any measure replacing/excluding Hamas in one of the primary titles.Weak oppose to alt titles per footnote due to number,Oppose other inclusion. The first and third position are primarily based on LEAD and conciseness to prevent excessive length per the arguments made above. The second is based on NPOV, secondarily IAR should the primary lack strength: searchability, 'common sense' and the move to a (more) NPOV title are the significant arguments against. FortunateSons ( talk) 10:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Regarding Israel鈥揌amas: this is not an RM and we aren't discussing the primary title anytime soon. Nasssa Nser 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am aware of it. This is specifically about listing a secondary title in the style of Israel-Gaza, as implied by some above. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify聽:) FortunateSons ( talk) 08:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

  • On the alts, "Israel's war in Gaza" is effectively identical to "Israel's war on Gaza", and mostly synonymous with "Israel鈥揋aza war". "Operation Swords of Iron" and "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. Nasssa Nser 09:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think if we are going to include alt names we should include "Operation Swords of Iron", which is Israel's official name for the war. I think I remember "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" being used in a similar manner, but I can't find any sources for that. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Reliable sources hardly ever mention those names. NadVolum ( talk) 10:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:MILMOS#CODENAME says no. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's about article titles, not alt names. And generally, I think that the official name is as relevant as other alt names. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nah, official names are just POV and no-one really calls them that anyway except those that create them. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Al-Aqsa Flood generally strictly refers to the initial attacks from Hamas, and I guess Swords of Iron is a similar situation of strictly referring to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Both has their dedicated articles. Nasssa Nser 07:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Palestinian militants use 鈥渂attle of Al aqsa flood鈥 to refer to the whole war including the Israeli operation and 鈥渙peration of Al aqsa flood鈥 or 鈥渂attle of October 7鈥 to refer to the initial attack. For example if you see the Hamas military media the intro always has 鈥溬呚关辟冐 胤賵賮丕賳 丕賱兀賯氐賶鈥 even in videos of targeting israeli vehicles and troops in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for that clarification; I've found a source that supports that. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There are really only two altnames of any significance, the first two. So the 3 or more thing doesn't really apply.
  • The new rfc doesn't present what are the challenges of the terminology and the presentation in the lead. Some users already reply without answering and they don't take in view the editorial line of some of the most prestigious journalism sources worldwide, this is what the discussion (and rfc) should be about. That dead end in the first sentence of the lead is political: the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text, the fact that it is not the case serves Israeli narrative's state.
    If this rfc is about voting with this in view [11] and that [12]: the wp:neutrality issue in the lead will remain. @ Selfstudier:, can one write a new rfc below this one聽? Deblinis ( talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    At this point it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. You've made your point, but everyone has their own opinions and only the closer is really responsible for reading your "appendix". Nasssa Nser 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Everyone has their own opinions", indeed > [13] [14] Deblinis ( talk) 03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    the name of a wikipedia article always appears first in the first sentence of the lead in bolded text This isn't necessarily the case for descriptive titles, MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY, for example, we don't want to say "The Israel鈥揌amas war is a war between Israel and Hamas."
    There can be another RFC that asks a different question, and that does not conflict with this RFC, "Is the existing title NPOV?", for example. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I think we should consider whether confining the name of this war to Gaza is even appropriate. Gaza is the main front, but the Israel鈥揌ezbollah conflict (2023鈥損resent) is obviously another front of this war, albeit a less intense one. That includes the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel. You could classify the Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel鈥揌amas war as yet a third front as well. We should maybe think of a name that incorporates this fact. If the northern front intensifies into a full-scale invasion of southern Lebanon and/or a wider conflict with Iran I don't there will be any doubt about the need to do that.-- RM ( Be my friend) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The name of the war is already confined to "Hamas", which is already even more of a mis-scoping than 'Gaza'. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes and my point is we need to start thinking of alternative names. I'm not satisfied with the current name either. RM ( Be my friend) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Neutrality?

There is a neutrality notice on the top of the article. The person who put this in claims the article has a pro-Israel bias. In fact I find the article to be fairly evenhanded (we've all done a decent job, overall, despite heated discussions for several months). I propose this be removed. JDiala ( talk) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Deblinis: Pinging tagger for courtesy. Nasssa Nser 08:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The tag placed in this edit is a classic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response to the user failing to get their own way in a talk page discussion. There is also the obvious problem of failing to assume good faith simply because some users disagreed with the edit.-- 鈾anMacM鈾 (talk to me) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Valid points have been raised [15] and in the end it shouldn't be the figures of votes that matter but the answers following the 5 most important Wikipedia rules and what the highest available quality sources are saying. Silencing in the lead of a Wikipedia article how several major Western sources are presenting a war, is an issue that needs to be discussed longly before a vote. 'The Washington Post" is a newspaper that had won the Pulitzer Prize 73 times for its work. Le Monde is the most prestigious newspaper in France. El Pa铆s is the most read newspaper in Spanish online. BBC is the most famous British media worldwide. The Guardian is the only British important independent newspaper which means that journalists can decide their editorial line without being pressured by a billionaire press owner. As of April 2024, fact is that each one of those major Western newspapers are calling it 'Israel-Gaza war' and gather all their articles about the conflict under the "Israel-Gaza war" category.. Deblinis ( talk) 10:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There is an RFC now to resolve the names business so might as well see what that throws up and go from there. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Proportion of civilian casualties

