Talk:Israel–Hamas war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak Oppose Google trends shows Israel Hamas War is more commonly searched for, despite it being obvious that this war isn’t just against Hamas Kowal2701 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• It also shows Gaza war is more commonly searched than Israel Hamas war. nableezy - 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose: The current title is ok. Between media outlets, the title of this war vary. But the majority still say "Israel-Hamas". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Oppose because the title is fine and WP:COMMONNAME. We don't need to keep having these discussions about changing the article's name. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

  A quick search of the ABC website reveals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. The current title, "Israel–Hamas war," remains the WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by the majority of reliable sources, including in Eastern Europe, where I read the news. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Israel and Hamas have been at war for 30 plus years. This conflict is Israel using "Hamas" as a pretext to destroy Gaza. Kire1975 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Kire1975 WP:opinion Alexysun (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Alexysun WP:BLUDGEON Abo Yemen✉ 08:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Three comments. Don't go throwing around WPs that you don't understand. Alexysun (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Alexysun, Everyone on the talk page basically gives their own “opinion” on whether to support or oppose a move, so your reply to @Kire1975 was unnecessary to begin with. StarkReport (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Oh no i do understand what that WP means and three comments were enough for that policy to be mentioned to me on previous rms, and that should apply to you, The Right Honourable, Sir, Chairman, General of the Armies, General of the Army, General of the Air Force, Admiral of the Fleet, Generalfeldmarschall, Reichsmarschall, Großadmiral, Alexysun Abo Yemen✉ 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah strike that out strike that out. That's right. Alexysun (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  ??? Abo Yemen✉ 06:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same. Kire1975 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support The new title will finally correct the gross inaccuracies of the current title; Hamas is not the only organization fighting Israel in this war, not by a long shot. Furthermore, as the post notes, the majority of sources have moved from using the inherently biased "Israel-Hamas war" to "Israel-Gaza war." RealKnockout (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

  @XDanielx Good point. @RealKnockout And also keep in mind that there's action in Lebanon and the West Bank and the assassination in Iran, so the name Israel-Gaza war would be misleading too. Alexysun (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Slightly oppose - Proposed title is better than the current title, but still inaccurate. Previous "Gaza War" pages (disambiguation link) are about wars that were only in Gaza? Whereas the page, 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis says "Palestine" and not "Gaza", despite the majority of the casualties being in the Gaza Strip. FourPi (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Exactly RossoSPC (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is simpler, graphically accurate, and easier on the brain. (Indeed, I'd expect many to be searching purely on "Gaza" because that's what this war is all about. I checked, and for the sake of interest, yes, Gaza eclipses the other terms: [11]) GeoffreyA (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Support - Per the sources OP has given, Israel-Gaza war is very common. I've always believed that the current name is a one-sided term which serves only to mask the w:Gaza genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. It is an ideological term and ignores all realities on the ground and is only used by supporters of Israel to frame the war as something that it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support. "Gaza War", with or without dates, is my first choice; I also support Israel–Gaza War. I support moving the page away from Israel–Hamas war to one of those two other titles. If the term Israel–Hamas War is not cleanly used overwhelmingly more than other names (and it isn't, as numerous reliable sources using terms like Gaza war and Israel–Gaza war go to show), then it isn't a common name, and per WP:NCENPOV, we should use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Israel–Hamas war is a POV name that characterizes the war as exclusively happening between the nation-state of Israel and the Hamas organization. As that is not a consensus interpretation in academic secondary literature, with a considerable literature holding the war is against persons in Gaza beyond the Hamas organization, it is a POV interpretation and name and should be avoided for the article name. Gaza war neutrally describes the primary geographic field of the war. That very reputable reliable sources also use the term Gaza war is a reassurance about the suitability of the term. Comments that assert Israel–Hamas War is the common name have not convinced me, sometimes for the evidence (age of cited articles or to the language used therein, irrespective of titles or tags), sometimes for inattention to Gaza war as an alternative and not just Israel–Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Strongly oppose - On every news site I look at, the top story about the war is in the West Bank. The current title is bad, but Gaza is even less accurate. Common name is the wrong strategy for this page, we need an accurate descriptive title. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or possibly something attributable, like the IDF operation name, it takes a side, but it's clearly attributable, so it is less misleading than a title that looks factual and neutral but isn't. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aside from the obvious POV issues and weak recognisability of codenames, it's established bad practice to use them, per WP:CODENAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Comment At a quick glance I am not seeing consensus for the change. However, why not added "Gaza War 2023-2024" as a secondary name like how the Iraq War also has the "Second Gulf War"? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support: I support moving the title to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" (first preference) and if not, "Israel-Gaza war". There are several armed factions in Gaza fighting the Israeli occupation forces. Current title is biased as well as inaccurate. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Exactly, Hamas isn't the only group involved in this war, and in fact this is the common name for many conflicts. We already have similar names for the 2008 gaza war, 2014 gaza war, and the 2012 war. This is my own opinion RossoSPC (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Merge in Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip This article is a Frankenstein of «Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip» and «Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war» (which itself should be called «Spillover of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip»).

