Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Requested move 10 January 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. There is already an ongoing discussion. – robertsky (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---

2023 Israel–Hamas war → ? – How should the title "Israel-Hamas war" be disambiguated?

A: 2023 Israel–Hamas war
B: Israel–Hamas war
C: Israel–Hamas war (2023–2024)
D: Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)

Note that there is a consensus from January 2024 for "Israel-Hamas war", while WP:CCC, this discussion should not reopen that discussion and should instead focus on the aspect for which there is no consensus BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• B; this is the primary topic for Israel-Hamas war and so disambiguation is not required. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close. There is an ongoing discussion about article title at Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Close_this_RM_and_create_a_new_section where other titles are being actively discussed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  We have an extremely recent consensus on what name to use; I understand some editors disagree with that consensus, but it’s too soon to reopen the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  There was nothing even remotely resembling consensus in the closed section (your preferred option was favoured by barely 35% of editors), and the discussion still continues. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close per @Kashmiri. Parham wiki (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close of non neutral RFC. There is an ongoing discussion above which should continue.Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Selfstudier: This was not an RfC. Parham wiki (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

True. Right result tho. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Close this RM and create a new section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Comment - I think we should close this discussion- which is getting extremely unwieldy with no consensus whatsoever- and split it up into the two (merged the third into the second) points of contention:

1. What should we call the war? Currently there are three proposals:

A. Israel–Hamas War, currently used but of NPOV contention due to the contended point of mixing in a state entity with a political party.

B. Israel–Gaza War, which is what I support due to the wider presence of the war being against Gaza as a whole.

C. Israel–Palestine War, which is what some editors have been suggesting due to violence in the West Bank and Israel itself, but I disagree due to the lack of the Palestinian Authority/Fatah fighting.

D. Added by Kashmiri: Gaza War along with one of the date options below; this format would align with Vietnam War, Iraq War, Kosovo War, etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK

2. What should be the date represented?

a. 2023, before the title. I see a lot of people propose to just keep the past year, which seems inaccurate to me.

b. (2023–present), after the title What I think is the best option.

c. (2023–2024), after the title Suggested as well, but on a bleak note, who knows for sure that this war is going to end in 2024?

d. No date at all. Some say that this war is so massive and unique that no date is needed, the same way we don't have a date for Russian Invasion of Ukraine. I don't know how true this is.

We then can decide on a consensus for both parts (or figure out if there is any consensus at all). I'm sure latter we can figure out a consensus, even if the first might take a longer time. Thoughts? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW:

Good idea to split it, but we now seem to be having a discussion about a discussion?

Wouldn't initials be easier P, G, and H be easier than Arbitrary letters?

Irtapil (talk)

Using the same uppercase alphabet for all three options will get confusing. As for the first part, the war itself, I slightly prefer C ("Palestine") over B ("Gaza"), while A is right out.

Bombing a city and saying it's because you're at war with one party in that region is not usual. We don't refer to most other wars that way. It's not the Vietcong war, the Republicans war, the Taliban war. There are exceptions (Napoleon comes to mind) but it's certainly extraordinary and not NPOV.

That's way more important than specifics around the date representation, which I don't care about one hundredth as much. However, it's not the first time there has been war there. "(2023–2024)" is good, or "(ongoing)".

(Hence why I supported H2 above.)

Jikybebna (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jikybebna: Wouldn't initials be easier P, G, and H be easier?

Irtapil (talk)

@Kashmiri: I nearly added GW for Gaza War but your examples actually talkied me out of it. I doubt Vietnam War or Iraq War are used by many people from there? They are commonly used in English, but that is a problem. And I expect the Kosovo War is called the War of Independrnce there? Those names are not as bad as "Israel-Hamas war" but they are not ideal.

Irtapil (talk)

@Irtapil: But this is English Wikipedia, and so we don't call the WW2 Eastern Front, the Great Patriotic War, even though it's so called in Russia. Predominantly, we use the most common English name – and based on the English usage and convention, exemplified by the above examples, we can assume that the ongoing Middle East war will probably be known as "the Gaza War" (or, the 2nd Gaza War, etc.). You might recall that the US was officially fighting the Communist Viet Cong throughout the 1960s, that was the propaganda and media messaging at the time; yet today, it's known in the English world simply as the Vietnam War. Hence my proposal re. Gaza War. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment Agreed with splitting the discussion up. There at least appears to be overall consensus for 1A (Israel-Hamas war) with a comfortable majority of editors supporting sticking with that, so I'm not sure further discussion of that is needed. Part 2 there is no consensus for but I would say B is the most likely compromise option to pass. I agree 2A shouldn't be seen as a good option- currently 2024 Dahieh attack is absurdly described in its infobox as "part of 2023 Israel–Hamas war". Part 3 is the least important one but in the event of 2B being chosen I would also suggest 3B as "2023–present Israel–Hamas war" feels unwieldy to me. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This split would make much more sense. Above, many commenters only addressed one of these three questions, and possibly voted for an option due to strong views on one of these questions but not the other two (so that their preference on one of the questions can reach consensus). However, for question 3, I think MoS and common practice are unanimous: if it's a single year, it goes before; if it's a range, it goes after and in parentheses (and "no date" is redundant with question 2). In other words, Q3 shouldn't be asked because the correct answer straightforwardly follows from what people pick on question 2. DFlhb (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that the discussion should be split into two or three RM discussion done in succession. We should take up question 3 first (actually skip question per DFlhb), then question 2 second, and question 1 last. This will take us at least 2-3 weeks but that is fine. Note, I think changing to either 1B or 1C is the most important but I'm fine waiting till the end of the month for us to actually have that discussion in earnest. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, having looked into other examples of articles, it seems like the universally used format on Wikipedia for multi year ongoing wars is "(X–present)". See Yemeni civil war (2014–present), Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present), War in Sudan (2023–present), etc. Given how much of a mess the current RM is, would it not make sense just to close it as "no consensus", move the article from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Hamas war (2023–present) per standard Wikipedia policy for the disambiguation of multiple-year wars, and then start a new more structured RM? After all, had it not been for the timing of this RM, I expect that that move would have non-controversially happened already: the move of 2023 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria to Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria (2023–present), for example, was done unilaterally and it seems standard to do so. In hindsight I think it was a mistake to raise several different questions in an RM shortly before an uncontroversial technical change to the title would have happened with the new year- it would have been far better to wait until after the new year to do it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles Mexican–American War, Iran–Iraq War, Russo-Ukrainian War, Syrian civil war and Soviet–Afghan War do not use "(X–present)". Parham wiki (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to imply where disambiguation is necessary. If the only options from the original list of options which are actually in line with Wikipedia standard policy are A, B, C, D, G, and K, then it simplifies things a lot, and the hypothetical new RM would only have to answer "do we want to change Israel–Hamas to Israel–Gaza/Israel–Palestine" and "should the parenthetical disambiguation be removed". Which is much simpler than what the discussion so far has been. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to imply where disambiguation is necessary. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the meaning of the above comment. Parham wiki (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

In other words: where parenthetical disambiguation is determined necessary for articles on multi-year ongoing wars, it always follows the format of "(X–present)" after the article name. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chessrat: No, I understood this, I meant that I misunderstood this comment:

Actually, having looked into other examples of articles, it seems like the universally used format on Wikipedia for multi year ongoing wars is "(X–present)". See Yemeni civil war (2014–present), Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present), War in Sudan (2023–present), etc. Given how much of a mess the current RM is, would it not make sense just to close it as "no consensus", move the article from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Hamas war (2023–present) per standard Wikipedia policy for the disambiguation of multiple-year wars, and then start a new more structured RM? After all, had it not been for the timing of this RM, I expect that that move would have non-controversially happened already: the move of 2023 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria to Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria (2023–present), for example, was done unilaterally and it seems standard to do so. In hindsight I think it was a mistake to raise several different questions in an RM shortly before an uncontroversial technical change to the title would have happened with the new year- it would have been far better to wait until after the new year to do it. Parham wiki (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, closing this mess and moving to Israel–Hamas war (2023–present) is the right solution. Dazzling4 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that 2B is the standard way we disambiguate multi-year events, and it should naturally be moved to that, since we're already disambiguating by year. Then we can hold a more straightforward RM on whether to keep or remove the disambiguation. The RM failed because people tried to propose non-standard ways to disambiguate, but messy contentious pages are the worst place to do that. Just do what we always do.