Question 1. How should we describe the proportion of civilian casualties

  • A: state that there are no reliable figures, per [16] (with or without in-text attribution)
  • B: give several estimates or a range (e.g., "10% according to X, 90% according to Y", or "10-90% according to various estimates")

(Options A and B can be combined)

  • C: other (don't include at all or anything else that's not covered by A and B)

Question 2. If we were to provide estimates (Option B of Q1), then which sources should be taken into account (I've listed the ones that were brought up in the discussion here so far and had explicit percentages or ratios)

  • A: "Prof Michael Spagat, said he would "not be at all surprised" if around 80% of those killed were civilians" [17] (December 2023)
  • C: 60% (1:1.5 ratio) according to John Spencer [18] (March 2024)
  • B: 61%, according to the IDF [19] (December 2023)
  • D: 66% (1:2 ratio), according to Andrew Roberts [20] (February 2024)
  • E: Other estimates.

Alaexis 驴question? 08:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

RFCbefore at #"2:1 ratio" and #Spagat Selfstudier ( talk) 09:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Survey

  • Giving percentage estimates seems like the way to go to me. It was also the method used in the 2014 Gaza War. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Include Spagat or No change. Spagat is the only one with any expertise in the matter of those in A-D. They should have included the figures already there in the RfC, the Health Ministry, an Arab estimate and the IDF for balance to give the end points. Since I'm pretty certain the direct deaths now exceed fifty thousand I find it very difficult to fit in the IDF estimates but I suppose we go by 'reliable' sources. Then again if they are including people like Dr.Youssef Abu Al-Rish deputy head of the Ministry of Health in their Hamas most wanted playing cards who can say what they mean by their figures? NadVolum ( talk) 11:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    John Spencer is an expert is urban warfare. Alaexis 驴question? 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    We're not talking about expertise in killing people. We're talking about expertise in estimation of casualty numbers. Have you any evidence he has expertise in that? NadVolum ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Even if he were, publication in an opinion-piece in Newsweek would require a very high level of expertise to use, especially in a situation like this where many better sources are available. I don't think that it's reasonable to consider that as a source, especially not in an infobox where we wouldn't be able to provide context (is this discussion about the infobox? The RFC is vague.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • ( Summoned by bot) No change. -- Andreas JN 466 12:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No change for now. Nobody has raised any serious objections to the current sources, and the ones presented here are not better. An opinion piece in Newsweek? A commentary piece from the Telegraph? "Not at all surprised?" For something that has received this much coverage, these are unserious. Why would we replace the Euro-Med HRM number with these? And why would we even consider complete removal when so many sources offer ranges of numbers? Spagat is the best available source out of the ones presented here (since he's an expert on death tolls in particular and is cited in a non-opinion piece) but even then it's hard to see it as an improvement over what we have currently; and since he's attributed in the source, he's more someone we would mention with attribution in the body, not the infobox. I'd definitely push for complete omission of the opinion pieces (the Spencer and Roberts ones) - this isn't a topic where we want to use opinion pieces from talking heads whose expertise is tangential to the main subject of casualty counts. I also somewhat object to the wording of this RFC; it clearly quotes Spagat selectively in a manner intended to make readers skeptical of him, while omitting details of the other sources that would similarly call them into question (like the fact that half of them are opinion pieces.) It also stacks the deck with a bunch of low-quality or WP:BIASED sources stating 60%, while omitting sources in the other direction that we already have in the article. Generally speaking this needed more WP:RFCBEFORE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No change John Spencer is not a reliable source, and his numbers appear to be taken straight from the IDF (it's a "democratic American ally" so it should be trusted, in his view, ignoring the fact that many regard it as a fascist apartheid state by many). JDiala ( talk) 19:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No Change Better to quote the IDF directly than an American army officer stating the same thing. All that would do is obscure the origin of the claim. ArthropodLover ( talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No change (IDF and EuroMed estimates in infobox, concise mention of main estimates in body), plus maybe put Spagat back in as major expert. Spencer and Roberts definitely not due here. This section should be a short summary of the Casualties article, where we can go in to more detail and quote more commentary. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Comment @ Alexis: Atm, the article says "...70% of them are women and minors. In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed." Shouldn't "no change" be an option? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Good point. Since a couple of editors have already !voted for No change, I guess it is now a de facto option. Alaexis 驴question? 12:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • So, wait, what about what we are saying currently? Those don't seem to be options. The current infobox says 90% civilians (per Euro-Med HRM[38]); 66% civilians (per Israel[39]) Those aren't listed in B - does that mean that the Euro-Med HRM number would remain no matter what, or is it being taken as a given that it would be removed, and if so, why? Nobody that I can see has given any rationales for removal, so my assumption is that it would remain regardless of the outcome of option B. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is my oversight. This source wasn't brought up at the talkpage in the RFCbefore discussions (2:1 ratio & Spagat) and this is why I didn't include it. Alaexis 驴question? 21:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Jordan

Should be added as a co-belligerent on the Israeli side, cooperating with them and intercepting Iran鈥檚 drones from yesterday