Something that infuriates me about this article is that it treats Israel as if it was a battlefield in a state comparable to Gaza's, when that is far from the case. Life standards in Israel are pretty much unscathed; contrast that with the systemic destruction of Gazan society, and you will see why I have such strong feeling about this narrative given by the article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support: Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and Coffeeandcrumbs. मल्ल (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support Gaza War as a first preference as "the war in Gaza" is what I most commonly hear this war described as, both from the media and from politicians, and it avoids the above bickering over whether to call it the Israel-Hamas war or the Irsael-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

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

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

  The fighting in Israel was largely in the so-called Gaza Envelope, so the key word is all-embracing regardless. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 31 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

• Gaza war for choice but either will do.Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 26 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 Gaza War (with or without dates) as a first choice, and Israel-Gaza war as a second choice. - Ïvana (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Support: Isræl–Gaza war (with or without dates) as the only preference. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose significant major combat is taking place outside of Gaza during the war, including along the Lebanese border, in the West Bank and in the Red Sea.XavierGreen (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @XavierGreen Good point. Alexysun (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  These are obviously separate albeit connected conflicts, which have their WP articles: Israel-Hezbollah conflict (2023-present) and Red Sea crisis etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  How is the status quo good for that? The Red Sea war involves the Houthis, the Lebanese conflict Hezbollah, and the West Bank is ruled by Fatah. "Israel–Hamas war" leaves out all those groups too. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Fwiw, a good chunk of the Vietnam War took place in Cambodia. The name hasn't been a problem because of that. I'm sure there are other examples. Unbandito (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Like a kajillion other examples: The Hundred Years' War lasted 116 years (or so). The Seven Years' War lasted less than 7 years. The French and Indian War wasn't fought between the French and the Indians. The American Revolution was not a revolution, but a secession. The English Civil War was actually multiple wars, and it, the American Civil War, and all other civil wars, were not civil in any meaning of the word. World War I did not involve the entire world, and it wasn't the first large global conflict. (At the time, it was called the "Great War," turns out it wasn't so great.) The Phoney War was actually a real war, and the Cold War got really hot many times. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  In the lead of the Vietnam War page:

  The conflict spilled into the Laotian and Cambodian civil wars, which ended with all three countries becoming communist in 1975.

  Spillovers happen in wars, hence Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war. Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 19:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Yes; I support Gaza war (with or without dates) as a first choice and Israel–Gaza war as a second choice. I support both over the current title, Israel–Hamas war. I mention this in my comment in the above section of the thread as well. 03:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support a move to Gaza war (with it without dates) per OP and reasoning given by Kashmiri. The war is spilling outside of Gaza, but that doesn't justify using the status quo "Country-Organisation" formula, which is inaccurate and reflects a particular POV framing of the war. – GnocchiFan (talk) 13:08, 31 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 a title move to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" as first preference. I think this war, like many wars, should be named based on the primary location of the conflict. Gaza war, like Vietnam war, does not imply that the conflict solely took place within that geographic region. Names such as the current title (Israel-Hamas war) or Israel-Gaza war are POV and should be avoided. In addition, I'm having a hard time thinking of different war that has a similar title. Looking through List of wars: 1945–1989, List_of_wars:_1990–2002, and List_of_wars:_2003–present, you won't find a single article using a similar title construction of "noun-noun war". Instead, you will find "adjective-adjective war" (Arab-Israeli war, First Iraqi–Kurdish War, etc.). The closest title to the current title would be Sinaloa Cartel–Gulf Cartel conflict, but that is a conflict between two drug cartels, and not a war as commonly understood. In conclusion, this article's title is clearly an outlier and should be changed. --JasonMacker (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Strong support as per nom. Well laid out case with policy and examples. WP:SPADE applies, I think. Lewisguile (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Support both Gaza war and Israel-Gaza war (preferably without the dates). نعم البدل (talk) 22:03, 6 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 Irsael-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

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

@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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update Have done an example of a summary for June.[13] I fail to see why other months can't be summarised into single paragraphs also. Will give July and August a go unless there is strong opposition to such a proposal. CNC (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Update #2 Have summarised July & August per support above. [14] Enough of this was either unnecessary detail, or specifying the number of women and children killed, as well as those injured. Without intending to sound insensitive here, these are none the less details of the timeline, and are undue as part of a summary of the timelines. Ideally readers would understand that with XXX dead, this included women, children, and injuries, but I digress. Ideally there would be a summary of number of casualties for these months, but ultimately this doesn't seem to exist. For a better summary, a note should be created to include the number of those killed per month/section, with women, children, elderly, and other injuries defined. I've otherwise removed the templates as I believe this has been resolved for now, as well as moved the note to the bottom of the section (where editors contribute new information) in the hope to quell unnecessary further content. CNC (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15] 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

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." [16][17] [18] 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 [19], 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: [20] GeoffreyA (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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