I also agree with C&C on asking these questions sequentially, to keep each discussion organised and focused. - DFlhb (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• B calling it Hamas war is not NPOV. Majority of Gazans killed are not Hamas members or militants. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• b, c, a in that order of preference. d is outright confusing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support B Israel-Gaza War (or the other way about) since at least WAPO/BBC/Guardian/AJ/UN refer to it like that and it is just the latest installment of the Gaza-Israel conflict, same old conflict in new clothes. Date should be per usual practice.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• A, d - Majority of sources consider this a war between Israel and Hamas (with involvement from other groups) because Israel declared war on Hamas not Gaza nor Palestine. Additionally if Israel-Hamas war is already a redirect then we should just adopt that name as it is unambiguous enough. Dazzling4 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, and because G. W. Bush declared a "war on terror", then Wikipedia should not call it a war against Iraq or Afghanistan, right?

It maters what this is, not what the invader calls it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• A - It's well-known that the war is between Hamas and Israel and not between the State of Palestine and Isreal. All the world media call it that way. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a survey, we're workshopping - DFlhb (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• A and B make the most sense. It helps differentiate between this conflict and past ones involving the two parties and overall helps differentiate between the various conflicts involving Israel and other Palestinian groups as a whole. PaulRKil (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• 1:A or D (whichever is more popular
• 2:B Abo Yemen✉ 12:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• B or D for the first option, b for the second. Refer to my justification in the closed discussion above. —M3ATH (See · Say) 12:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need question one; my reading of this discussion suggests that there exists a consensus to remain with "Israel-Hamas war". BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

except that the current name is " 2023 Israel-Hamas war" and not just "Israel-Hamas war" alone (The main reason for this rm is the date/year) Abo Yemen✉ 13:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The closer said there was no consensus and then specifically mentioned the list of options here so let's go with those. The date is less problematic. Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• D and d. Gaza war with no year is the best solution, the most neutral one as well. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• B or D and b, per my reasoning above (NPOV, etc.) "Gaza war" has the advantage of being internally consistent with past articles (e.g. 2014 Gaza war). WillowCity^(talk) 14:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll repeat said reasoning here for the closer's ease of reference:

  I would emphasize ... that WP:COMMONNAME is specifically subject to the requirement of NPOV (like everything else on Wikipedia). The policy states: Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. WP:NPOVNAME allows for a POV title only where the subject is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources (emphasis added). Here, "Israel–Hamas war" may be used by a preponderance of sources, but it is not the single common name, nor is it demonstrably used by a significant majority of sources, and many of the sources that do use it do so alongside other names. The fact that it is the preferred name of one party to the conflict should give us pause.

  Some RS that use Israel–Gaza war (whether exclusively or in addition to I-H war): the BBC, ABC, Al Jazeera, WaPo, The Guardian. Israel–Gaza war is more internally consistent with our other article titles, and there are other armed groups involved, making the current title inaccurate and simultaneously imprecise and overprecise

  While "significant majority" is not defined, I would argue that it is far closer to unanimity than to a simple majority. WillowCity^(talk) 23:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A and b. Israel-Hamas war is still the much more common name in English media: NYT, WSJ, The Telegraph, Reuters, AP, NBC, CNN, The Economist, Times of London, USA Today, Sky, Globe & Mail, France 24, CBS. Guardian, BBC and WaPo seem to be the minority who have gone with or switched to Israel-Gaza, which would be more consistent with our past practice in this conflict area, but that doesn't give us carte blanche to override the common name in reliable sources. (2023-present) is consistent with general practice in conflicts that need a year for disambiguation, and this one certainly does. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that WaPo, UN, a few other big names have switch doesn't give us carte blanche to do weird names, but it does gives us external sources, non-OR reasons to switch to the name that makes more sense for Wikipedia, even if those sources aren't the 100% majority, when the other name is so odd and so PoV. Jikybebna (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

See the policy on POV names - the standard is "significant majority", not "100% majority". In other words, if the balance of sources were around 50:50 we'd be freer to choose, but they're not. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Chiming in to my own discussion to again express support for B and b. Calling the war "against Hamas" is a view that is biased towards Israel and violating Wikipedia NPOV. Israel itself admitted that at least 2 in 3 Palestinians killed in the war are civilians (and according to Gazans themselves, the ratio is much higher), making it clear that Hamas is not receiving the brunt of the attacks and the invasion. Option D is fine as well, but I don't see why Israel should be excluded from the title. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• 1: A. There are 22M hits on Google News for "Israel Hamas war" vs 171k for "Israel Gaza war" when I filter only last year's news. This is clearly the common name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaexis (talk • contribs)
  • See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Also, the large numbers shown on top of Google Search have nothing to do with actual hits. The number that appears at the top of the first page of search results, "About nnn results", is Google's statistical estimate of how many indexed web pages there might be that match the search terms. It's not a count of actual results.[1]
• 2: b. or d. I'm indifferent between a more commonly used name and a more descriptive one. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• A and b, per my comments above, WP:NPOVTITLE states that the common name is still prioritised over a NPOV title, although if sources do slowly adopt Israel-Gaza where there is no longer a clear commonname, then a NPOV argument can hold more weight. But clearly Israel-Hamas is still more common as shown in the RM above. Latter choice is the general preferred disambiguator, although not as strong of an opinion on how to disambiguate or whether it needs one at all. Although having the year before indicates a WP:NATURALDAB which needs some usage (i.e. sources stating the "2023 Israel....etc), which I'm not sure it has? DankJae 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Huh. It does say "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". What a weird policy. Jikybebna (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• 1B and 2B per WP:AT's 5 criteria for deciding on an article title: (1) Recognizability, (2) Naturalness, (3) Precision, (4) Concision and (5) Consistency. Israel–Gaza War is the title that fits these criteria the most. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Read my comments. Parham wiki (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• 1B2b Israel-Gaza war is more reflective of the fact that the conflict is against Gaza as a whole. The vast majority of casualties are Gazan civilians and Israel has stated its intentions to occupy Gaza after the war. 2b because it's the standard for wars on Wikipedia. ArthropodLover (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• 1B and 2B: "Israel-Gaza War (2023-present)". The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people killed by the Israeli military are civilians, not Hamas members, so this title would be much more NPOV. David A (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• 2D (If there is no consensus on option 1D): Only name. The article Siege of Mariupol is not called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of the Battle of Mariupol (1919). Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per WP:CONCISE, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. not only is there still no other article titled Israel–Hamas war, Israel–Gaza war and Israel–Palestine war, but even if there was, this article is unequivocally still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per WP:NHC, statements that contradict policy should be discounted. 2A, 2B and 2C Votes do not address the prevailing policy but largely make a simple statement that other wars exist. While things can change, this does not mean that they will change. For the present (and the foreseeable future), the 2D option is supported by policy. Also Israel–Hamas war redirects to this article. Parham wiki (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep as is/A - "Israel–Hamas war" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME as used by CNN[2], NBC[3], the AP[4], the NYT[5], etc. Even if it's non-neutral, WP:POVNAME applies. Regarding option "B", "Gaza" is neither a political entity nor group. The war isn't between Israel and a strip of land, is it? Trying to change the title to reflect that most killed aren't members of Hamas screams WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Israel is also the name of a country. WP:NCWWW recommends naming events by their location. VR _talk 06:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Israel not also a strip of land? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No it is not? Abo Yemen✉ 06:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• 1B 2B 1B as the vast majority of the fighting has been against Gaza, moreso than Hamas per se. 2B per norm DarmaniLink (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• 1B and 2B. We definitely need the date to distinguish from other wars (eg 2014 Gaza War). And RS are increasingly referring to aspects of this war with the "Gaza". It also meets WP:NCWWW.VR _talk 06:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