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/latest-israel-hails-interception-drones-missiles-unprecedented-attack-109214109 The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 10:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The statement "The Jordanian Council of Ministers says that its forces 鈥渄ealt with鈥 parts of the Iranian attack that flew over its territory, 鈥渢o prevent them from endangering the safety of our citizens and residential and inhabited areas." in the source you cite is inconsistent with the notion of Jordan being a belligerent. It's not a belligerent engaged in war, it's shooting things down that are unauthorized to fly through its airspace. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 10:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
An Iran Israel affair has nothing directly to do with this war anyway. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It has everything to do with this war, Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria because of its support to Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran retaliated because of it. How is that no linked to the war in Gaza. Daran755 ( talk) 21:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No one said it has nothing to do with this war. Carrying out actions linked to a war doesn't make the party a belligerent. The source describes what happened and why from Jordan's perspective. There is nothing in there supporting the notion that Jordan is a belligerent in a war. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing that Jordan is a belligerent in this war, but that Iran is. Jordan only shot down Iranian drones and missiles to "protect its airspace", but Iran directly attacked Israel, making it a direct belligerent against Israel. Daran755 ( talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This would be inappropriate without a reliable source making the claim that Jordan is a co-belligerent on the Israeli side. Please review our policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sourcing. Further, there's no logical reason why Jordan's self-defense of its airspace against Iranian intrusions would be added as a co-belligerent in the Israel-Hamas War. 鈬 SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Removing or improving the "names" section

The section only states that "Western media outlets have shifted from calling the war the Israel-Hamas war to the Israel-Gaza war"鈥攍isting and citing examples of articles calling it 'Israel鈥揋aza war' and names other than 'Israel-Hamas war'. None of the cited sources discuss this shift. ( permanent link to the section; normal link to the section) FunLater ( talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

(Self-reply) I think moving it to the "media coverage" section may make more sense, as the names section discusses what the media calls it, but I still think that the section needs sources that discuss such a shift, or how naming affects people's perception of the war, etc. FunLater ( talk) 22:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I removed it as WP:SYNTH for the reasons you explained. Levivich ( talk) 05:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Good move; it was pure WP:SYNTH. 鈥 Czello ( music) 08:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks聽:) FunLater ( talk) 13:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Levivich It's now been restored by @ Deblinis. Isi96 ( talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The presentation has been changed to be factual, mentioning that "as of April 2024 certain Western media outlets have called the war as the Israel-Gaza war". WP:NEUTRALITY is the rule in this case. Deblinis ( talk) 00:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Also etymology/name is not a significant WP:ASPECT of this topic (at least not per the sources cited), so not suitable for a separate subsection. A section about etymology/name would require sources talking about etymology/name. And for Wikipedia to say there's been a shift in the name would require sources saying there's been a shift in the name. Levivich ( talk) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is completely insane. The article is already too long. This is an unimportant issue (Israel-Hamas, Israel-Gaza --- who cares?) and the whole topic is just WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. I removed it again after it was reincluded by @ Deblinis. JDiala ( talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to add my support for what appears to be the consensus anyway, per Levivich, Czello, and FunLater, that this is not a significant aspect and would be OR. I'm also not sure it's also appropriate to have made the edit this pending completion of the RfC about naming above, as they are closely connected. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
who cares? I do, for one. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Rfc: Media coverage > Several media outlets (Washington Post, The Guardian), name it the "Israel鈥揋aza war": a mention of that in "Media coverage"聽?

Western media outlets ( The Washington Post, BBC, El Pa铆s, The Guardian, CPJ), name it the "Israel鈥揋aza war";.

Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section聽?

If so, could this draft work聽?

In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments". [27] BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war". [28] El Pa铆s called it the "war between Israel and Gaza". [29] The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views. [30] CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties. [31] Deblinis ( talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Survey

