Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swordman97 (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 10 September 2024 (→Requested move 13 August 2024). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 13 August 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update to add other RS mentioning Gaza instead of Hamas in one way or another in at least one instance:
  • Save the Children: [7]: War in Gaza as coverage category title
  • Haaretz Israeli newspaper: [8]: Gaza war as coverage category title (RS per WP)
  • Relief Web: Relief Web: Gaza war
  • Crisis Group: [9]: Gaza war
  • Norwegian Refugee Council: [10]: Gaza conflict Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Israel-Gaza war. Both Israel-Hamas and Israel-Gaza are commonly used, but recently there has been a trend towards using Israel-Gaza. Israel-Gaza war is more accurate because the war is not just Hamas anymore. I oppose Gaza war (2023-present) because the name of the war should include Israel, per WP:NATURAL, Israel-Gaza war makes more sense than Gaza War. Mast303 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. The nominator has presented no evidence that the common name has changed, just that a small number of selected examples use "Israel-Gaza war", and it is clear that the most common and recognizable name among our readers is Israel-Hamas war.
In addition, the title has accuracy issues - Gaza has no army and is not fighting this war, while Hamas does and is.
Regarding the evidence the nominator does present, it is highly misleading. For example, they imply Reuters has shifted to "Israel-Gaza war". This is false; in the past week they have used one article with that term, compared to many (eg. 1, 2, 3) for Israel-Hamas war.
They also cite WP:CONSISTENCY, but the proposed title is not similar to the titles they claim it would be consistent with, and even if it was the wars are too dissimilar for consistency to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A commonly recognizable name per WP is a "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)," i.e. determined by RS not by readers.
As for accuracy, Gaza has no army indeed, but Hamas is not the only one fighting this war, as it is fighting alongside Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the Gaza Strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "Gaza war" blows away both, see here. nableezy - 05:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out the "-" character provides a clearer picture of what people are searching for. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Gaza War (2023-202x) would be best, but Israel-Gaza War is an improvement over the current title. It squares better with the facts and daily coverage on this topic is largely about Gaza. Israel-Hamas is one thread of the tapestry of this war, and arguably, one point of view; it is not the whole, but a part. The war includes more than the IDF, Hamas, and other factions fighting; Gaza has been largely reduced to rubble, reminiscent of WW2 photographs; its people are killed day in and day out, excused as "attacks on Hamas," and they run from place to place with what little they have left. Hospitals, schools, and infrastructure are bombed. Doctors and journalists are killed. History is erased. The Israel-Hamas War title focuses on the part, leaving out the other big pieces, and we know that leaving out information is one technique of lying. It continues a one-sided Western narrative, that it is a war on Hamas and civilians are, unfortunately, in the way, when the facts say otherwise.
GeoffreyA (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you wish to replace the "Western Narrative" with you narrative? PaPiker (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only wish for all narratives to be replaced with the truth. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your truth? PaPiker (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't believe in the notion of "one's truth," which is subjective. Rather, truth is the accurate mirroring, at a certain level of abstraction (quarks vs. atoms vs. humans), of Nature or the state of affairs out there. Unfortunately, the medium of human language is prone to a host of problems. Of course, Wikipedia has other principles to go by. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only "truth" that matters on Wikipedia is the one that is shown by reliable sources, and they consistently call it the Israel-Hamas War rather than the Israel-Gaza War. I wouldn't be opposed to creating a redirect that takes it to this page and including it the lead, though. Jdcomix (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. That's why I added that last sentence. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the war, and by the way, the article still mentions the humanitarian consequences. But if you are concerned about the coverage of humanitarian issues, see Gaza genocide, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), and the many other articles detailing Israeli war crimes. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, since the current title is a legal, philosophical and logical nonsense IMO. Correctly, wars are either between organisations (Government of Israel – Hamas) or between countries (Israel–Gaza). Mixing up the two feels badly incorrect. Also it smacks of propaganda (to give a feeling that the entire nation is fighting an organisation). Yet we wouldn't say "US – Ba'ath Party war" (rather, a US–Syria war), "US–Taliban war" (it was US–Afghanistan war; NATO–Taliban war would be correct, too), etc. In short, the proposed title sounds infinitely better than the current one, however widespread the latter may be. — kashmīrī TALK 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for all intents and purposes Hamas is Gaza. They started this war and that is who Israel is going after. If it was all of Gaza the Gazans would all be fighting back but they are not, it's just Hamas and its sycophants. PaPiker (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas is Gaza. Wow. Going by your logic, Israel is Likud. — kashmīrī TALK 23:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas has subverted and replaced the actual authority of Gaza, the Palestine Authority. Hamas is not a political party. Hezbollah is a functioning political party. PaPiker (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The main participants in this war are Hamas and Israel. Gaza is a territory, not a side in the conflict. I don’t see any reason to change the title to something less specific. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that Israel is not a territory? — kashmīrī TALK 23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a country with an army. Gaza is a territory controlled by a militant group but who’s de jure administrators are the PA. Personisinsterest (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I think that this seems like a considerably more accurate title than what we currently use for this page, given that the Hamas fighters are only a very small part of the targets. Also, this is not a war, just an extremely onesided massacre. David A (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for moving a page. There has to be consensus among reliable sources to change the name, and there simply isn't at the moment. Jdcomix (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamas is the primary target with the other smaller groups less so. The fact that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure and civilians as cover/shields makes said infrastructure/civilians no longer safe. Launch rockets from a hospital the hospital becomes a target, same thing with schools et al, coupled with Hamas not allowing some people to leave some areas. The people that can leave the area are leaving. PaPiker (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Theres going to be no consensus on this issue like what happened last time. Fundamentally the issue is that reliable sources are mostly using the term Israel-Hamas war some use Israel-Gaza war but not much in comparison to Israel-Hamas and I wouldn't include Al Jazeera I think we can all agree they are just a biased news source, we can look at Britannica's article on this event as an example of why we maybe shouldn't move the article. Also I encourage users to be as neutral as possible we can't be using original research I believe whats happening in Gaza is as bad as what happened in Dresden and Tokyo in WW2 but again these are just my opinions and doesn't mean that we can move the article because of said opinion. Black roses124 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is an ongoing war in the future if most non biased articles use the term Israel-Gaza war I would most definitely be in favor of moving the article. My opinions is everyone take their opinion on how ethical the war is and everyone just just look at what most non biased articles are calling it. Black roses124 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also when it comes to Al Jazeera I also support Palestine but a news agency needs to be independent you can be publicly funded and still be independent but Al Jazeera is not an example of that. They have clear position on this conflict their twitter account posts anti Semitic memes, they make videos minimizing the holocaust, they accuse YouTubers of working for Israel etc. One only needs to look at Al Jazeera controversies and criticism to see they are not independent and are not non biased. Black roses124 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and kashmiri. Country-organization doesn't make sense. CNN has also used "Israel-Gaza war". Outside of exact matches a lot of RS simply mention "war in Gaza". I would definitely prefer something like "Gaza War (2023-2024)" (we already have the precedent of Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War) since that is were the main action/destruction is taking place. That also saves us the headache of having to name the key players in the title. Similar articles are Vietnam War, Korean War, Malvinas War, Iraq War, etc. But the proposed title is still an improvement. - Ïvana (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you Gaza war seems the most sensible but again we need RS. Black roses124 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my and others' comments on past move requests. The Israel-Hamas framing is an NPOV and an accuracy concern and that outweighs the prevalence of its use in RS, especially since RS are moving toward an Israel-Gaza framing as is the nature of the war with parties other than Hamas taking an increasingly prominent role in the fighting and strategic calculus. Unbandito (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME would be the WP:NPOV move. "Israel-Gaza" and "Israel-Hamas" could both be argued are POV framings. However, the nominator is WP:CHERRYPICKING in favor of one of these POVs here. The "Israel-Hamas" framing actually appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, including in some of the RS nom cites. All/both POVs gripe about what they perceive as media bias. So let's stick to policy.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that a few of your citations for how outlets also use "Israel-Hamas war", are older articles than those cited by the nominator, so it seems that RS are changing over time from "Israel-Hamas war" to "Israel-Gaza war". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of those outlets, I spot-checked three and all three also use "the war in Gaza". The term is easy to find in Reuters The Guardian and The Conversation . Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the terms are often used interchangeably, hence the rejection of nom's assertion that there's a WP:COMMONNAME. Point still stands about the overall coverage titling. Longhornsg (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Israel–Gaza war, which is a bit hard to make sense out of considering that Gaza is an Israeli-occupied territory; it's also less widespread than the alternatives. However, I would support Gaza war (2023-present) (I think dates are preferable due to the relative recency of the other "Gaza wars"). This (or "war in Gaza") seem to be much more widespread than Israel–Hamas war based on Google trends, it's also more accurate considering that only a minority of Palestinian casualties are Hamas fighters. WikiFouf (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recognition of the State of Palestine
  have recognised the State of Palestine
  have not recognised the State of Palestine
Common use in English is a very skewed POV, anything supported by "common use" in English language sources is going to have a United States / UK / Canada / India (BJP) / etc. bias, so anything in common use in English has a systematic bias wrt this war. Searching war and Hamas حرب حماس gets me European media in Arabic, and half of them still call it the Gaza war even in those search results. Searching all three gets me The war between Hamas and Israel الحرب بين حماس وإسرائيل France24 , The war between Israel and Hamas الحرب بين إسرائيل وحماس Germany's DW , UK, USA, etc. despite the search being in Arabic. As far as I can tell, the current title is exclusively used by media from the minority of countries who refuse to recognize the State of Palestine. FourPi (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is en.wiki - of course we're biased toward English here. What's the issue with that, exactly? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained that above. I'm disputing the claim that "common name" its unbiased. Because, as you say, of course we're biased, we're biased towards points of view in the English speaking world. Too many people seem to think that "reliable sources in English say" = global consensus. It very much doesn't. FourPi (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME, English-Language sources are the scope here. If it helps, it’s a great annoyance for me in other cases, where the German phrasing is significantly different from the English ones. FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I didn't explain very clearly? My point was not that Arabic translation counts as WP:COMMONNAME. I was using that to show that common name in English has a severe WP:POV problem. Common name used in English skews severally pro-Israel / anti-Palestine But we can use translated names to pick which English common name reflects an unbiased view of the war. FourPi (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but that is not what the policy says. In the same way, I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel, particularly considering that arguably all 3 have a non-insignificant bias for one of the factions of the conflict. For example, the alleged commonname Gaza Genocide is arguably a NPOV violation against Israel, as there was no consensus that there was a genocide. Nevertheless, the move was (as of now) done. That term has almost no use in German and Hebrew (afaik).FortunateSons (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel
But you did actually cite hebrew and german-language sources in the move request of gaza genocide article to oppose the move in your large table. Stephan rostie (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because they can be used as an argument that it isn’t a genocide, but not as an argument that it isn’t called a genocide. In the same way, one could use Arabic sources to say that „X % of fighting is against groups other than Hamas“, but can’t be used to show that the name „Israel-Hamas war“ is improper, because non-English sources can be used for facts/claims but not for names. Im with you on the policy being less-than-intuitiv, tho FortunateSons (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons You are still missing the point. My point is NOT that Arabic can be used to determine common name. I probably explained it badly, but my point is that common name in English has a bias towards one side of the conflict. So we shouldn't use common name for this page. I'm not trying to find common name, I'm trying to show that common name is an inappropriate metric to use to name this page.
We should use a descriptive name instead. Or I honestly would support War of Iron Swords, it's attributable and too figurative to be inaccurate. FourPi (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense, sorry, I assumed it was used as an argument against a specific common name. The issue is that no one can agree on a descriptive title, because no one seems to agree on the scope or aims of the war. I’m hesitant to support a title attributable to the parties, because we would have to decide which, but it’s definitely an interesting suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mildly surprised I couldn't find it called a genocide in Hebrew, even B'Telem is being a bit timid on it, but I'm not sure how clearly it translates (I've not tried Local Call yet).
I actually think the official Israeli name "War of Iron Swords" would be a lot better than either of the common name options being debated, I would strongly support that as a name. It's attributable, and it's not pretending to give any substantive information about who or where, so it's not misleading. FourPi (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, outside the English-speaking world, there is a wide variance in the frequency of use. FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and copying my comment from the last time we had this discussion.The claim that Israel-Hamas War is a common name is bogus, if it were the common name you wouldnt see the Washington Post, The Guardian and so on all use Israel-Gaza war as the name of the conflict. As before, Gaza is what has been systematically bombed, Gaza's universities have been destroyed, Gaza's hospitals have been destroyed, Gaza's residents have been displaced and starved. This name is and has always been an attempt to push an Israeli POV that it is a war on Hamas. Gaza is what has had its water, electricity, and food cut off, Gaza and Gazans are what have been targeted throughout this campaign. Wikipedia is effectively pushing Israeli propaganda with this title, and it is non-neutral. Since this is a descriptive title, and not like people are falsely claiming the common name, it is required to abide by Wikipedia:NCENPOV: use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. The POV implications here are that Hamas is what is being attacked here, and that is and always has been POV-driven BS. None of these are common names, which requires an overwhelming majority of sources using a single name. They are all descriptive titles, and as a result we need a NPOV one. Not one that parrots the Israeli POV that this is a war against Hamas, despite all of Gaza being in ruin. nableezy - 05:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The strongest and clearest presentation of what should be the most important argument in this discussion. NPOV must override COMMONNAME in cases when they are opposed, or else Wikipedia can become overrun by systemic bias. Unbandito (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Both “Israel-Hamas” and “Israel-Gaza”/“Gaza war” are all used by reliable sources, however contrary to the beginning of the war which “israel-Hamas” was a somewhat acceptable term back then, the term by now doesn’t make much sense in the current circumstances anymore and reflect nothing than a political agenda (e.g US can declare war on putin or CCP for political agenda but that doesn’t mean that the war in reality/objectively is against russia/china). as by now there are full siege on Gaza not “full siege on Hamas”, a Gaza famine not “Hamas famine”, bombing of Gaza that destroyed or damaged 70% of entire Gaza’s building not “70% of hamas buildings”, and a Gaza genocide that most scholars believe israel has/is committing against all Gaza not a “Hamas genocide”. All now make very little sense to label as “Israel-Hamas conflict” anymore contrary to the beginning of the war. Adding to this older legit arguments that the Palestinian resistance factions fighting in Gaza are not just Hamas but range from the secular marxist as PFLP to salafist islamist as PIJ who are all fighting in one Palestinian front, that Hamas is the political party that rules Gaza government (which itself doesn’t mean every government employee “is hamas”) so it would be like calling it “Likud-Hamas war”, and that “Gaza war”/“israel-Gaza war” would be in correspondence with earlier existing articles (e.g 2009 Gaza war, 2014 Gaza war, 2019 Gaza war, Gaza–Israel conflict, etc). All combined leave very little sense to keep using the current title, especially by now.
Stephan rostie (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@웬디러비: WP:!VOTE - Ïvana (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2014, the "Gaza war" was the same thing, just check the list of belligerents. Israel invaded and said that the aim was to destroy tunnels and stop rockets (sound familiar?). "Gazan civilian casualty estimates range between 70 percent by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65 percent by the United Nations' (UN) Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part on Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36 percent by Israeli officials.(sound familiar?) Israel's "100-eyes-for-an eye spiral of violence" (sound familiar?).
OK, "only" a month and a half and no hostages so that's different but what a f'in waste of time, cos we were right back there again in 2021 and now once more in 2023/24, same adversaries, same Netanyahu, plus la change. This time around, blow Gaza to bits, destroy its hospitals, its schools, mosques, literally trash the place and kill 1 in 50 of the population, while still trying to claim it's all about Hamas. If Israel cannot completely do for Hamas (a likely outcome), then Israel can just colonially occupy and settle the place like they already illegally do in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
The very least we might do is acknowledge that Gaza is a target. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's "not done" to acknowledge that Gaza is a target. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is not a war only on Gaza's ruling political party, it is a war on Gaza. Nobody is arguing that only Hamas members have been targeted. Multiple sources have used Israel-Gaza war, or simply Gaza war. None of the fighting has occurred in Israel, so Gaza war seems appropriate. 20WattSphere (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas was the "main antagonist" for Israel (as it were), in all of these conflicts (as the governing body of the strip), so all of these were just as much "Israel-Hamas wars" based on the same shakey premise that is being maintained for the current title. Nothing fundamental has changed between these conflicts, so there is no obvious reason to switch for this conflict to an inconsistent and simultaneously imprecise and ambiguous descriptive title. The fuller truth is that the current title fails on numerous other levels as well, as elucidated by many editors further up this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! So it would be much more precise, accurate and correct to rename all of them to Israel-Hamas wars and then differentiate them by the year, etc.