1A, don’t care about 2. No other options are supported by anywhere near as many reliable sources. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• 1B: "Israel–Gaza War" as it reflects the broader context of the conflict. For the date representation, option 2B: "(2023–present)" which accurately represents the ongoing nature of the conflict. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment A reminder to participants in this !vote that consensus has already been reached on the main element of the article title. The close of the article title discussion by Robertsky is as follows: "Assessing the comments, there is a consensus to use 'Israel–Hamas war' as the base title. This includes variations such as 'Israel–Hamas war', '2023 Israel–Hamas war', 'Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)', etc. What isn't clear is whether to put the year(s) (as a prefix or in parenthesis) and in what form." We need to act on the basis of the administrator's closing of the RfC and determine what variation on "Israel-Hamas War" will be the title of the article. We do not determine what wars are called. We determine titles, and that has largely been done already. Going back to square one on the article title is disruptive..Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Er, you have already reminded us once, and several editors do not agree with you on this point, see below continuing discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Editors frequently disagree with RfC closes. But it was closed. The community made a determination so both this !vote and the discussion below are both pointless and, as I indicated, disruptive. "Israel-Hamas War" is the "base title" and that is the consensus going forward. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, editors do not seem constrained by that discussion or its (re)close and any other editor may initiate another RM if they wish. WP:CCC. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a consensus "changing" but a consensus rejected. The last RM was closed at 00:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC). Starting a new RM is not advisable. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Atm, we are having a discussion, then we will see. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving along this discussion

Given that this is an incredibly contentious topic that can easily get bogged down in unnecessary details that could delay this RM indefinitely, I think that it's a good time to start moving forward.

In my view, and I would welcome counterarguments, there doesn't appear to be a consensus for "Israel-Palestine War" or "Gaza War." Additionally, for question 2, the choice seems to be between "(2023-Present)" and no date at all.

If that is the case, these are the options:

Question 1:

• G: Change to Israel–Gaza War
• H: Keep the title as Israel–Hamas War

Question 2:

• Date of "(2023–Present)" at the end of the title
• No date in the title

. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Question one is no longer needed; above, we have a consensus for “Israel-Hamas war”.

I suggest procedurally closing the entire thing, and opening a new RM solely on the question of how to present the date. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing even remotely resembling WP:CONSENSUS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

See close at #First discussion BilledMammal (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems that in the second round of voting, a variation involving Gaza was supported by a slight majority of voters. If the RfC will be continuing in any event it seems just as well to leave the other question open; it seems possible that consensus has shifted/may be shifting since the Jan 4 closure. Edit: on further review, it seems doubtful it can even be called a "consensus" at all. WillowCity^(talk) 04:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not seeing that, but regardless it’s too soon to open the question again; at the very least we need to wait a few months.

As a side note, participation is lower, and it isn’t tagged as an RM - this is why we need to open a new discussion with a simple question. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve gone and opened the RM with a simple question; hopefully it will help to find consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I get that this argument has been raging for a while, but I think an objection should be raised for the notion that a consensus to keep "Israel-Hamas" has been established. At best there is a slight majority for keeping Israel-Hamas when you factor both the first and second discussions together, but obviously speaking, a majority is not consensus. If it was, then we would decide things on Wikipedia by voting. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest terms possible that there is a consensus on calling it "Israel-Hamas war," or that we should close the discussion at this point. In the previous discussion over 12 editors have voiced support for calling it Israel-Gaza war.

I've noticed that there seems to be a prevailing argument that the majority of English language sources call it the Israel-Hamas war and therefore it is what should be used for the article. I'm going to refer to two arguments to advocate for Israel-Gaza- the first being a logical explanation for why "Israel-Hamas" doesn't accurately represent the war, and the second that it is the preferable title according to the policy outlined in Wikipedia:Article titles.

As other editors have said before, the majority of Palestinians killed in the conflict has not been members of Hamas. Regardless, some have argued that the Israeli government started the operation and began the war in order to destroy Hamas, which is indeed true. However, when we look at past declarations of war and military action, we see that the names of wars oftentimes describe whole locations and peoples rather than the specific entity which a war is aimed to be waged against. By official United States resolutions, the Vietnam War was not fought against Vietnam as a whole but rather communist insurgents, yet we understand that in effect it was a war that affected a much broader scope than just the Viet Cong as thousands of Vietnamese peoples unaffiliated with them fought and died.

I also argue that the scope of the war has shifted in not just being about the destruction of Hamas- Netanyahu stated in a speech [6] that the objectives have grown to be: “To eliminate Hamas, return our hostages and ensure that Gaza will no longer be a threat to Israel.” which clearly indicates a wider, generalized war against Gaza rather than just Hamas. "Israel-Hamas" is a name that dismisses the third objective- one that is clearly being carried out due to bombings that effect far more than just Hamas cells. In contrast Hamas is included with Gaza and there's no exclusion.

Out of the five defining characteristics in WP:CRITERIA, Israel-Gaza fulfills the Naturalness and Recognizability criteria in being a name that has been used and recognized in Al Jazeera and the BBC, and is consistent with the past row of conflicts between Israel and Gaza in Gaza–Israel conflict. Both Israel-Hamas and Israel-Gaza are widely recognized, common, names for the war, but Israel-Gaza lacks the neutrality and accuracy shortcomings of the former. Wikipedia tends to use common names over more precise/accurate names when the precise name is rather unknown or most users will fail to recognize it as a synonym at first glance. In this case, however, I argue the names are both used widely enough that concerns of NPOV is more important than the difference in more Western news outlets using "Israel-Hamas."

04:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC) HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that in the future journalists and historians in English-texts may refer to the Israel-Hamas war as something closer to Vietnam War or Korean War, we should avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL and wait for such sources to become the majority before we decide on such a name.