  • Support per WP:NPOV. Deblinis ( talk) 05:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is (i) not significant enough to warrant an entire subsection in an already unusually large article, (ii) an instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the meta-narrative of a naming controversy isn't discussed in the cited sources. Rather, you are yourself inferring that there is a controversy because there is disparate naming, (iii) not relevant to WP:NPOV as I'm not sure why "Israel-Hamas war" is somehow a pro-Israel characterization. Elaborating on (iii), the irony is that the claim itself that "'Israel-Hamas war' is biased" is tacitly making a pro-Israel assumption, namely that Hamas is somehow a bad actor and mentions of Hamas are shameful to pro-Palestinian people. Many pro-Palestinian people are proud of the resistance of Hamas fighters against what they consider a genocidal onslaught; thus the exclusion of Hamas in the title is itself biased against Palestinians as it fails to credit the bravery of Hamas fighters. JDiala ( talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being factual with these sources that are some of the highest standard sources of journalism is WP:NPOV. Some users should realize that they have to search compromise with valid suggestions, wikipedia is a collaborative project.
    Many people and journalists have realized that initial name of this conflict, doesn't fit anymore with the actual situation six months after. Around 16,000 children killed in Gaza (without counting the disappeared children), potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza, potential incitement to genocide and possible genocidal intent in Gaza, starvation as a weapon of war on an entire population; urbicide with destruction of all the ancient buildings, destruction of all the universities, destruction of all the schools, will to erase any trace of Palestinian culture, an entire area made uninhabitable. And Hamas only got 30篓% of votes in Gaza. Whatever, these Western sources known worldwide and their approach to the conflict and how they name the conflict, should be brought to the attention of the readers. Deblinis ( talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Might this be better as part of an etymology section? Many conflicts have multiple names, so it wouldn't be out of place to have a short etymology section to explain the different names that are used. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 鈿 07:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    On condition of relying on Western media sources.
    Middle East sources in this case are irrelevant, because history is not written and named by the belligerents in power and patriotic partisan media. Deblinis ( talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Per u:JDiala. This is WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources examining the coverage itself. Alaexis 驴question? 08:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Time to underline that even just one another conciser sentence like this one "In April 2024 certain Western media outlets including The Washington Post, BBC, El Pa铆s, The Guardian, CPJ, called the war as the Israel-Gaza war" in the 'Media coverage' section, would be seen as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for some users. The WP:NPOV rule looks trampled and wikipedia is in a cul de sac. Deblinis ( talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry to throw a curveball into this RfC, however, based on the sources cited I Support overturning all prior consensus and renaming the entire article Israel-Gaza War per sources cited. With recent (as opposed to early) RS coalescing around the term "Israel-Gaza War" (as cited in the examples uncovered by OP), maintaining the term "Israel-Hamas War" is outdated. It's also, per OP, violative of WP:NPOV, as well as simply being confusing and inconsistent with the infobox, by inaccurately aggregating the conflict into a binary engagement between exactly two belligerents. Beyond that, I'm neutral about listing it in the "media coverage" section as this seems WP:EXCESSDETAIL, unless we are to spin out a separate etymology section as suggested above, in which case that seems fine. Chetsford ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Hi I think most people know it by Israel-Hamas war, if anything maybe change it around (to Hamas Israel cause of the alphabet) but it really should stay the same. And I think it's kind of stated that the goal of Israel is to destroy Hamas in this war and Hamas is the main power so it makes sense. I mean it's also like the US went to fight Houthis in Yemen, they aren't at war with Yemen but with the Houthis. ElLuzDelSur ( talk) 07:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Major media outlets known worldwide (see also RTBF [32]) refuse to use the Israeli state's narrative and Israeli allys's and henceforward publish all their articles under the "Israel-Gaza war " banner. The "Israel-Hamas war" tag is a narrative written and invented by Israeli state on October 8 and it was instantly re-used by Israeli allys and corporate media. [33] On October 7, CNN had tagged "Israel-Gaza conflict". [34] Deblinis ( talk) 05:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I think we need sourcing more along the lines of The media navigates a war of words for reporting on Gaza and Israel ("who are the adversaries? Israel and Gaza, Israel and Hamas or Israel and the Palestinians" @ 2'25). We know that CNN were instructed from on high to go with the second version. It is possible that it is too soon to expect scholarly coverage of the issue, which is what is really needed. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's not the point here. The aim is to mention and just mention in the body, in the "Media coverage" section, that the conflict is also called "Israel-Gaza war" by certain famous Western media outlets, nothing more nothing less, per WP:NPOV. These sources are not second rate Deblinis ( talk) 11:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    But then you also need to mention what all the other sources call it? You can't cherry pick just to suit a POV. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Israel's war in Gaza" is used only by Le Monde, among the high standard Western sources. Adding it might be wp:undue. Deblinis ( talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I mean you also need to mention all the sources that call it the Israel-Hamas war. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Israel-Hamas war" has long been accepted, as it is the title of the page. Re-mentioning it in the body would be like a redundancy - plus the article has been tagged as too long for a few weeks. Deblinis ( talk) 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Here is the latest on NYT bias "..restrict the use of the terms 鈥済enocide鈥 and 鈥渆thnic cleansing鈥 and to 鈥渁void鈥 using the phrase 鈥渙ccupied territory鈥 when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine 鈥渆xcept in very rare cases鈥 and to steer clear of the term 鈥渞efugee camps鈥.." There is plenty of material out there to make the case that major newsmedia have a bias and we should be focusing on that. This, plus actual facts on the ground, together with the fact that IH war is not commonname but descriptive was the basis for the "no consensus" outcome at the last RM and that is what will be replayed at the next RM. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Article size and child articles

Currently the prose size is 23,000+ words, which is WP:TOOBIG by at least 8,000 words.

Regarding numerous child articles that have been split off, most notably but not exclusively:

WP:SUMMARY guidelines appear pretty clear but not followed here: Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.

None of these sections are lead-like summaries, whereas ideally they would simply be lead excerpts of the main article. I'm also aware this is similar to many other articles that are too big, but this shouldn't be an argument for why these guidelines aren't being upheld elsewhere. The bottom line is this article could easily be around 10,000 words(*) if guidelines were correctly followed and upheld, as well as encourage improvement of the child articles, namely the lead sections that aren't all as strong as they could be (some are very weak). (*) Excluding excerpted content that wouldn't contribute to article size but probably still be upto 5,000 words from numerous strong child leads.