What is Gaza? There is no war with Gaza. Israel left Gaza on its own accord. To say there's a war with Gaza is a complete misnomer.
Thank you for agreeing with me. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Of its own accord” is quite a euphemistic way of saying “putting it under full siege, controlling all aspects of its population including heir registry, resources, borders, water, and airspace, while continuing to commit crimes against its nationals int he West Bank, forcing them to live under occupation, settler pogroms, deprivation of rights, and administrative detention” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. If anyone lives under occupation, it's the people of Gaza under the occupation of Hamas. Can other religions be practiced freely there? Can people be openly homosexual? Israel is liberating Gaza from the rule of Hamas. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity also has a small presence in Gaza Strip per sources. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is doing a mighty fine job "liberating Gaza," flattening it to the ground. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also said "based on the same shakey premise", but those past events are not named that for good reason – and there's every reason to be consistent here. Since you're ignoring every single serious point being made here, however, it seems you have little interest in properly engaging with the naming discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all. My vote isn't disqualified just because you don't like it. Sorry to inform you, but this isn't Iskypedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s disqualified because you’re wrong. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MaskedSinger, Wikipedia is not a vote. !Votes (read as: not-vote) are weighted by the quality of the arguments presented, not by the numbers alone. And I would argue "There is no war with Gaza." is absolutely not a valid argument. Your !vote isn't worthy of being counted because it made no effort to even allude to Wikipedia procedures, and instead was based entirely on the mind-boggling assertion that Gaza isn't even under attack. I can't imagine any closer determining that such a !vote holds any weight.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your preferred approach, why not name it the Likud-Hamas war, then? 20WattSphere (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: An extremely regretful oppose, but Israel–Gaza war should refer to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip rather than the entirety of the war from 2023/10/07 to the present-day. This is what seems to be the most neutral reception from what I do see anyway. Josethewikier (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Gaza War or something similar, with the year (either "2023 to present" or "2023"): best reflects the accuracy and truthfulness of this very war. Josethewikier (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Josethewikier: Why would there be two separate "named war" titles for different, overlapping periods of the same conflict? It's the same war, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamas is the political party that has been causing problems for Israel, rather than Gazans. Naming the article with "Gaza" incorrectly places the fault of the initial attack of 10/07 on "Gaza" rather than the accurate Hamas. Israel remains the way it does because the country/state voted Likud in; Hamas should be seen differently from "Gaza" as Gazans did not elect Hamas in in the last 18 years, and none of the war crimes are the fault of Gazans and/or Gaza. Josethewikier (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamas attacks did not happen 'in a vacuum', Guterres says
    ""It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation," Guterres said." Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could say the same for the Israeli people, they were just luckier that its allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help even from its closest of allies. Point is that this remains a war between Israel and Hamas, just that the victims are predominantly Gazan civilians caught between yet another Israeli invasion and much crossfire from both sides (though mostly Israeli). This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents. Josethewikier (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help What Palestinian government? There was no Palestinian government in 1948 or 1967. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you're correct, and I never meant that. Compare Israel vs Palestine in the last 30 years or so, and their governments; anyway that is not relevant. If someone convinces me that a change in the title benefits the truth-telling of the atrocities the residents of Gaza face and have faced in the last 317 days specifically, I will retract my opposition. Josethewikier (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, calling it "Israel-Hamas" war suggests it's a war between Israel and Hamas. Calling it "Gaza war" suggests it's a war in Gaza. Which of the two do you consider more accurate? Levivich (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologise this is turning into an argument. I sincerely request for convincing factors and not rhetorical questions. Asking me questions do not guide me towards the truth. Josethewikier (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accuracy is a convincing factor. Which of the titles (current or proposed) is more accurate is not a rhetorical question. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I'd disagree with had nothing at all to do with Gaza. They lived on the border of Gaza. This does NOT mean that what happened to them was in any way justified, but they were targeted because they lived on the border of Gaza, which is something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents.
    if the above is inaccurate, please point any and all errors out; else, do not misquote me. Josethewikier (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1,100 victims is who I'm talking about; they lived on the border of Gaza, that's not "nothing at all to do with Gaza," it's something to do with Gaza. They got attacked because they were next to Gaza. And the attack came from Gaza. That's all something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct and I do apologise for the above statement. It's definitely not as straightforward as that, but I do get your point and agree with much of it. Josethewikier (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The current title is ok, although various titles are found in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposed title (second choice) orGaza War or equally Gaza War (2023–present) (first choice) or another title that names Gaza. By now the main reason the war is notable is the mass casualties and destruction, not the underlying motives or the names of the belligerents. These details can go in the text of the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent comments have persuaded me that "Israel-Gaza war" could make it appear that Gaza is a belligerent. I'm not against "Israel-Gaza war" but I don't think it's an improvement either. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make things clearer for the closer: I do not support a move to "Israel-Gaza war" at this time as it could appear POV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems pretty straightforward that Israel-Gaza war is the term to use here, first because it is not merely a military conflict between Hamas and Israel but also other Palestinian factions, and second and more important because the entirety of the Gazan population and area has been subjected to the war.