Not to mention unforeseen events that would drastically change a "location-based" name of this conflict, for example if Hezbollah opened a new front in the north. Dazzling4 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If the "names" are merely descriptive, we can decide on any name that garners a consensus and crystal is not relevant. Speculating about a future conflict is however definitely in the crystal realm. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We won't get anywhere by trying the same thing a second time. The closed RM was initially about the date disambiguation because the new year was coming up. Then it turned into a mess as people added 16+ options (more were removed). Hamas/Gaza was an unrelated question which many voters didn't address. Messy discussions involving multiple questions give an advantage to the status quo. We should do what was brought up in the workshopping above, before people started voting again: do one RM focused on the disambiguation, and afterwards, another focused on "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza", so each can be discussed properly. Let's close this and re-launch BilledMammal's RM. DFlhb (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's not, the disambiguation is related to the naming, so if we are to have an RM, then it should be name first. Or we can just continue the discussion ftb. No rush. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Then: We won't get anywhere by trying the same thing a second time. I'm staying out. DFlhb (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we try the same thing a second time, at least that was not my intention. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've struck my comment above, since I'm probably being too rigid; most people are treating the subsection above as the ongoing new RM rather than as a workshopping attempt, so maybe it's better to go along with it rather than close it again and waste participants' time. DFlhb (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• The close of the move discussion by Robertsky indicates consensus on one important point: "Assessing the comments, there is a consensus to use 'Israel–Hamas war' as the base title. This includes variations such as 'Israel–Hamas war', '2023 Israel–Hamas war', 'Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)', etc. What isn't clear is whether to put the year(s) (as a prefix or in parenthesis) and in what form." That sets the parameter of what must now be decided. We do not go back to square one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not doing that, I would like to establish whether this is a "name" or a descriptive title as this affects the disambiguation. Call it square two. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean to say that variations of Israel–Gaza war are off the table (for the current RM), and that we should simply discuss the consequences of the current title? Or are you suggesting that this is still a live issue owing to serious procedural issues in relation to the previous close? WillowCity^(talk) 23:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not particularly happy about the "reclose" of the RM and I made that clear elsewhere. Apart from that, between the original close and the reclose, there was further discussion which provided indications that consensus might have changed. In addition, I would like to establish what are the "names" for this war, else an agreement that any title is merely descriptive as this also affects any disambiguation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure there are any "names" for the war, beyond the Israeli name, Operation Swords of Iron, which is obviously a non-starter; I'm not sure if there's a consistent Arabic-language name (I've seen "Gaza massacre", مجزرة غزة, used, but that's also a non-starter).

  In my view both I-H and I-G war are descriptions by the various outlets using each, rather than "names" per se. It seems logical to me to proceed on that basis. WillowCity^(talk) 14:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Heh, OK, but from WP POV, if we are using a commonname argument (ie by the sources) then those are "names" (and should be bolded in the lead as such) else if we are not using a commonname but instead a descriptive title, then those are not names and do not need bolding in the lead. Note that BilledMammal in the below section, Bolded "names" in lead, says There are a lot of names this war is known by; best we create an etymology section rather than clutter the lede with them,..., not sure I agree there are more than two names (by sources). Of course there can be more than two if we accept descriptive (not commonname). Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  There is the “battle of the aqsa deluge” (معركة طوفان الاقصى) which is separate from the initial October 7 attack The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  That article, with a descriptive title, was separated from the rest of the war so need not concern us here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  That page is about عملية طوفان الأقصى, (Operation Al-Aqsa Deluge, the initial "operation").

  Great Mule is referring to معركة طوفان الاقصى, (معركة meaning "battle" or "conflict"), which is broader than the initial attack. But yes I'm not sure it's really of particular concern here. WillowCity^(talk) 15:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  You speak arabic? You know the difference between the two names better than me lol Abo Yemen✉ 15:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on including casualty template in lede

Despite being the most watched/edited article on this topic, the casualty count is constantly contradictory/outdated, so I created a template Template:2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties that is already transcluded in several low traffic pages, as well as in the #Casualties section. It can conditionally show wiki-links for articles that it is not self referencing on. Feel free to modify this RfC boldly ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Option A: Leave it as is

Option B1: Transclude the template in the lede

Option B2: Transclude the template in the lede and remove from #Casualties

Option C: Transclude the template, but with some major modifications first. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what the options are. What do you mean? Gaza health ministry does not say which or how many casualties are fighters... Is that what this is about? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: can you show an example of what this would look like? VR _talk 05:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am also unsure about what is being proposed here. Ecrusized (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The template {{2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties}} is edited in real time. Point is, currently the lede of this article does not transclude it, and while the casualties in body are up to date, the lede needs to be manually updated. Below is live transclusion. You can also see where else is it transcluded.

Live transclusion

{{2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties}}

As of 21 May 2024, over 37,000 people (35,562 Palestinian and 1,478 Israeli have been reported as killed in the Israel–Hamas war, including 105 journalists (100 Palestinian, 2 Israeli and 3 Lebanese) and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, including 179 employees of UNRWA.

The vast majority of casualties have been in the Gaza Strip. The death toll reported by the UN OCHA comes from the Gaza Health Ministry. The breakdown of the figures in the UN OCHA report only includes casualties whose identities have been confirmed while the overall figure is the number of reported deaths. Over 24,000 of the dead have been identified by the Gaza Health Ministry, of these 52% are women and children, 40% are men and 8% are elderly of both sexes. Some have speculated that the total death toll in Gaza might be higher than reported, with thousands remaining unaccounted for, including those trapped under rubble.

The October 7 attacks on Israel killed 1,139 people, including 764 civilians and 373 Israeli security personnel. A further 252 persons were taken hostage during the initial attack on Israel to the Gaza Strip. A further 479 Palestinians, including 116 children, and 9 Israelis have been killed in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem). Casualties have also occurred in other parts of Israel, as well as in southern Lebanon, and Syria.

Discussion casualty template

A good reason the count is contradictory may be because it is. Please see Talk:Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Infobox casualties + figures are weird. There's something badly wrong happening. I thought it was because the Gaza Health Authority used a different age for children but the Palestinian Authority which puts out their figures uses the same age as the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. NadVolum (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If they match, it's just because they copied. Euro Med can't be getting data from anywhere else?

Gaza ➡️ Pal Authority ➡️ Euro Med

But copying Pal Authority instead of Gaza is an Endorsement, so we need to see if there's a good reason they picked that one and not Gaza?

There could be a good reason, like the PA data is more compete.

But it could be political, in which case I'd stick with closer to the source unless we have a justifiable explanation for why they don't match.

Gazans leadership and Pal authority don't get on, but hopefully the health depts cooperate a lot better than the politicians / leaders.

Gazans leadership and Pal authority don't get on, but hopefully the health depts get on a lot better than the politicians / leaders.

Gaza is kind of a known unknown, if PA disagrees we need to know WHY before we rely on it.

possible good reason

Pal Authority could be checking for missing details based on databases of personal info, they would have more time to do that.

Gaza are over stretched, I think they hit that point on 27 October but it's probably got worse.

So they could be passing on partial data for PA to complete. e.g. If there is a name and ID number, PA add missing dates of birth?

If there is a name and an ID number, Pal Authority could be adding missing dates of birth?

So if we can verify that something like that explains the disagreement. Then PA / Euro Med is better.

But if we can't explain it, I don't trust it.

If Gaza are passing incomplete data to PA and they're filling gaps, that's a good reason to trust Eorp Med / PA.

There could be political reasons, in which case the data is just inexplicably distorted.

For whatever reason (messy and I only half understand it) all of Gaza's official foreign affairs go via West Bank Pal Authority. So Euro Med might be kind of obliged to use their numbers, even if there is no evidence they are more reliable.

If we can't explain why they differ, then it seems more like distortion than improvements. We can't justify switching without a good explanation of why they disagree.

Note

I've somewhat deliberately not looked at which is higher / lower or more / fewer kids before writing that, to avoid bias, but I'll try to find now.