Digging deeper, the Humanitarian impact section contains "grandchildren"(*) article content which simply don't belong in the "grandparent" article, but instead simply summarised in the parent and referenced in the lead of that article, ie: Casualties, Healthcare collapse, Gaza famine, Scale of destruction and Environmental damage (assuming these all are correctly referencing main articles). This is also the case with other grandchild type articles in other sections, whereas the child article should be referencing this all in the lead sections, for a summary in the grandparent. (*) Ie, a child of a child article.

To make this article readable, ideally it would only "directly" contain the events and other confrontations (where this is the main article), and the other split off sections are treated as the child sections that they are. For example 7 October attack is a lead-like summary of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023, and much of these two sections have their child articles well summarised (excluding Invasion of the Gaza Strip that goes a bit beyond). So why can't the rest of the article follow suit?

I'm aware this is a controversial suggestion, because of the importance of documenting the other aspects of the war, but this is exactly why they have their own articles as children and are treated as "a complete encyclopedic article in [their] own right". For example next up would be a split of Reactions, which is all that's left to split, but this wouldn't bring the article down to a readable size anyway. So without summarising/excerpting the child sections and removing the grandchildren, this article will otherwise never be a readable size.

CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 11:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Which means when reading between the lines basically erasing almost everything that could tarnish and goes against a certain narrative. Strong oppose. Instead erasing any view/quote from patriotic partisan media advocacing their own country, would be a good thing, to start. Deblinis ( talk) 12:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Why not "do" one of them, Allegations of war crimes, say, so we can see what effect it would have? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This wouldn't be a good idea for now I don't think, as the lead section only has two paragraphs to excerpt (basically just one really). At 13,000 words, it should easily be four paragraphs at minimum, probably even 5-6. It also fails to reference the grandchildren articles such as; Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel鈥揌amas war and Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians, among others, that would all require referencing and linking in a single summary.
My suggestion wasn't so much as to reduce these sections to lead excerpts immediately, but more so to encourage improving the leads of the child articles so they can be used as excerpts in the future. The closest example would be Regional effects, but the lead doesn't reference the Economics child article (which it should). This is more of a bottom up proposal rather than top down, ie improving the child article leads to include the links and references to the grandchildren would be the way to reduce article size here. Naturally this wouldn't erase anything, it would simply be summarising it per guidelines. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As an example 鈥 and this is by no means intended as a comparison between conflicts but simply article size management 鈥 if you look at Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and attacks on civilians, it's a lead-like summary of the main articles (that totals a combined 23,000 words), and an example of how child articles should be summarised in the parent, as well as how to keep an article around 15,000 words as opposed to 23,000. By comparison, this articles Allegations of war crimes section is clearly not a summary of the child article. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Jeaucques Qu艙ure ( talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree The article literally contains an entire list containing the full text of resolutions adopted by the UNSC on 5 April. Editors on this article are frankly being highly irresponsible or are inexperienced in their liberal decisions to include additional material in this already giant document. JDiala ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Like the man said, the problem is the child articles, that's what needs fixing first, then the leads of them form content here. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree and support the spirit of this edit made following this suggestion even if it may have jumped the gun. Yeoutie ( talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Example (sort of)

  • See this diff: [35] shown here [36] regarding Humanitarian impact section. It's not a big reduction article length wise, even if removes 2,000 words. Other sections are more difficult. @ Moxy section doesn't require references as doesn't contain any content, per Template:Excerpt. --CommunityNotesContributor
First... Wikipedia:Template documentation " Editors should also avoid "quoting" template documentation pages as though they are policy". Sub pages not ready for this yet. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for 'statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic sources ..even more so on " contentious topics" like this. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. As linked at MOS:CITELEAD... H:TRANSDRAWBACKS "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors...." plus "Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page. " Moxy馃崄 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok fair points. I just checked and the excerpts do work with the references included (I assumed there would be undefined refs in lead sections but appears there are none). Aside from the Environmental damage lead, the others all seem well-referenced (ie not missing any references). But I assume you'd still have issue due to other drawbacks? CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not sure what your saying? this version is missing sources all over. Best to simply take the effort an actually do a summary here over a copy past runaround. Moxy馃崄 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I mean removing the "references=no" variable to the excerpts does correctly show references. Summaries already exist as per leads of child articles, so don't see the point in copy pasting. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The articles leads would need to be sourced.....or do your own summary. Moxy馃崄 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Off-wiki concerns regarding reliability of source

An off-wiki thread on Reddit contests, among other things, that the page cite[s] the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med) to falsely claim that 90% of casualties were civilians. On the surface, the Euro-Med Monitor looks like a generic human rights organization however, the Euro-Med Monitor has actually been a significant source of pro-Hamas propaganda on social media. In fact, it is owned by a man named Ramy Abdu, who is a literal Hamas lobbyist.