As noted by others, the change also follows WP:COMMONTERM and WP:NAMECHANGES guidelines to accurately reflect how it is generally referred to now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. both "israel-Hamas" and "Israel-Gaza"/"Gaza war" are WP:COMMONNAME, and both are sufficiently and equally used by all reliable sources. Contrary to Longhornsg and probably everyone argue with WP:COMMONNAME for "Israel-Hamas war", google trends shows that both "Israel Hamas war" and "Gaza war" are roughly equal, it in fact shows that "Gaza war" is slightly more frequent and used now than "Israel Hamas war". Thus the COMMONNAME argument for "Israel Hamas" is void. I had explained my reason for why should the article be renamed "Gaza war" above, so I am not rewriting it again. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm didn’t know that I now change my opinion I support the change to “Gaza war”. Black roses124 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t no if it is wrong to do that, but i think everyone who cited WP:COMMONNAME here should be aware of that: @Makeandtoss @Longhornsg @Clayoquot @Unbandito@Nableezy@Figureofnine@Selfstudier@DecafPotato@TheJoebro64@Ainty Painty@IntrepidContributor@WillowCity Stephan rostie (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. "Gaza War" has merit due to its neutrality and consistency with former article titles. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly I’m against “Israel-Gaza” war due to POV but Gaza war is no POV just identifying geographical location of the war. Black roses124 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a simple solution but a good one. Props to Stephan rostie. This is one of those situations where you smack your head and say "why didn't I think of that?" Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Gaza War" is arguably more NPOV than "Israel–Gaza War" in fact. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Been on board with that from the start as well. nableezy - 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really in what sense? Black roses124 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense that "Israel–Gaza War", as an A–B construction, might tend to imply that Gaza is a belligerent in the conflict rather than the location of the conflict. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is determined by use in reliable sources, not Google searches (which are WP:USERG). DecafPotato (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I prefer Gaza war but above all, support any of the proposed changes away from Israel-Hamas war. Unbandito (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gaza War or 2023 Gaza War or similar. As others have said, "Gaza War" is a widespread name for this war too. First, the examples at WP:COMMONNAME demonstrate that for a name to be the "common name," there has to be no widely recognizable alternative which is not cumbersome or overly formal. But that is not the case here: the alternatives to "Israel–Hamas War" proposed here are not used negligibly in comparison to "Israel–Hamas War", so the latter is not a common name. Indeed these alternatives are used interchangeably with "Israel–Hamas War", e.g. by Reuters, which others have shown using "Israel–Gaza War" and uses "Gaza war" here (and which has a record of neutral reporting on this topic).
Since "Israel–Hamas War" is not the common name, the alternatives used in RS are at least viable options for the title. "Gaza War" or one of the variations on that is best for a few reasons: (1) it is consistent with the titles of previous armed conflicts between Hamas in Gaza and Israel, conflicts which RS identify as forming a continuous pattern; (2) it reflects the highly localized nature of the warfare; and (3) it represents a neutral middle ground between "Israel–Hamas War" and "Israel–Gaza War." ByVarying | talk 03:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: it is daylight clear this is not simply a war on Hamas, but a broader war on Gaza (or Palestinians in general, including the natives of West Bank and Golan Heights). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gaza war As the source analyses above have demonstrated, neither "Israel-Hamas war" nor "Israel-Gaza war" are clear commonames, so that is not my main point of concern. Instead, the problem with the title is that many other groups besides Hamas have taken part in the conflict in Gaza, so the title is innacurate. However, "Israel-Gaza war" is sub-optimal, as it may seem to imply that Gaza is actually a combatant. Instead, we should title "Gaza war", which accurately reflects the scope of the article. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the source analysis above, Israel-Hamas is the commonname and arguably also the optimal descriptive title, naming the two primary combatant groups. There is no overwhelming use of any other name.
Of the titles that include Gaza, Gaza War (in whichever variety) is probably optimal. While it doesn’t geographically include the area in which the Casus belli occurred (which was in the Gaza Envelope, but not within Gaza proper), it does solve the consistency issue: Gaza is a territory, that may or may not (depending on where the editor lives) be part of the State of Palestine, but it’s not a State. Making a title State vs. Territory is less consistent than “entity controlling combatants on side one vs. entity controlling the majority of combatants on side two”, which we have now. Nevertheless, the exclusion of Oct. 7 makes Gaza war a significantly worse title than the current one, by excluding both areas of combat (thereby being worse as a descriptive title), and lacking the necessary common use. Due to the significant combat outside of Gaza, consistency with the other Gaza wars would be undesirable because of their diverging nature.
There is no consensus among RS that the primary target of the war is all Palestinian people, and as such, there can’t be a title based on that premise without deviating from the WP:PAGS. Therefore, Israel-Hamas is the title that is most consistent with the way other pages are titled, such as War against the Islamic State also being States vs. non-state actor. FortunateSons (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur in that "Israel-Hamas" no longer accurately describes the scope of the war, since Israel is fighting other groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. However, "Gaza War" doesn't really describe it accurately either, since the war is being fought on more fronts than just Gaza, such as the West Bank and Lebanon.
But I can't really think of a title that's both concise and fully describes the scope. Benpiano800 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "a lot has changed since then and RS have converged to use this name"; what an incredibly slanted way to re-open this discussion. Again. For the 10th time in the past year.
RS have not "converged" on that name for the conflict, as plenty high-quality RS still use "Israel-Hamas war" or its variants:
Moreover, despite the opener's claim, nothing has really changed regarding RS usage since the last RFC in May, and the one before that in January - the same sources that are using the term "Israel-Gaza War" now (BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, Al Jazeera...) are the same sources being cited as using the term now. Consensus can change, but there are no "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" being raised here.
RS publications aside, "Israel Hamas war" continues to lead "Israel Gaza war" in English searche interest worldwide by a fair margin, as it has since the beginning of the conflict. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the terms people are searching for, "Gaza war" is more common than "Israel-Hamas war" or "Israel-Gaza war" and its share has been growing for the past few months. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which shows Gaza war to be the most searched for thing in the majority of the world, including universally across Europe and the Middle East, and prevalently across South Africa, compared to quite a bit of Southeast Asia, but otherwise largely just the US, India, a few countries in central Africa for the current term. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The past 90 days shows the recent trend better. Gaza war is globally prevalent in that period. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simpler, graphically accurate, and easier on the brain. (Indeed, I'd expect many to be searching purely on "Gaza" because that's what this war is all about. I checked, and for the sake of interest, yes, Gaza eclipses the other terms: [11]) GeoffreyA (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose : For the 1000th time, no. Per above. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per the sources OP has given, Israel-Gaza war is very common. I've always believed that the current name is a one-sided term which serves only to mask the w:Gaza genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. It is an ideological term and ignores all realities on the ground and is only used by supporters of Israel to frame the war as something that it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Gaza War", with or without dates, is my first choice; I also support Israel–Gaza War. I support moving the page away from Israel–Hamas war to one of those two other titles. If the term Israel–Hamas War is not cleanly used overwhelmingly more than other names (and it isn't, as numerous reliable sources using terms like Gaza war and Israel–Gaza war go to show), then it isn't a common name, and per WP:NCENPOV, we should use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Israel–Hamas war is a POV name that characterizes the war as exclusively happening between the nation-state of Israel and the Hamas organization. As that is not a consensus interpretation in academic secondary literature, with a considerable literature holding the war is against persons in Gaza beyond the Hamas organization, it is a POV interpretation and name and should be avoided for the article name. Gaza war neutrally describes the primary geographic field of the war. That very reputable reliable sources also use the term Gaza war is a reassurance about the suitability of the term. Comments that assert Israel–Hamas War is the common name have not convinced me, sometimes for the evidence (age of cited articles or to the language used therein, irrespective of titles or tags), sometimes for inattention to Gaza war as an alternative and not just Israel–Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - On every news site I look at, the top story about the war is in the West Bank. The current title is bad, but Gaza is even less accurate. Common name is the wrong strategy for this page, we need an accurate descriptive title. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly something attributable, like the IDF operation name, it takes a side, but it's clearly attributable, so it is less misleading than a title that looks factual and neutral but isn't. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the obvious POV issues and weak recognisability of codenames, it's established bad practice to use them, per WP:CODENAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something that infuriates me about this article is that it treats Israel as if it was a battlefield in a state comparable to Gaza's, when that is far from the case. Life standards in Israel are pretty much unscathed; contrast that with the systemic destruction of Gazan society, and you will see why I have such strong feeling about this narrative given by the article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it's a problem that it makes it seem as though both Israel and Hamas are equally at war with one another. There's a reason why Russian invasion of Ukraine is called Russian invasion of Ukraine, not the Russia-Ukraine War. And even then, Ukraine actually is fighting back on Russian soil, but it's still obvious that one side is invading the other. The same is obviously true here. This is another reason why I rank "Gaza War" above "Israel-Gaza" war, but I like your suggestion to emphasize the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as the main page about the subject.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gaza War as a first preference as "the war in Gaza" is what I most commonly hear this war described as, both from the media and from politicians, and it avoids the above bickering over whether to call it the Israel-Hamas war or the Israel-Gaza war. Very easy to argue it's the common name. I also still support the proposed title (Israel-Gaza war), as it makes more sense for both halves of the title to be polities/locations, but I suspect that proposal is less likely to get a consensus. I will be pasting this !vote in both subsections because Makeandtoss requested "Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well?"  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am unconvinced that the current title is no longer the common name per many prior arguments. However, even were that to be the case, it would establish that there's no longer consensus for WP:COMMONNAME (it certainly has not established that the proposed title has consensus). If that is the case, "non-neutral but common names" under WP:NPOVNAME would be impossible (no accepted common name, neutral or otherwise) and thus WP:NDESC would take over: the Israeli declaration of war specifies Hamas as the target of the war - one of the few explicit declarations of war since 1945 and thus easier than most conflicts to objectively describe. The current title is accurately descriptive of that. That there are other groups involved (whose level of involvement is certainly different) does not change the fact that it is a declared war by Israel against Hamas specifically, and changing its description on the basis of whether one thinks the involvement of other parties is significant enough is ultimately a subjective judgment call, not a basis for a title. (Edit to add: this also provides a very convenient example of natural disambiguation in consideration of WP:NATDIS, in the way that iterations and variations of "Gaza war" do not.) Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Benjitheijneb. The current title describes the conflict in the best way. "Gaza war" and all of it's alternates do not. Swordman97 talk to me 20:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common ground