Irtapil (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

My understandin is that the Palestinian figures are supposed to just be the Gaza figures passed on to them from the Gaza Health Ministry, they also document numbers for Palestinians being killed elsewhere, mostly on the West Bank. Gaza doesn't do its own public release currently that I can see. Those are registered deaths with names and ids plus a number of unidentified ones. Euro Med uses those figures and together with the numbers of missing possibly under rubble and details about bombing and what happens in wars and extrapolates to try and estimate the total deaths. So Euro-Med figures for women should be higher than the Gaza ones but have been a bit lower and their figures for children is much higher but are much more in line with what one would expect considering the number of women killed. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

General comment. I wasn't even getting into methodological differences of EuroMed/MoH etc...but simply that as time/information changes, for example no one disputes that there are now ~1200 Israeli casualties, which is an update from 1400 casualties, but with so many different infrequently maintained Wikipedia articles, they were out of sync for sometime. And a template allows for a consensus driven/up to-date summary. The discussion of what to present/summarize will continue to be a discussion on the template, and that will continuously be a discussion. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Looking for Project volunteers to answer some questions

I am writing an article for WP:SIGNPOST, Wikipedia's internal newspaper and am looking for volunteers, both longer term and newer members, especially those who are part of WP:Israel/WP:Palestine projects. Feel free to directly add your answers on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report and let me know if you any questions/comments. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested, although i am not a part of WP:Israel/WP:Palestine projects Abo Yemen✉ 10:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen It is very interesting to hear why/how you’re interested in this Article page/topic too in general then. Please go ahead and answer the questions you would like to ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri @Nishidani @Mhhossein I would be honoured if you three participated as well :) and feel free to recommend anyone else who's perspective would be insightful here ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

Should Nasrallah be included in the "Commanders and leaders" section of the infobox? JDiala (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think the Lebanon contribution to the war in Gaza counts as much, it is a continuation of the ongoing low level Israeli Lebanese conflict which has been going on for decades. NadVolum (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No, and I don't think Hezbollah should be listed as a belligerent in the infobox, either. They have not really joined the hostilities beyond continuing with the usual low-level strife along the border line. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel if Lebanon was included then the US should definitely be included the way it has shipped bombs to Israel after the war started so they could be dropped in Gaza. NadVolum (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

True, I'm not sure Hezbollah belongs there at this stage. Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

At this stage my inclination is no. If so, then the Houthi commander would have to be included as well, and then the Americans in the Red Sea, yadda yadda. Coretheapple (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove second paragraph in lead

The second paragraph of the lead is just a more detailed version of the first paragraph. It's redundant and people who want more detail can read the body of the article anyway. I believe it should be removed, and some of the information (e.g., the October 7th statistics, for instance) should be incorporated into the first paragraph. JDiala (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a bad idea in my view. The third para follows on well from the first paragraph. Good that only the biggest facts would remain in the lede which would be helpful for readers. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Bolded "names" in lead.

This revert asserts that 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Israel–Gaza war are not the proper, established names of the war. They are just some of the descriptive names.

Given the ongoing discussions about the article title, I think we should establish a consensus on this.

Are these names of the war or are they descriptive? A point frequently made in discussions above is that Israel–Hamas war is WP:COMMONNAME due its use in sources and a similar argument would suggest that Israel–Gaza war is an WP:ALTNAME. Alternatively, if these names are merely descriptive, then in theory any descriptive title that has consensus is possible.

Thoughts? Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of names this war is known by; best we create an etymology section rather than clutter the lede with them, per MOS:LEADALT. I’ve got no opinion on whether we include the primary name, bolded, in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian and journalists causalities in the first paragraph

I have moved the Palestinian and journalists causalities to the 1st paragraph since I believe those facts should be mentioned within the context of war significance. Among other things, it explains why Gaza strip "ranks among the most severe in the history of modern warfare". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, first paragraph is there in part to explain the significance of the topic. VR _talk 05:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: The text was totally removed by User:Shushugah with an edit summary I did not find to support removal of the content. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed it for two reasons. One, because casualties should be discussed in a balanced and neutral manner and because the count of journalists killed wasn't even accurate. See 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Casualties for an example of a balanced/weighted prose with up-to-date info. I removed it, and have raised possibility of including it in the lede with the template {{2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties}} in the lede, but there hasn't been much support.

I do think it make sense in lede if the two concerns are addressed ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: what was the inaccuracy? Irtapil (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Number of journalists killed. But re-reading it, may have been referring exclusively to Palestinian journalists. So it was not perhaps inaccurate, but it was singularly focusing on Palestinian casualty instead of a neutral summary of all casualties which includes 1200 Israelis including 4 Israeli journalists and 3 Lebanese journalists. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What would you propose as neutral wording? VR _talk 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I gave an example, please visit {{2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties}} which summarizes all casualties in a neutral manner. The goal of template is two-fold, provide neutral summary and to provide latest numbers in a consistent manner. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewish visitors

@PrimaPrime: Hamas said that it was in response to "desecration" of Aqsa mosque, it did not say because of Jewish visitors. The "desecration" included continued Israeli occupation's raids into the mosque, attempts to divide it time and space wise, among several other aspects. Ignoring this and turning it into some other main reason, is completely unsourced. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The source (Haniyeh's speech) clearly states their reasoning: "in recent days, during their sinister religious festivals, they have invaded Al-Aqsa Mosque. They desecrated and defiled it."

This is clearly a reference to Jews visiting the site during Sukkot; there were no "occupation raids" at that time, or whatever "attempts to divide it time and space wise" mean beyond a general objection to Jews visiting a site that was holy to them long before Islam. PrimaPrime (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Drsmoo (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: You are acting as a journalist not as a WP editor. RS have not included that as part of the Hamas motivations and I do not know who replaced the source and added a speech which is a primary source. The background section containing this information in the body is supported by multiple secondary RS, which do not contain this claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources in the background section have included that as part of the motivations, for instance the TOI article refers to the issue of Jewish visits to the Temple Mount.

If you prefer the Guardian instead we can add the "unambiguous and chilling" motivation of expelling all Israelis: "We have only one thing to say to you: get out of our land...everything [here] is ours. You are strangers in this pure and blessed land. There is no place of safety for you." PrimaPrime (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The TOI article mentions the issue of Jewish prayers, but this is mentioned separately and not as motivation for the attack. As for the Guardian article, you are again acting as journalist not as WP editor and using quotes to move from "get out of our land.." to "expelling all Israelis"; a lot of similar things can be done for Israeli politicians like "we are dealing with human animals" to "starving all Gazans" or "nuking Gaza" to "killing all Gazans". Statements are statements, and we used secondary RS sources that have done the commentary themselves, not that we used quotes and then rewrote them and commented on them ourselves. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

TOI is explaining to readers what "desecrating Al-Aqsa" refers to in terms of Hamas's motivations. Similarly the Guardian's commentary is that Hamas's statement of motives include "unambiguous and chilling" threats to Israelis.

Ultimately your question was whether we have secondary sources to go with the subject's own statements about itself, and we do. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They provided sources, supporting what they've said. It's pretty clear that Hamas is referring to a jewish presence there. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Al-Aqsa clashes: "heavily armed Israeli police" raided Al-Aqsa mosque during Passover and Ramadan[7]. VR _talk 05:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

they seemed most bothered by the idea of non Muslims preying in it? Irtapil (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be just one of multiple motives. They were planning the attacks since before that happened. But it is the motive i fund hardest to relate to. Other factors…

• Israeli-Saudi diplomacy
• annexation of East Al Quds (easier to spell) and the yanks moving the embassy there
• blockade of Gaza since 2007
• trying to free Ahmad Saadat (they've been trying that since 2006) and several of Hamas's own who were in prison
• and a long shot failed goal of taking back all the land they lost in 1948 … i think they hoped to get themselves in a big enough need that neighbouring states were fixed to help… they managed the huge mess part…

But maybe I just fund that easier to relate to.

Irtapil (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime @Makeandtoss

There is a 10 minute speech from Mohammad Deif announcing Al-Aqsa Food.

It seems to be the official announcement.

Al-Jazeera and France 24 each dubbed overlapping 1 minute chunks.

“The time has come to draw the line, for the enemy to understand that time is up, and they can't keep going without consequences. We are announcing an operation called Al-Aqsa Floods. In the first part of it 5000 rockets have been fired. It is the time to unite, for all the Arab and Islamic powers to overthrow the Israeli occupation. Don't hurt the old and the young, but fight. This is the time to expel those occupying our land, and for them to pay the price for its crimes and murders. Gather in mosques and pray that we will be victorious.”

on AJ's YouTube channel

My attempt to machine translate the rest of it had a lot of detail about the desecration of Al-Aqsa, if we can find a full translation then that's possibly a fairly definitive source for "why they said they did it"?