I have no issue with the article citing an ostensible Hamas lobbyist so long as it is in conjunction with someone from the opposite side, which it is (an IDF spokesperson and the State of Isreal). After all, NPOV reads A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. However, I'm posting this A) to make editors aware of the possibility of canvassing and B) to see if anyone agrees with the post. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We have an article on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, there was a recent inconclusive RSN discussion and there is in addition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination) (no consensus).
So best go through those before answering your question, methinks, don't want to go through all that again. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It pretty certainly is an overestimate but I can see how they could have come by it using the recorded casualty figures. Those don't include all the people under the rubble and a large portion of the militants that have been killed are probably under the rubble or otherwise missing from those figures. So I wouldn't call it a false claim, just a claim from earlier in the conflict and where they haven't taken account of all the facts. NadVolum ( talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
On the general business of balance Wikipedia doesn't do the TV business of WP:FALSEBALANCE where they bring in an expert on flat earth for balance against round earthers but it does try and give all sides a due balance. NadVolum ( talk) 18:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've removed it from the infobox; while it probably warrants mentioning in an article, it's unclear why their opinion is so significant as to warrant inclusion in the infobox. (I've also removed the Israeli estimate, for a similar reason). BilledMammal ( talk) 06:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The Euro-Med Monitor has been described as being "close to Hamas" ( 2024 2014) so I think we should always attribute what they say and make sure we don't give them undue weight. Alaexis 驴question? 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As explained at the article talk page, those are ridiculous sources based on an unreliable source, NGO monitor, in turn based on spurious allegations by the Israeli government. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It's actually close to the UN, and those are daft, unreliable sources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not sure that being close to the UN is a good sign, considering that the UNHRC now includes such countries like China and Cuba known for their respect for human rights.
Anyway, the fact that they referenced a source which we consider GUNREL is not a policy-based argument against them. Plenty or sources are not admissible per se, but are used by reliable sources which can in turn be used on Wikipedia.
It's quite amazing how you try to erase the EMEM-Hamas connection. Its current head, Ramy Abdu, has a history of working for Hamas-affiliated organisations. Alaexis 驴question? 12:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Bash the UN in your own time. Your last point here is a claim in that source by Shin-bet, not a fact, and your repeating of it is closer to a BLP violation than it is to a reasonable point to make. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nope, the clause between the dashes in the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis 驴question? 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't know how to help you: it's clearly part of the Shin-bet quote. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article says Moshe Ya鈥檃lon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) 鈥 a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government 鈥 using emergency defence regulations.
Where did you see Shin-Bet here? There are no quotes or attribution in the subordinate clause. Alaexis 驴question? 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Where it actually talks about Ramy Abdu? The guy you're talking about? (Though
the IDF is unreliable too.) Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Israel outlawed a whole bunch of NGOs, everybody is still shaking their heads over it. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
He was the assistant director there [37]. Alaexis 驴question? 07:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Assistant to the Director" is not the same as "assistant director". And what about the rest? "He was a project and investment coordinator for the World Bank and other internationally-funded projects addressing the financial sector and the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. He holds two Masters, in Research and Finance. His fields of interests include international aid to developing countries and economic cooperation between EU and the MENA region. He is PhD candidate in Law and Finance at the Manchester Metropolitan University, UK."
Anyway, any of that is for the article about them, not EMM. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
One bad apple spoils the bunch. His work at World Bank isn't likely to indicate a bias to one side of the conflict. Alaexis 驴question? 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
So what? Should we not cite anything with an IDF connection? nableezy - 11:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Any organisation which lobbies on behalf of Israel would be a biased source as well. Alaexis 驴question? 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The thread you cite is from the Steven Bonnell subreddit, which is a juvenile internet streaming subculture well-known for aggressive brigading and (recently) aggressive promotion of Israeli propaganda. The thread cites nothing of import except alleging a "double standard." It suggests a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (notably with respect to WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RS) in general. There is no reason to take this seriously. JDiala ( talk) 08:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh my, it seems I attracted some attention... JDiala ( talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Someone there accused you of schochastic terrorism for editing Wikipedia. What little point the people there originally had wrt this article is losing any trace of credibility. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Is there a reason for the map?

Given that this is a constantly changing situation, should the map simply be deleted? Valereee ( talk) 02:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Blackmamba31248 has requested that the map should be updated here. He can't post here himself as this page is extended confirmed protected.- Haani40 ( talk) 04:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav reply

Citation errors

The named reference ToI was invoked but never defined for reference no. 54

Only the webpage, without the full citation is mentioned for reference no. 52
The named reference Iran Update, December 27, 2023 was invoked but never defined for reference no. 33
The named reference "auto" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 24
The named reference "national" was defined multiple times with different content for reference no. 13.- Haani40 ( talk) 05:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav reply

Fathom journal article - assess?