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

I don't think we need dates here. This is the biggest war of them all and does not need to be disambiguated Abo Yemen✉ 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only conflicting point here is “Gaza war” usually refers to the 2008 one, since it is he first full scale war it was often just called the “Gaza war”, otherwise I completely agree The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Stephan rostie (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Black roses124 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. I have now updated my vote to be in support of "Gaza war". Gödel2200 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for Gaza war. I would not capitalize "war" because it's not a proper noun but a descriptive term, but I'd support "Gaza War" too. With or without dates, but preference for without dates. I'm neutral on "Israel-Gaza war", I don't support it, but I don't oppose it either. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (uninvolved in RM). While I support Gaza War as title per WP:PRIMARY, the ongoing battle in gaining consensus for Israel–Gaza war that has failed before and appears to be failing again is the clear issue here. Regardless of the arguments for/against, the current RM proposal remains too close to Israel–Hamas war, which is also a WP:COMMONNAME, and becomes a dispute over one CN and another. However, based on the reason for opposing the current RM, I struggle to believe this proposed title has any better chance in passing either at present.
From skimming through the Oppose !votes, most of the arguments are based on the fact that the war is against Hamas and not a war against Gaza. Which while I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars, given Hamas governs Gaza; Longhornsg raises a very valid point, somewhat unintentionally here. Both "Israel–Hamas war" and "Israel–Gaza war" are arguably POV-framing titles, an argument being reiterated as an oppose vote ironically. The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs. Without getting into semantics of where Gaza starts and Hamas ends, there is seemingly no moving forward between that current stale mate.
The only hope is that the current Oppose !votes are more accepting over a title that describes a war in Gaza, as opposed to against Gaza. The fact that arguments against moving to a POV title in order to remain at a POV title would ideally be acknowledged by all here at a minimum. Likewise with supporting one POV title over another. We are clearly never going to find common ground in this matter otherwise.
The only realistic issue with the title "Gaza War" would be based on October 7 context, which could simply be moved to part of the Background section, given everything after this has been based in Gaza, not elsewhere. I'm also excluding "Other confrontations" from this, as per description of the section itself, these confrontations are disconnected (geographically at least) from the war in the Gaza strip, and only included in the article for context. Apologies for the long-winded reply, but based on the opening question, I think some further analysis was very much due here.
CNC (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor: "The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs." The war is actually not against Hamas, but against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and etc; all of which are based in Gaza. So I do not think there is a POV here. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with this and argued it before, hence my point prior to this "I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars", but the CN counter-argument is that it doesn't matter as Hamas is considered the primary target. There are two POV-based CNs by default, as they are literally opposing viewpoints – whether intentional or not, or whether one is more accurate than the other or not – which is why I believe Gaza war is the only correct NPOV title here. You only need to skim through the RM to see that this is the issue imo: supporters believe the proposed title is the accurate CN, Opposers believe the current title is the accurate CN. CNC (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think whoever is going to close this move request will get gray hair by the end of it while trying to determine the consensus. Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either/or is fine with me. Prefer dates for clarity but I don't think they're strictly necessary. Unbandito (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Gaza War. I do not support Israel–Gaza war. JOEBRO64 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a title move to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" as first preference. If not, I would support moving the title to "Israel-Gaza war". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Israel-Gaza war, oppose Gaza War (WP:NATURAL).
Mast303 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you !voted twice? Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is under the Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Common ground subsection where folks supporting the move in the main section clarify if they also support a move to Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, apologies. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gaza War as a first preference as "the war in Gaza" is what I most commonly hear this war described as, both from the media and from politicians, and it avoids the above bickering over whether to call it the Israel-Hamas war or the Israel-Gaza war. Very easy to argue it's the common name. I also still support the proposed title (Israel-Gaza war), as it makes more sense for both halves of the title to be polities/locations, but I suspect that proposal is less likely to get a consensus. I will be pasting this !vote in both subsections because Makeandtoss requested "Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well?"  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gaza war as an NPOV solution. The status quo is clearly POV and ought to be changed. Gaza war actually appears to have overtaken Israel Hamas war as the WP:Common name. Out of the WP:Criteria I don’t see any that favour Israel-Hamas war. I suppose you could argue consistency with other wars in the region which have the two main combatants, but there’s also Gulf war and Iraq war which use geography. There’s too much WP:I don't like it or I like it in the responses Kowal2701 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gaza War or Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64, Levivich, Nableezy and others. Israel-Hamas war is no longer WP:COMMONNAME, so it should be changed accordingly. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas militants killed

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

To my understanding, the short answer is that no one can reliably say right now. Unbandito (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to IDF, 17,000+ Hamas militants were killed per https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-it-razed-over-50-tunnels-in-gaza-egypt-border-area-in-past-week/. It is mentioned in the infobox. There is no total data from Hamas, they only announce some deaths of their militants. Pachu Kannan (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it only in the article notes, not in the infobox on the top right. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their last update from April 2024 was less than 20% of their militants killed per https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-casualties-toll-65e18f3362674245356c539e4bc0b67a. It is also mentioned in the infobox. Pachu Kannan (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers of Palestinians and Hamas militants supposedly killed is incredibly blurred. Doubt the actual number either way will ever be accurate. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should include the reported numbers with source attribution. I can't understand how such important data is still missing in the infobox. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We can use the ToI figure with attribution unless and until we have better sources. Alaexis¿question? 18:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to see the figure of 17,000 is complete rubbish but I've no objection to editors sticking it in with an attribution to the IDF. NadVolum (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be stated that it is solely Israel’s claim, as well as the reasons that it should be doubted, for example the IDF listing single digit age children as “Hamas militants”
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-mideast-latest-06-07-2024-cbc1aa84bc30b5f27dc1823155448f86 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifier

@Josethewikier: The addition of this qualifier relating to Gaza casualties while the RFC is ongoing is problematic; especially considering that the RFC will result in a clear no consensus for the addition of this qualifier. [12] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for the formal close. It has been requested so not that long to wait. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC's closure is taking too long and the inserter of this redundant sentence has deleted their WP account. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind one bit the removal of it, however, I believe it provides better concision and precision, without any downsides. Josethewikier (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Josethewikier: There is no consensus for its inclusion, neither here on this talk page, nor on the soon-to-be-closed RFC discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware. The upsides are obvious (concision and precision) and the downsides less so. Ultimately, I do not have an opinion of my own, and I will respect what any current or future consensuses feel regarding its inclusion (or not). Josethewikier (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding US to the Belligerents section

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

There have been very long discussions in the last two years about whether providing weapons should count as belligerent on Wikipedia, with a clear consensus against it. Jeppiz (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Military supplies are not a cause to insert a country as a belligerent; same for Iran's partial military supplies to Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the difference here would be that Iran supplied Hamas before the war, while the USA is continuing to give Israel the bombs it uses to blow up kids, even while participating in sham “ceasefire talks” or claims of pressuring Israel like in rafah The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some evidence out there that the US is more deeply involved in the war than simply providing weapons and intelligence, but it is certainly not something the US government has admitted to. I've seen people make compelling arguments off-wiki that if you read between the lines on particular articles and statements they suggest deeper US involvement. Whether or not the evidence of that involvement will be given any weight in reliable sources is yet to be seen, though I expect more information about US involvement will emerge as time goes on, particular after the war ends or draws down to a less violent phase. To put it simply, I think it's something to keep an eye on but I'd find it hard to justify including at this moment based on the information I'm aware of that is presently available. Unbandito (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RS that describes the US as fighting in this war. Levivich (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuseirat rescue operation