Irtapil (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Not really, that would be original research from a primary source. Keep it general, as many editors have pointed out that there are several mor general issues related to Aqsa and not specific not anything. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• A lot of the discussion here is WP:SYNTH, which only RS are allowed to do. Al-Jazeera expands more upon what Hamas meant by "desecration" of Al-Aqsa mosque, arguing it includes Israeli police beating up Muslim worshippers and disrupting the itikaf. As for Hamas's issue with Jewish visitors, Al-Jazeera adds that some of the settlers want "[Al-Aqsa] mosque torn down". As a Jewish newspaper points out, when Hamas perceives Al-Aqsa mosque is being desecrated, they are also referring to concerns of replacing Al-Aqsa mosque with the Third temple: "one Hamas statement said, allowed “Jewish groups to desecrate al-Aqsa Mosque;” it also referenced Jewish “intentions of erecting their alleged temple on the ruins of the shrine of our Prophet Muhammad.”.VR _talk 05:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I had linked 2023 Al-Aqsa clashes in a previous version but it was reverted. It ought to be restored imo, in line with RS reporting. WillowCity^(talk) 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  RS reporting in fact refers to the issue of Jewish visits over Sukkot:

  • NYT: "Saturday’s statement from the Hamas military wing cited Jewish prayer at the compound."
  • Guardian: "In the week before the attack, some Jews had prayed inside the compound of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City...to do so is highly provocative. Hamas has called its current offensive Operation al-Aqsa Deluge."
  • Even Al Jazeera, when it's not running propagandistic cartoons: "The surprise operation comes after thousands of Israeli settlers in recent days carried out provocative tours of the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex in occupied East Jerusalem during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot."

  This linkage is unsurprising of course since Hamas's leader himself described what they defined as "desecration of Al-Aqsa": Jewish visits "in recent days, during their sinister religious festivals."

  Are there any sources instead tying the attack to an incident six months prior, contrary to what Hamas itself stated? PrimaPrime (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  "settlers in recent days carried out provocative tours of the Al-Aqsa Mosque", this is not about Jewish prayer, this is about the provocative settler tours, which proves once again that Jewish prayer is one issue out of many issues to what they described as desecration. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sure you're aware that Al Jazeera can be relied upon to describe anything relating to Jews in Jerusalem in terms of "settler provocations". The important thing though is you've conceded the point, Hamas took issue with Jewish visits and not "occupation raids". PrimaPrime (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  What's your point in speaking of Arab source bias? Go read Ynet, JPost and ToL. Hamas, like virtually all Palestinians, of whatever outlook, take exception to any change in the status quo, deployment of military, denial to Arab age groups the right to pray on the site, tolerance of increasing Jewish prayer groups, whatever. Most of these abuses are fostered by settler groups. There is nothing peculiar to Hamas in this. It is not antisemitic to deny Jewish religious groups prayer occasions there.Nishidani (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  “It is not antisemitic to deny Jewish religious groups prayer occasions there.” Yes it is, deeply and obviously. Drsmoo (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if a Muslim entered a synagogue, rolled out a prayer mat and said his prayers, none of the congregation or the rabbinate would raise an eyebrow. . .Nishidani (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If I recall, they didn't carry out tours of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but of the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, which is equivalent to Temple Mount. And I suspect that if a synagogue was built on top of the holiest site in Islam, none of the congregation or the rabbinate would raise an eye at Muslims praying in the broader complex. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

From an Islamic perspective, Al-Aqsa mosque is the entire compound (see Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque/Archive_6). VR _talk 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It would probably raise an eyebrow, that’s about it. Drsmoo (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If that synagogue was built in place of the Kaaba? PrimaPrime (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• If those sources consistently went out of their way to be as tendentiously partisan as possible (e.g. referring only to "Judea and Samaria" instead of "the West Bank") then you might have a point - but they don't.

  The discussion here is about whether to describe Hamas's grievance about the "desecration of Al-Aqsa" as stemming from Jewish visits to the Temple Mount, as Hamas itself said and reliable sources confirm.

  We're not calling that grievance "antisemitic." Perhaps you've drawn that conclusion. Readers are free to decide otherwise. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas's grievance is generic and has been repeated by all Palestinian groups since 1967, and in the prior era (1920s-1929). The quantity of material on these protests, by Hamas since the 1990s, is extensive, and they cover a large range of issues. To try to seize on a source or two and restrict the notion of 'desecration' to a Jewish presence there is to imply an antisemitic character to this, which is indeed paralleled as Hamas clerics know by the Israeli rabbinate's ban on risking impurity by one's presence there as a Jew. The phrase 'Jewish visits to the Temple Mount' is functionally meaningless since it covers anything from a secular tourist visit to soldiers bursting into to the site, to settlers caught with goats bent on making animal sacrifice there. As such it is disinformative, since unless it were qualified by extensive annotation as to precisely what Hamas considers desecration it would have the antisemitic drift noted above.Nishidani (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there sources for Hamas being okay with secular tourists? If so we can do the extensive annotation. PrimaPrime (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• My understanding of the current situation is that we have sources saying that the "desecration" is due to Jewish visits. Unless we have sources contradicting this, which I don't believe we do, it would be an NPOV and OR violation to exclude it on the grounds that we think those sources might be wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are there any Jewish visits that Hamas believes are acceptable? Are there sources that state that Hamas views some Jewish visits as acceptable and some not, or are no Jewish visits acceptable to them? Drsmoo (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about Hamas views on the Temple Mount, and the massive energy devoted to making a mountain out of this molehill in an overview of the Hamas Israeli war is odd. Hamas has repeatedly protested the dunam by dunam Israeli approach to incrementally bending the rules of a status quo all parties officially underwrite, rules which do not deny to Jews or anyone else the right to visit the Haram al/Sharif Temple mount.Jack Khoury, Hamas Warns Israel It Will 'Intervene' During Ramadan if Al-Aqsa Status Quo Violated Haaretz 15 March 2023 This is also what all Palestinians underwrite because it is part of their shared collective memory, ever since in the 1920s postcards with Herzl's image and the Israeli flag over the area were accompanied by constant attempts to alter the Ottoman status quo at the Wall, all leading to bloody massacres. Editors should be familiar at least with the endless pressures to alter the 1967 status quo, where the rabbinical judgment was quite severe against Jews entering the Haram, by creating new facts on the ground. Hamas has often referred to the necessity of maintaining the status quo (which finds nothing objectionable in visits by other confessions, as long as a precedent is not introduced underhand that proclaims an intent towards changing the exclusive Muslim religious character of the Haram al-Sharif). Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Please see this BBC[8] link which attributes Hamas spokesperson, Fawzi Barhoum saying "To the world, our message is: Hamas is not radical. We are a pragmatic and civilized movement. We do not hate the Jews. We only fight who occupies our lands and kills our people." Bringtar (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are many more sources such as this by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on "Doctrine of Hamas". Bringtar (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  The article is about the war Hamas started in the name of Al-Aqsa, which RS say they justified on the basis of recent Jewish visits to the site. If you have sourcing linking their attack to supposed threats to its "exclusive Muslim religious character" we could write that instead. But there needs to be some contextualization for the reader unfamiliar with history as to what "desecration of Al-Aqsa" means. That's not a molehill and your long-winded defense of "Muslim exclusivity" suggests you know it's not. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is not about 'the war started in the name of Al-Aqsa', which is almost comically ignorant as a judgment, and only sustainable if one cherrypicks one phrase from a specific annoucement among hundreds, in order per WP:OR assert against all geopolitical analyses available, that Hamas had no other considerations in mind when deciding to launch an invasion of Israel. Everyone, I mean everyone who knows anything about this, is well aware of the multiple factors involved, not least of which was disrupting the Abraham Accords. So your insistence is a WP:Undue violation, dumbing down a very complex world. One of Hamas's enemies in the Islamic world is Jordan. Jordan expressed exactly the same outrage as Hamas over the challenges to the status quo last year, constant anger at the wave of encroachments on the Temple Mount over 2023. Neither Hamas nor Jordan to my knowledge have fussed over Jews visiting the Mount, which they have been doing uncontroversially since 1967 (when the decision was taken not to blow up the mosques, as was mooted at the time). As Henry Laurens puts it:

Relations between Netanyahu’s government and King Abdullah II were already very bad: Jordan, which wants to have a role of guardian of the holy places in Jerusalem, protested vehemently against the encroachments of the Israeli government on the Mosques esplanade.

This article is about the Hamas-Israeli war, and the background or motivations involved have by now an extensive technical literature written by geopolitical analysts with expertise, none of whom, to my knowledge, assert (it would be fatuous to do so) that Hamas went to war because Jews visited the Haram al-Sharif.Nishidani (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

PrimaPrime, I am not sure from where you are getting these information because as Nishidani has pointed out above, there are multiple reasons and one of these is the 2023 Al-Aqsa clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police such as In April, Israeli police raided Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa Mosque compound, Islam’s third holiest place of worship, triggering rocket attacks from Gaza and many more available. Bringtar (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)1

I'm getting them from the NYT and the Guardian, who link the October 7 attack to recent Jewish visits to the site presumably because Hamas itself chose to make an issue of them in its own messaging. They don't mention events from six months prior.

Sure, the article body should discuss potential strategic considerations that reliable sources attribute to Hamas and get into more of the background around the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa dispute. But here we're discussing how to briefly characterize Hamas's own position.

My view is that we should go by what the sources say. Your view seems to be that we should ignore them in favor of irrelevant older stuff. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in question is about what Hamas says, not what think tankers say. They should get their own sentence. And what Hamas says is indisputably dominated by "Al-Aqsa". They literally did start the war in its name; it wasn't "Abraham Accords Flood" and we all know why.

Of course the sentence lists all their stated motivations roughly in the order that Haniyeh mentioned them - hardly "dumbing down" to this one thing.

The only question here is how to clarify what exactly they mean by "desecration of Al-Aqsa" for the unfamiliar reader. Sourcing is clear that they define this in terms of Jewish visits. In response I've seen a lot of verbose apologia for the "status quo" at the site and speculation bordering on original research - no contrary sources though. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent

The preying but confuses me, but the demolition plans would make anyone furious.

Irtapil (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure certain Jewish fundamentalists are mad that their temple was demolished and ultimately replaced by a mosque where Muslims freely walk around and pray in areas they believe should be off-limits to all but the Levite priestly caste. That doesn't mean we should be in the business of whitewashing any violent acts on their part though. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

While it's quite amusing to hear arguments why Jews are not supposed to pray at the Temple mount, whether they are made by Hamas leaders or Wikipedia editors, I think this discussion misses the mark. The real question is why we are including Hamas's justifications but not experts' views on the reasons of the attack in the lede (e.g., proving its resistance credentials, scuttling the Saudi deal). There should be less of the former and more of the latter. Alaexis_¿question? 20:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with wiki editors or Hamas leaders, but with the halakha rulings so far in place since 1967, which rabbinical authorities imposed on Jews. To make out that those who recall the latter are playing a pro=Hamas card is ridiculous.

For decades, religious authorities issued strict prohibitions against visiting the Temple Mount, widely considered to be the holiest site for Jews, on the grounds that people could accidentally defile the site. And until relatively recently, these bans were accepted by the overwhelming majority of Israel’s Jewish public.In recent years, however, a relatively small but intensely dedicated faction from Israel’s so-called “national-religious” camp — Orthodox Jews generally associated with right-wing, hawkish politics and crocheted yarmulkes — has chipped away at that consensus view of halacha, or Jewish law, issuing rulings that allow or even require visits to the Temple Mount — to some parts of it, anyway, and under certain conditions. With those dueling rulings in place, more and more religious Jews have felt comfortable ascending the Temple Mount — often immersing themselves in a purifying mikveh beforehand — which has enabled the activists to slowly alter what is considered acceptable behavior for Jews on the esplanade.'Judah Ari Gross, Fighting rabbinic ban, Jewish activists push Temple Mount prayer toward mainstream The Times of Israel 2 June 2022 Nishidani (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That said, I agree thoroughly that the desecration hammer is pointless. Public proclamations by politicians rarely reflect the strategic choices being made, and citing them is somewhat pointless, as opposed to listing what analysts suggest are the real or probable reasons Nishidani (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thankfully Wikipedia isn't a theocracy, so "recalling" halakha is worth nothing when discussing content, not least content about a group that doesn't follow halakha either. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to reply to something I, for one, write (b) try to understand what was written and (b) reply in a manner has some minimal cogency. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Because "experts views" are often analyses and reactions. We used to have an "Analysis" section, and got rid of it. PS, the most common expert view I've seen is that the attack is in response to the crippling blockade of Gaza and the never-ending Israeli occupation. IMO those two facts speak way more to the average Palestinians who signs up for Hamas than what Riyadh is doing. VR _talk 06:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes what happens locally is what is most important to most people, they want at least as much civil rights as their numbers locally would allow, and this is what normally happens. Having a large external power help one side makes this sort of thing go very badly wrong. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Here you make an implicit assumption that Hamas leadership cares for the well-being of average Palestinians. But we digress.

What I propose is to mention both the stated rationale and the reasons according to the experts, following WP:DUE. I'll give it a stab. Alaexis_¿question? 13:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Some editors seem unable to distinguish between the real reasons behind political/military decisions and "reasons" for the masses. I wonder whether they still believe that WW2 started because of the Gleiwitz incident, the US invaded Iraqi oil fields "to fight with terror", or Russia attacked Ukraine for the few neo-Nazi groups there. Eh. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to including notable views by third parties alongside Hamas’ stated reasons. Drsmoo (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun?

The Battle of Beit Hanoun page says that the IDF has retreated from Beit Hanoun. Does this mean the map should not have Beit Hanoun be in Blue? Genabab (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab it is more useful to directly link to sources than to a Wikipedia article. Because WP:Wikipedia as a source. Secondly, especially with military campaigns the information will change day by day and we are not WP:NEWS. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab, I would encourage you to share your concerns on the discussion page of the image on Wikimedia Commons. An increasing number of editors seem to be skeptical of whether or not the ISW map should be followed. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have messaged the creator of the map. Due to the issue of Original research, he says he only relies on one source otherwise the map will get removed. ISW is the source, which seems to show all areas Israel has been in as coloured even if they were withdrawn from, including the port of Gaza and in this case Beit hanoun The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria, are you aware of any other reliable sources with reguarly updated maps that could be used instead? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the issue, there seem to be no rs other than ISW (if that’s reliable) for the map. Most of what we’ve come up with is geolocation of Israeli tanks as well as areas they’ve withdrawn from based on videos and photos by residents in Gaza The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Casualty breakdown in lede