https://fathomjournal.org/statistically-impossible-a-critical-analysis-of-hamass-women-and-children-casualty-figures/ I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 23:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Another Israeli magazine saying the figures are falsified. That's so easy now they've gone and destroyed most of the the hospitals. It is quite long and would need a good study and it is not peer reviewed so it would be best to see what some other sources say first. They refer to Wyner's similar thing for support but if they can't see what a piece of rubbish that is I rather doubt it amounts to anything more. NadVolum ( talk) 11:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article Casualties of the Israel鈥揌amas war might be okay for it as it cand accomodate more of this sort of stuff. By the way there's also an article Misinformation in the Israel鈥揌amas war where a lot of these stories could go. NadVolum ( talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This should clarify where Fathom sympathies lie. Anything from there needs attribution, assuming it is due in the first place. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
One can see their bias from the start talking about a pretence of verification at the start when Israel had the ID numbers and if they had ever found a live person with one of these ID's I'm sure they'd have shouted it from the roofs. NadVolum ( talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of problems with that article. I think the really big major one is that they assume that women and children and men are all equally likely to go into hospital if injured or dying. This is simply not so. Even before the hospitals were mostly put out of action one could see that the numbers of children killed in the statistics compared to women was too low - one should expect about twice as many children killed by the bombs as women as they are both protected status. In the later figures from the hospitals compared to the ones from outside the ratio got even smaller so you got less children registered killed than women in the hospitals. The hospitals are warning people to stay away unless desperate. Children can be looked after by their parents but adults are less able to stay away from hopital if injured. I'd guess women would try harder to stay awy with their children we have no basis for estimating that effect.
Then there's the problem that once they allowed people to tell them about deaths rather than needing to have actually seen each one people would have told them about deaths they had previously not been recorded, in particular all those children that had died away from the hospitals. Since we know from other information that they were probably only registering about two thirds of the deaths in the first couple of months, their figures for the missing dead were only about half the true figure and I guess they are still about that but it is an unknown. They'd be getting more reports from outside but the hospital system is broken and communications are down. And another big unknown is the number of militants under the rubble.
I haven't checked if it is happening here but a problem with Wyner's 'study' with the negative correnlations was the assumption that when a person is killed the figures sort of go up like in a shooting gallery whereas the different categories are almost certainly checked and tallied up in batches separately and take a couple of days to be added in.
I don't know why the figures for men were reduced. There was a case of data being duplicated by mistake and removed but I don't think that is it. Mistakes are possible when you've just got a few people working with spreadsheets trying to check through such masses of data. Overall it would help if they had a look at the obvious alternatives rather than trying to prove their hypothesis. NadVolum ( talk) 22:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

News compliation

The article is increasingly turning into a news compilation articles instead of something encyclopaedic. While this is understandable considering that the war is ongoing, I think more care should be taken when inserting day-to-day events, and we should instead insert a more broad and general narrative. Makeandtoss ( talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There are quite a number of sub articles that could be used certainly. How does one achieve that is the problem though. NadVolum ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Needs work, per #Article size and child articles above. Happy to team up with some people and fix them up, one at a time. Maybe start with an easy one. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Suggestion for a subsection on destruction of Gaza's education system?

Hi all

Can I suggest the article covers the damage and destruction done to the education system in Gaza? I found these sources on the topic, the most recent one I can find states that Israeli forces have destroyed every university in Gaza and killed dozens of academics, hundreds of teachers and thousands of students.

More widely there is List of universities and colleges in the State of Palestine and articles for most universities but they appear to be very out of date. I don't know about this topic so if anyone else would like to add it that would be great.

Thanks

John Cummings ( talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This would be better summarised in the child article Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023鈥損resent)#Impact on children and documented in Effect of the Israel鈥揌amas war on children in the Gaza Strip#Education. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi CommunityNotesContributor thanks, I agree for including information in that article describing the impact on schools but most of the information I can find is for adult education, universities and colleges. John Cummings ( talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree. There's a quite good NBC report I added to the Further reading section of the List of universities that summarises this, and it's worth its own subsection. Specifically higher education (rather than children's education) has been discussed, labelled " epistemicide by some scholars. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Photos