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

Schools

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

It's fully appropriate to insert these in so long as you state that the IDF said it and not authoritatively in Wikipedia's voice. Also, you alone don't decide Wikipedia's position on the credebility of the IDF. You may not think the IDF is credible but yo the best of my knowledge no Wikipedia policy demands we treat it as an inherently unreliable source. RM (Be my friend) 13:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank

RS are increasingly reporting that the Israeli settlements expansion and land theft in the West Bank are being carried out under the cover of this war, not to mention Israel's latest crusade there. So does anyone still have objections to its re-inclusion in the lede as the last sentence phrased as: "The war has also spilled over into the West Bank, which has seen an increase in Israeli settlements expansion, as well as settler attacks and military raids, which has killed hundreds of Palestinians." [14][15] [16] Makeandtoss (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another ref, this has become a significant feature by now and should be in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not inherently opposed to that, but we should also mention Israeli casualties outside Gaza and it’s envelope if we do so. FortunateSons (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already mention Hezbollah-Israel attacks very briefly in a sentence, so I would be willing to leave out the "which has killed hundreds of Palestinians" part either as a separate comment or completely. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a handful of sources on this doesn't quite make it DUE for inclusion in the lead. It seems these sources would be best included in the section on 'Regional Effects' first. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the section Israel–Hamas war#West Bank and Israel needs beefing up first and that will not be too hard to do, as apart from this handful of sources, there are plenty more dealing with this issue, and the cited MOS:LEADREL says "should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the 'West Bank' section under 'Other confrontations' is primarily about the war itself - attacks, strikes, etc. The moving in of Israeli settlers is more of an effect the war is having on the region.
I'm not getting into a tit-for-tat citation of selections of policy with someone who's been around as long as you have. The lead summarizes the body. The lead should be nowhere near as long as the body. And per MOS:LEADNO, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject." If there's only 1-2 sentences on a topic in the body, it doesn't need 1-2 sentences in the lead. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave the settlements part out, that can be handled separately. (NYT today) "Since Hamas’s surprise Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which killed about 1,200 people, more than 580 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank, according to the United Nations, as Israel has ramped up military raids there and violence by extremist Jewish settlers has increased." (NYT again today) "Violence has surged in the West Bank amid Israel’s war in Gaza. Israeli forces say they are fighting off efforts to move arms into the West Bank, but Jewish settlers have also escalated attacks and expanded settlements." and (AJ) Israel’s war on the West Bank
Pretty sure I can rustle up a few paras for the article body based on these and other sources. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine - by all means. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't neutral. Some of those killed are members of various Palestinian armed groups [17], e.g., in the latest escalation The Jenin Battalion, a Palestinian militant group, said six of its members were killed. Also we should say "580 Palestinians and 15 Israelis". Alaexis¿question? 08:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for a generalization not a description of a discrete event. There should be an OCHA West Bank report covering all this shortly and then I will make up the article body and see where that points to for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These figures for West Bank deaths are by now close a hundred higher, since August has been particularly lethal. It is not clear whether the following adds the 16 Palestinians killed in the last day and a half.

Since the Gaza war began on 7 October last year, 19 Israelis – soldiers and civilians – have been killed in attacks on the West Bank. Over the same period, more than 650 Palestinians – the numbers of militant fighters and civilians within this figure are not clear, but it includes 143 children, according to the UN – have been killed by Israeli security forces as well as by extremist Israeli settlers, whom the Israeli Shin Bet security agency says are using terrorism to seize Palestinian land. Julian Borger and Sufian Taha Israeli forces kill at least 10 Palestinians in West Bank raids and strikes 28 August 2024 Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

W/r/t settlement expansion, here are some good sources: WaPo, NPR, older NPR, AP, another AP, BBC, another BBC, AJ, older AJ. HTH, Levivich (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another BBC article. Levivich (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More material on the situation in the West Bank and possible motivations: [18] GeoffreyA (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of 'Eye for an eye' and 'Two wrongs don't make a right' in See also section

I and another editor was reverted when we tried to remove these links from See also. Is it appropriate to include Two wrongs don't make a right (is Hamas wrong, or right? therefore, is Israel's response right, or wrong?) and Eye for an eye (is it really that simple to class this very long dispute under this Bible verse?) links under the section? — Karnataka 01:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRESERVE, "Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.
As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. Any facts or ideas that would belong in the "finished" article should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.
If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page.
Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider: ..."
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re this revert of yours, you may want to review WP:PRESERVE (“Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider…”, blanking and removal of content, as well as WP:SEEALSO (“Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense”). Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complete non sequitur. The editor clearly believes the links don't belong in the "finished" article, which is why they removed them. The admonishment to leave a comment on the talk page as a response to a comment they left on the talk page is baffling. And yes, the links are clearly inappropriate. --Un assiolo (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links are obviously not appropriate. It's WP:1AM, not even worth discussing. Levivich (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that essay is quite long and I’m not sure which part you are referring to. At the very top it reads “Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.” You may want to take a look at Silent majority as well. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knock it off. This is disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we aren’t taking it personal. Per WP:Seealso:
”Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics ...”
Different people can have their own opinions though. You can have your own opinion, one which disagrees with that of mine, of course; I’m not saying that my opinion is absolutely right. I can easily be wrong. But I really don’t think my common sense is “disruptive”. That two phrases are exactly what will come up to my mind when talking about "war". Anyway, I’m not interested in arguing with an admin, and I’d better stay out of all these. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DuplicateReferences tag

Is this addition really necessary? Can't they just be moved to the talk page? M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the tag. Having a list of duplicated refs and showing how many times they're used makes it really easy for someone to come along and clean up even a handful of them. And it's not really disruptive to the article, since it loads collapsed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1245067881"