One would think that one of the most important aspects of this conflict is the enormous death toll, affecting civilians in a large part. Yet for some reason user PrimaPrime appears to have removed the breakdown. According to Save the Children, over 10,000 children were killed in Gaza Strip. Can I ask why you would remove this, and replace it with, "a majority of them civilians"? Especially given the fact that the exact figures of Israeli military and civilian death toll is included in the lede? Ecrusized (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If Palestinian authorities released exact civilian/military counts like Israel, we would use them, but they don't. And since children can be either civilians or combatants, using that figure isn't an appropriate substitute or proxy. We had this same talk with respect to the infobox and it was agreed that turning "women and children" into de facto "civilians" was a major OR/SYNTH issue. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that 10,000 children have been killed, as reported by Save the Children, is not Synth. Your argument appears to be WP:GAME in an effort for POV pushing. I would stop right now if I were you. Ecrusized (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing would be e.g. adding undue claims casting doubt on Palestinian casualty claims. I think consistently applying the civilian/combatant distinction used elsewhere - for good reason - would seem to be the opposite of that. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

'theaters'

This is the first time I'm seeing such vocabulary and I think it should be clarified, especially since it is in the infobox and only appears in the infobox. I myself don't know exactly what it means in this context — Karnataka 20:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

See Theater (warfare), It's essentially a large region where a war is taking place e.g. European theatre. Not sure it fits in the context of this war but that's what it means. ArthropodLover (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Increasing isolation"

@Makeandtoss: You add this phrase almost every time you edit this article and someone inevitably reverts you (one, two, three). Perhaps it is time to discuss now why you believe it is warranted? BilledMammal (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have asked each of them why it is not warranted and they have not provided a sufficient answer. Looking forward to hearing one. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you provided an explanation for why it is warranted? BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ledes summarize the body; this is a summary of the numerous times that the US and Israel have rejected calls for a ceasefire, whether through the former vetoeing UNSC resolutions or through its continued support to Israel or otherwise. There is no reason why it should be omitted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The general claim that the US is "isolated on the world stage" is "summarizing" one sentence in the body citing one article in The Guardian. Since the signs of this supposed isolation seem to just be UN votes, half of which are meaningless, we could say "isolated at the UN", although that condition itself is hardly out of the ordinary. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be not be in the article until further discussed. Indeed there is now an international coalition against the Houthis... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Fighting Houthis have nothing to do with the ceasefire in Gaza. Please make a sound argument on why the lede, which summarizes the body, should not summarize the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The claim of increased isolated is correct and warranted. The reverts should be justified if they're being made. JDiala (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 Watching the sequence of UN votes on cease fire resolutions, it is pretty unambiguous that the US and Israel are "increasingly isolated" as it pertains to continuing with the fighting in Gaza. It is lede-worthy. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified in what sense. Despite all this talk of isolation the US and Israel are nowhere near as isolated as Russia, North Korea, or Iran (which are living with sanctions that admittedly are having a significant economic impact). Borgenland (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Increasing isolation is a fairly obvious statement to make in respect of Israel. As for the US, NYT has "It is not the first time that the United States has appeared isolated in its defense of Israel, especially at the United Nations,.." and "It is one reason, with the year drawing to a close, that the United States finds itself diplomatically isolated and in a defensive crouch." The difference with Russia is that the US is out on a limb with its allies. I would call it diplomatic isolation myself since it is not only the UN. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the diplomatic thing. Borgenland (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless there’s a consensus among reliable sources “increasingly isolated” is original research. Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the point he’s trying to make is that saying the u.s is politically isolated is subjective, and many people would see it as wrong, as the u.s still has a lot of political allies in support of its actions, I don’t think saying the u.s is politically isolated should be added because I don’t think it is, and other situations where political isolation happened isn’t represented like this across Wikipedia or this subject itself Bobisland (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, in WP we use reliable sources to cite information, not editors' personal opinions, and RS are unanimous in expressing the view that Israel and US were becoming increasingly isolated on world stage. Also good to note that all of these article, which unanimously say the same thing, are saying this in dedicated articles about the US/Israel isolation, and not some random sentences here and there.

• "Israel and the United States were increasingly isolated as they faced global calls for a cease-fire in Gaza including a non-binding vote expected to pass at the United Nations later on Tuesday. Israel has pressed ahead with an offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers that it says could go on for weeks or months." - Time
• "Israel and the United States on Tuesday showed their sharpest public disagreement yet over the conduct and future of the war against Hamas as the two allies became increasingly isolated by global calls for a cease-fire. - Associated Press
• "The United States was looking increasingly isolated on the world stage on Tuesday after a resounding vote at the UN general assembly calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza." - The Guardian
• "It is not the first time that the United States has appeared isolated in its defense of Israel, especially at the United Nations,." - The New York Times
• "As the Israeli military expands its military operations in Gaza, NBC News' Hala Gorani reports on the Israel Defense Forces latest offensive against Hamas and how the U.S. and Israel are becoming increasingly isolated internationally amid growing calls for a cease-fire" - NBC news

Makeandtoss (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think commentary should trump facts the u.s and Israel still have strong political ties across the world, multiple countries are also sending Israel military aid on the specific subject of war, multiple articles also exist on this and can contradict these although they aren’t commentary, these sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards with examples being AP news and Reuters, if this is added into the lead I think foreign countries sending military aid to Israel should also be added alongside it for balance Bobisland (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect to your opinions, as WP editors we reflect what RS have said, and not what we think or what we conclude. The increased isolation is placed within its appropriate context; that of rejecting the ceasefire as evidenced by both UNSC and UNGA voting patterns. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Per above (and my own search of "increasingly isolated" + "Gaza" (in the news tab), there are a lot of quality global WP:RS/P stating that the US and Israel are "increasingly isolated", or just "isolated", regarding their unwillingness to call a cease-fire and suspend the military aspect of the conflict. I don't think there is ambiguity on this. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: Your repeated attempts at changing or removing phrasing despite talk page consensus is bordering edit warring, especially troublesome that your edit summary did not even mention this change. [9]. You have been warned, further disruption to this article will be reported. These are not "commentators" these are major RS sources, and we have dozens of other examples cited above in this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the argumentative language of "rejecting a ceasefire" appears nowhere in any of your sources cited, unsurprisingly as Hamas has hardly proposed or indicated any interest in one. Indeed if we are going to speak of which parties are "rejecting a ceasefire" we would have to mention both: [10]

Second, contrary to your aspersions about "disruption" and "removal", I merely placed the isolation language in a more fitting spot in the paragraph about criticism of the US.

You on the other hand have introduced quite a grammatical disruption: "with the latter vetoing multiple UN Security Council resolutions that call for a ceasefire.[114][115][116] but allowed one calling for a humanitarian pause to pass"

I suggest you fix that. PrimaPrime (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your source says the groups rejected government overhaul for a ceasefire, not that they rejected a ceasefire. I fixed the sentence to more accurately reflect the sources and fixed the grammatical disruption, so thanks for the constructive feedback that led to this consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I still don't think there's any consensus for this vaguely puffy and unencyclopedic "isolated on the world stage" language (as opposed to "diplomatically isolated" or "internationally isolated" or "isolated at the UN") - let alone the ongoing verb tense disagreement. Please proofread. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that the sentence should be not be in the article. USA and Israel are simply not alone in their estimation of the events, and USA has a coalition against Houthi attempt to enlarge the arena. (Even among Arab nations, I do not perceive general USA isolation at this time.) Drsruli (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit

@Aszx5000: The three in-line citations regarding the destruction in Gaza does not mention the word "warfare". [11] Please restore to the previous wording in this Associated Press article "destruction is among the most severe in modern history". [12] Makeandtoss (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done, and aligned the first sentence in the 'Scale of Destruction' section with your wording as well. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: It appears that you changed a lead sentence to "The scale and pace of destruction in Gaza is among destruction is among the most severe in modern history." The repetion of "among" confuses me; was this a mistake? I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 00:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Forget about it,  Fixed. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that :) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)