As with other I/P war articlesm while editors strive for narrative balance, some editors surharge the images in favour of one party, here and elsewhere Israel. Alaexis insists that we need to strengthen the already existing imbalance in Israel's warpics, one of a blooded room in a kibbutz. For every such photo, probably a hundred exist of blood-strewn homes in Gaza, or pictures like this. So we need to analyse the existing body of pics to determine the ratios between the two sides Nishidani ( talk) 21:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The subsection from which the photo was removed (7 October attack#Towns and rural communities) is about the attack by Hamas and the images should illustrate the content. The subsection currently has just one image (the satellite view of fires) and surely it's not unreasonable to have one photo showing the destruction wrought by the attackers. Alaexis 驴question? 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed; the minimal visual representation of the attack on Israel is an NPOV issue - and Nishidani, I note Alaexis wasn鈥檛 adding the image, they were restoring it. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Don't sidestep the point, as you both do. The article throughout on its range of photos shows a strong bias towards representations of an Israeli perspective. One cannot tinker with one subsection after another with complete disregard to the imbalance already present on our page. Address that and you may have, later, a reasonable argument for the inclusion of a picture like the blood-stained image, next to one showing a parallel scene, and there are thousands to choose from, of bloodshed among Palestinians. Not to observe parity is to privilege the victimizer as victim strain in the Israeli official spin (the war coverage must focus overwhelmingly on the devastations of the kibbutzim on Oct.7 and sideline the same havoc, repeated everyday over the succeeding 400 days, under the most massive bombing of Gazan civilians and their homes in modern history). The article is about the 7 month war, not only about day 1. It is about what happened to Israelis and Palestinians. Nishidani ( talk) 08:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The only "tinkering" here is by those removing these long-standing images.
We have pictures of the days after day one - and in a ratio that favours the Palestinian POV, with five images showing the impact on Israel and eleven on Palestine. What you are trying to do is make the ratio even more disparate, and that鈥檚 not NPOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
A good reminder that the war has been ongoing for 200 days; the attack on 7 October was finished by 9 October. 1:100 ratio is the reality on the ground. Makeandtoss ( talk) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Hamas didn't stop fighting on Oct. 9. I think the more accurate ratio to assess relative impact or harm is number of casualties (1:30). And to elaborate on the OP, balance isn't just about numbers but also about content of the photos. We don't want a situation where we have gruesome photos on one side and sanitized photos on the other, regardless of numerical quantity or ratios. Levivich ( talk) 05:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Although, neither is a good way to assess what is WP:DUE; 30 times more Chinese people died in WWII than French people, but that doesn鈥檛 mean we should have 30 times the coverage in WWII. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not the context we are discussing. The war has been overwhelmingly taking place in the Gaza Strip, as attested by the number of casualties, as attested by the few days of the attack in Israel. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This *section* is about the 7 October attack on the towns and rural communities. It's not overly long and reflects the weight given to the initial attack by RS, e.g., [38]. The sections describing the situation in Gaza are illustrated with images as well. Alaexis 驴question? 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is about notions of parity and imbalance as there is no blood image of the other victims. Every reader hopefully already knows that crime with arms = blood. Redundancy. Deblinis ( talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, there is - in the image captioned "Wounded child and man receive treatment on the floor at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City". However, there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚 - your logic would require we remove images of wounded Palestinians. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"there are no images of wounded Israeli鈥檚"
Because there aren't any, and if there were they probably aren't even free images Abo Yemen 鉁 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed. We have an entire video of first-responders responding to the scene of the rave attack with dozens of bodies visible. This is already unprecedented and not done for any comparable military operation. I can accept the one video, but the bloody home photo on top of that is too much. Reminder that the ratio of Israeli deaths to Palestinian is like 1:30 or something (and this is an underestimate 鈥 only God knows how many bodies are under the rubble, or how many additional undiscovered mass graves there are). With the exception of perhaps two days (7-8 October), the now six-month long war has not taken place in Israel proper at all. Thus for proper balance the overwhelming majority of media should be from Gaza. JDiala ( talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
To complete the chain, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV necessitate a balanced representation of the conflict. The war鈥檚 impact is not confined to a single day or location, and the majority of the conflict has occurred in Gaza. The image selection should reflect this reality. While it鈥檚 important to depict the impact on all sides, we should be mindful of the overall narrative the images convey. A disproportionate focus on one side could inadvertently skew the reader鈥檚 perception of the events. -- Mhhossein talk 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
With the removal of this photograph, we don鈥檛 have any photographs showing the impact of the October 7 attacks on civilians - are people really saying that this is in line with WP:DUE? BilledMammal ( talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We have a video which is worth more than a photo! JDiala ( talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You're right, I overlooked the video - which is why I don't believe it is worth more, as it is only if the reader views the video (and most won't) that they'll see the murdered civilians. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd be happy to replace the video with a photo. How do you feel about that? JDiala ( talk) 04:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not ideal; it doesn鈥檛 address the issue caused by the removal of this image, which is that we now have too few depictions of the impact on Israel.
In addition, the video, while less accessible than the photograph, provides important context for readers who choose to watch it - we shouldn鈥檛 make it less accessible. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, sure, but I've already given my arguments for why there should be at most one piece of media from 7 October, for sake of balance. You haven't engaged with this point. JDiala ( talk) 05:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Your argument isn鈥檛 based in policy; sources give sufficient weight to the events that started this war that more than one piece of media is warranted. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The only applicable policy here is WP:DUE. But that applies to viewpoints, not events. We're not promoting a particular viewpoint here. We're chronicling an ongoing armed conflict. Naturally, the start of the conflict will attract more attention from media sources, but that doesn't mean it should figure disproportionately in a chronology of the war. Consider the War in Afghanistan article. It has only one photograph from 9/11, despite 9/11 figuring far more in reliable sources than any particular engagements in Afghanistan. JDiala ( talk) 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:BALASP is the relevant policy, and it does cover events. Coverage isn鈥檛 disproportionate if it is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources - however, it is if it isn鈥檛, and at the moment, particularly with the removal of this image, it isn鈥檛. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I disagree, and think it is perfectly appropriate, all things considered. We should also count the satellite photograph as it displays burning homes. Thus, we have at least two pieces of media for the 7 October resistance operation. That's more than enough. I find that you're engaged in WP:LAWYERING right now, and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the project's goals. The goal here is to create a coherent article chronicling an ongoing war. We are also allowed to ignore rules if they interfere with this ( WP:IGNOREALLRULES). In this case, a great chunk of the photos of the war being on the events of a single day undermines that goal. Your other arguments are also tendentious. You're claiming that most people won't view the video so it shouldn't count more. But where is this argument based in policy? Do you have any evidence proving that people don't watch videos on Wikipedia articles? And is viewing rate a consideration in media selection? Even if I grant that's true, those that do watch the video will get a far more intimate scene in Israel than anything in Gaza. JDiala ( talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Israel鈥揌amas_war&oldid=1221012007"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE