Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Article title
It seems that supporters of a move entangled themselves over whether it should be Gaza War or Israel Gaza War (and I suppose whether or not there should be dates appended). This discussion is opened to resolve this issue before proposing a new RM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ranked choice voting is the solution here. The RM question should be something like this: Example vote: 3 2 1, A B C. If we all vote like this, it'll get decided. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a smart approach to me. Unbandito (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2A or 3B given that it is still being discussed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * lol... not only is this not an RM, but your vote didn't even follow the instructions. This is why we get nowhere. Levivich (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gaza war has already failed, so lets keep this simple - just ask Israel-Gaza war, with whatever form of disambiguation you prefer. If there is a dispute over the form of disambiguation, it can be resolved with WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and a second RM.
 * Unless, of course, the RM fails, in which case we should implement a six month moratorium so we can stop wasting time on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2,3. I'm not sure why it says 2023-2024 for the dates, shouldn't it be (2023-present)? RealKnockout (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors who voted for "2023-2024" in the previous RM: would you support "2023-present" instead of "2023-2024"? Levivich (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2A or 2B in that order as this name is being increasingly used by RS and due to involvement of many other combatants other than Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am good with 2A. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2A, 3B, or even something else. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Background to the Israel-Hamas war
I agree with on the need for a new article titled Background to the Israel-Hamas war. This would help us move the late 1980s - late 2010s background there, and keep the most immediate background, around 2018 till 6 October 2023, here as a summary (of course the most immediate background would also be covered in this new article). Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ on the basis of making more room for child article summaries in this already large article, per previous discussion. Based on WP:SIZERULE, this shouldn't be a controversial split given the article is back to 14,000 words. CNC (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also agree with this content being merged to other pages as suggested below by others. CNC (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But we already have articles like Israel-Gaza conflict, History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Gaza blockade, etc. etc. Why can't we trim the background section while making sure that those articles contain the info that is now in the background section? Alaexis¿question? 20:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - We should not move the entire background to new page. We still need the background info on this page. Gsgdd (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a notable war whose background has been extensively discussed in RS and fulfills WP's guidelines regarding WP:notability, so it deserves its own standalone article. Also, of course we still need the background info on this page, albeit in a condensed manner that only summarizes the immediate 2018-6 October 2023 background. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How would the background article not be a fork of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza-Israel conflict, Nakba, etc.? Perhaps what's needed is an Israeli-Hamas relations article to provide the background on the relationship between these two entities. Other than that aspect, it seems we already have background articles about Israel and Gaza. I agree though that the background in this article should be significantly trimmed. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure a pure "background" article can justify its existence. An Israeli-Hamas relations relations page would be very justified; other than that, the "background" here is just the entire rest of the conflict, as already covered by other, more general pages about the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The existence is justified by the many RS reporting on the background exclusively. Also, not entirely out of the box, there are numerous similar articles: Causes of World War I, Origins of the Six-Day War, and Rationale for the Iraq War, etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Rationale for the Iraq War" is different -- in that case, the reasons for going to war is a specific topic, given that there was a pre-war PR campaign advocating for that war; that's not just a background article, that's about a PR campaign. "Causes of World War I" I think is also not analogous because that conflict wasn't the culmination of like a larger century-long self-contained conflict like the IP conflict--it was the culmination of centuries of global geopolitical relations, but it's not like the IP conflict. "Origins of the Six-Day War," though, that one makes me think a little differently about this. I could see "Origins of" or "Causes of October 7" as a stand-alone sub-article. It seems rather obvious that the causes of or origins of Israel's attack on Gaza is the October 7 attacks, and the background for that really is the whole IP conflict. In some senses, the background for the October 7 attacks is also the whole IP conflict, but I could see a sub-article that talks about the portion of the IP conflict that specifically led to that specific attack. Such an article would go into more detail about certain aspects of IP than would be covered in the overall IP conflict article. Separate and apart from that, I can still see "Israel-Hamas relations" as a standalone (and its scope would be narrower than the IP conflict article, but broader than the "Origins of October 7" article. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Including the much understated political co-dependence of Hamas and, collectively, Netanyahu, Smotrich and their ilk, and Netanyahu's historic exhortations to parties such as Qatar to keep funding Hamas. Least appreciated critical background notes. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a subset content of the wider article which would be Origins of the Israel-Hamas war. Although obviously the immediate spark to the war were the attacks on October 7, Israel's response cannot be decontextualized from its far-right government, settlements expansion and its decades-long murderous "mowing the lawn" doctrine. This would be like creating an article about the Origins of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Do you see a significant difference between Origins of the Israel-Hamas war vs Causes of the Israel-Hamas war? I think the latter has a clearer and narrower scope, hence I prefer that. Technically "origins" can go all the way back to the 1948-49 creation of the Gaza Strip as a geographic entity.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so I would also support causes or background, no preference for either; although background may be less POV considering it doesn't give approval to justifications by either side. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm very unclear how the segue about Hamas' designation in various countries and the UN vote is particularly relevant background information. It seems entirely tangential to the real meat. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hamas' adversaries labeling them as The Bad Guys isn't particularly informative. A terrorism designation is relevant insofar as it materially impacts things, and it's not clear that the designation did materially impact anything discussed in that section. There might be a place for it elsewhere in the article. Unbandito (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the background section is too bad. It is better than the background section of the Iranian Revolution, which is humongous! Wafflefrites (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * So are we all in agreement over creating Background of the Israel-Hamas war? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No im opposed to the idea - the total word count approx 15000 to 15200 ( excluding infobox and references, notes etc.. )
 * The background should be in this article - if it is moved - less people will read it.
 * I will be ok to reconsider this at a later time. At this time, im opposed to this idea Gsgdd (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose to move it, I propose to move the bulk of it and keep the summaries here. The background is currently taking more space than the actual war, which is very unbalanced. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's the takeaway from the discussion. I'm no fan of hyper-specific spin-offs: they are clutter. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you necessarily strongly opposed and can you elaborate? And regarding the similar background articles presented above? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's my take on it, going through the current Israel–Hamas war section, subsection by subsection:
 * The opening six paragraphs -- everything above Israel–Hamas war -- seems like it's belongs at (and is probably already at) Israeli–Palestinian conflict; we shouldn't fork that article by moving this content to a new article
 * Israel–Hamas war belongs at Hamas or some sub-article like Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, but I don't see anything here that isn't already covered somewhere else, it's basically just background about Hamas. Like, Hamas's justifications of 7 October are no different than Hamas's justifications for anything else Hamas does.
 * Israel–Hamas war is the Israeli version of the Hamas motives section; we already have articles about that, like Israel, Gaza Strip, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and the many already-existing sub-articles.
 * The remaining sections--Israel–Hamas war, Israel–Hamas war, and Israel–Hamas war--seem like they are specific enough to Israel–Hamas war to fill a spin-off article about the "background," "origin," or "causes" of the Israel–Hamas war.
 * So I'd support a background/origin/causes article that is very focused on the precursors leading up to this particular iteration of the conflict. Not decades of history, just the stuff in like 2023. And then I'd support, in the main Israel–Hamas war article, the entire Background section being condensed to like 3 paragraphs, with appropriate links to all these other articles. And to anyone who ends up doing this split/condensing, thank you for volunteering the time to do it :-) Levivich (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable, I would support this.
 * However this can't be used to justify this edit as it selectively removed only the part about the recognition of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Alaexis¿question? 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That was unrelated. I removed that because it is irrelevant trivia about Hamas, not background. I mentioned this above. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a lot of information that is only tangentially related to the war in that section (e.g., Hamas's victory in 2006 elections). I'm okay with removing the first 6 paragraphs entirely as Levivich has suggested but if it's too radical, we can trim everything down. This particular paragraph can be summarised in one sentence "Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by most Western countries". Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is Hamas being considered blue, white, pink, orange, or anything else in the West relevant as background to this conflict? The election is rather more relevant in that it resulted in the blockade, which created the concentration camp pressure cooker scenario. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So guys there's an algorithm for deciding these sorts of things: "terrorist" should be included in this article if and only if it's a significant WP:ASPECT or WP:DUE viewpoint of the Israel–Hamas war, which we determine by looking at sources about the Israel–Hamas war and seeing if they say "terrorist." I just went to bbc.com and apnews.com and looked at whatever article is on their front page about the Israel–Hamas war (BBC, AP), and neither of them say "terrorist" in their own voice (but they both say "Hamas-run"!). This is not a thorough source analysis of course, but you get the idea. (And I just remembered, BBC was a poor choice because they don't use the word "terrorism" as a matter of policy... but you get the idea.) Levivich (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * “ Hamas, or in some cases its armed wing alone, is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the US, the EU, and the UK, among others.” -BBC Wafflefrites (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still meta background, not actual background, but if it was a sentence that short I probably would have ignored it ... but it's not. It's extensive. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support the attempted removal of the two sentences presenting the labeling of Hamas in the Background section. Deletion improves the article. I don't see how it pertains materially to the causes of this war. Moreover, it preferences a view maintained by one of the belligerents and its supporters that collectively comprise 35 / 193 UN member states. Even the 2018 labeling initiative was supported by a minority of UN member states. It may be appropriate to include these two sentences in a related article as a "background to the background." Chino-Catane (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Concluding
So seems from the above discussions that there is general agreement among users for three things:


 * 1- that this article should contain a concise immediate background only and not the meta background
 * 2- that the meta background going back decades is better moved to other existing articles
 * 3- that a more detailed immediate background deserves its own standalone article named Background of the Israel-Hamas war, which would also include a very brief meta background

For this article, I would be ready to trim the background section into only three concise subsections covering the immediate background:
 * A- on Hamas and dealing with its justifications and the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian territories in 2023
 * B- focusing on Israel and its policy towards Hamas and Gaza and its intelligence failure in the lead up to the war
 * C- one on regional aspects relating to US-supported Saudi-Israeli normalization plans and any related international context

Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * LGTM, with one caveat just to be very clear: I do think the article should actually give some of the "meta background," the really broad strokes just to place the current event in a little bit of historical context. So, for example, these facts should probably be relayed: that there has been an Israeli-Palestinian conflict going on for ~100 years [and maybe that Israel was established in 1948]; that Gaza had been occupied by Israel since 1967; Hamas was founded in the 80s to fight against it; the 2005 pull-out and blockade since then; that there have been multiple previous rounds of fighting throughout this history. All of that can be done in like a few sentences. Maybe that's the first paragraph of the three paragraphs, or the beginning of the first paragraph. What I'm saying is we don't want to go so far as to suggest that the history began in 2023, but we also don't need to delve into that meta-background beyond some basic facts and dates. Levivich (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Edited accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that pre-2023 should be contained to a mere paragraph with links to main articles. Personally I think the Background article should be split off first, to avoid the controversy of over-trimming. Trimming can come later after a split, in order to reduce the section down to a summary of the child article. It's otherwise not necessary to remove it from a a split article I don't believe. Arguments that the background is vital context I otherwise agree with, and based on this it deserves to be it's own standalone article per summary guidelines as "a complete encyclopedic article in its own right". But fundamentally it doesn't need to be based here, given it's also notable enough to be a standalone. CNC (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Implementation
The article has been created and the entire background section simply copy pasted there ==> Background to the Israel-Hamas war. Next steps in this order:


 * 1- Trim any excessive meta background from that article
 * 2- Creating a lede for that article
 * 3- Trim the background section here into three immediate background subsections as was elaborated above, but with one paragraph acting as a very brief meta introduction

I will start working on this tomorrow and anyone is welcome to join. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think stick to the format of summary guidelines. It should be similar to the lead of the child article; in this case based on article size (2,700 words), it should be a two to three paragraphs, four at most. There is no reason to have sub-sections for this; child articles are not summarised with sub-sections, they are summarised in a single section. With a decent summary, it can then be copied over to the lead of the new article. CNC (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have already agreed on the subsections part, but let's see how it goes later and whether we decide on something else along the lines of your suggestion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I missed that part. Hopefully it can just be combined into a single section summary. CNC (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you opposed to me doing more aggressive trimming here to clean up? At the moment the "summary" looks like a duplicate of the child article and the WP:SPLIT procedure hasn't been completed yet (ie part 6) CNC (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have completed the intro part, the three subsections mentioned above still remaining to be trimmed and reorganized. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have done a major trim to get it to a four paragraph summary, this includes main summaries of each section within two paragraphs. The exceptions are "Israeli intelligence failure" and "Israel–Saudi normalization talks". The former section isn't really directly a background to the war, but more an analysis of 7 October itself. The latter is mainly Biden's opinion on why the war stated (there's one line at best to include there), but based on sourcing doesn't appear due. Naturally all detailed non-summary content and unnecessary content was removed per wp:summary. CNC (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In hindsight I added in the summary line from "Israel–Saudi normalization talks". The first two sentences of "Israeli intelligence failure" could be better summarised into one and returned, but as I said I don't think it adds much to the background summary. To me it seems more like extra info regarding 7 October, that's already covered in Israeli government response to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which in turn is summarised in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. CNC (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Review

 * Ok ignore first comment, included a summary of "Israeli intelligence failure" afterall as appears a lot more due than an opinion from Al-Qassam Brigades head, especially given Hamas officials state the reason for the attack just above. So that should be a thorough and balanced summary of all the background sections now. CNC (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty much a good summary, thanks for taking the initiative. Although I think there is a few minor points to be addressed, including removing the US-centric POV relating to the intelligence part, and on the Saudi-Israeli normalization. Also the part about Netanyahu's support to Hamas seems misleading; he was not just benignly supporting it by giving work permits to Gazans, he was, in his words, actively and malevolently supporting Hamas to weaken the PA and thwart a Palestinian state, as have his right-wing ministers explicitly long boasted of how they viewed Hamas as an asset. This point of view is very underrepresented. I will check later to see if there are any more points that needs to be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about the US-centric intelligence summary, Egypt should be included in there as well. As you might of noticed I did a very much "hack and chop" based summary based on most notable sentence summaries, so no doubt it could be vastly improved. I encourage you to improve as you see fit. CNC (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

motivations vs response
word motivation seems aspirational. it should be response. if you read the content - it is about the official response from hammas about why attack is done. @Unbandito@Chino-Catane I think response is more neutral Gsgdd (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I personally don't associate the phrase "Hamas motivations" with "aspirational goals", it simply expresses the notion of "reasons why". The term "response" would not be appropriate here because this article concerns itself primarily with an episode in time beginning Oct. 7, 2023. With that defined start date, it would not be correct to say that Hamas responded to anything. Hamas initiated the episode of armed conflict we are labeling "Israel-Hamas war". Chino-Catane (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * response here means a verbal or written answer. not a reaction to something. I guess words has many meaning - hard to come up with something Gsgdd (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If Hamas "motivations" sounds too "aspirational", Hamas "motives" can be considered instead. Chino-Catane (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * yes- this is the right word. generally - A motive is a reason for doing something. Motivation is having the enthusiasm to do something Gsgdd (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead section creep
I'm not saying the most recent lead insertion is the only example, but I have recently been reminded that information presented in an article lead must reflect notable content discussed in the article body. Indirect casualties are not discussed at all in the body of this article. I propose removing this insertion until indirect casualties have been presented, in a significant way, in the body of the article itself. Furthermore, the cited Khatib source is the fourth instantiation of the same exact Lancet "correspondence". This has the characteristics of a "drive-by" insertion designed to skew article bias towards a particular belligerent. If anyone else has noticed lead insertions not reflecting notable article body content, those insertions should be removed as well. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Indirect casualties were discussed in the Casualties section of the body (which is transcluded from a template). I expanded it in the body and the lead. Levivich (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree of course that the lead should summarize the body. However, If the only reason material added to the lead doesn't belong there is because it isn't in the body yet, and it would belong in the lead if it were in the body, I think the thing to do would be to add an exposition of that info to the body, rather than removing it from the lead. Although it's not how things are supposed to be done, it seems natural to me that editors will want to give groundbreaking new information like this Lancet study a prominent position in the article, even if that info isn't fleshed out in the body yet. It probably makes more sense to work with that tendency than try to fight against it. Unbandito (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The point of not doing it backwards is so that there is a proper assessment of due weight as it may be that when examined in the overall scheme of things, the groundbreaking new information is not actually all that groundbreaking. OK, it is sometimes permissible to add to lead directly but it will definitely get picked up on well traveled articles and while some editors might have a go at the add to body part on seeing something in the lead, that's not a requirement, so removal can be justified in that case. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Levivich pointed out my oversight with respect to this particular instance of lead creep. As a matter of general practice, I appreciate Selfstudier's observation regarding "proper assessment of due weight". The problem with "not fighting the tendency" is that it invites "drive-by" insertions of lead content designed to skew article bias towards a particular belligerent. Per WP:LEAD, "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people read ... and may be the only portion of the article that they read." Doing things backwards allows propagandists to broadcast propaganda very inexpensively. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Indirect casualties from the Lancet study
Hello.

Given that it was clearly stated that the 4x number of casualties was a conservative estimate, whereas the maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 deaths in sum total, should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like a fairly clear statement of what is meant by 'indirect casualty' first. It dounds as uncertain as saying 'injured' without a reasonably clear definition. I do't expect some boilerplated definition, just something where one can know within 50% each way at a very minimum. NadVolum (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds a bit like Excess mortality, going by the linked https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/gaza_projections_report.pdf but that also says "To our knowledge, no such detailed projections have been issued during an ongoing humanitarian response, and the methods employed for this project are mostly novel" so I'd treat the estimates somewhat cautiously. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.newarab.com/news/lancet-experts-put-harrowing-gaza-death-toll-186000 A secondary.
 * And there is https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q509 from February on projected excess deaths as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There are at least two other discussions talking place about this, and it was suggested by editor that they be consolidated here for ongoing discussion so I am just going to copy paste them. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The following part of this discussion started at and was moved here to centralize discussion on this topic onto a single talk page.

re the estimate you added, I'm not necessarily against including this, but we should be cautious for a few reasons
 * Lancet lists this as "Correspondence", are essentially letters from readers. See here (emphasis theirs). Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed. The authors do have some credentials, so this isn't a dealbreaker, just more like a WP:SPS.
 * It's a projection of future deaths, so we should make that clear.
 * I feel "statistical estimate" is making this sound more rigorous than it is - they just picked a round-number multiple (four) that they felt would be not implausible for this conflict.
 * To corroborate the plausibility of the multiple, they seem to cite an article titled Global burden of armed conflict, which I can't find. They provide a URL which points to a report titled World Drug Report, so maybe it's that? That report seems to discuss some related ideas of extrapolation based on multiples, but in the context of heroin addicts.

Again not necessarily against including it, but I think it should be framed pretty differently if we do. — xDanielx  T/C\R 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I expanded the line and the cite, and did the same at a few other articles (check my contribs). Feel free to massage it further. Levivich (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I might make some additional changes but will hold off a bit to see other input. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I also think that this information should be included, given that only the identifiable bodies directly killed by assaults from Israeli forces have been included in the listed statistics here thus far, not the ones hidden under the rubble of collapsed buildings or killed by starvation or diseases as a result from this conflict. David A (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it was clearly stated that the 4x number was a conservative estimate. The maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 total deaths of mainly innocent women and children. Should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of what the source says directly, they do say conservative but also say not implausible, which I think reflects the high uncertainty with such difficult projections. Maybe we should include both?
 * My take (which is admittedly less relevant) is that something close to 15x probably isn't plausible here, since that would be at least 25% of the population, maybe 50%+ if direct deaths rise. The cases with high multiples, like DRC (~10x), seem to involve smaller proportions of the population, and also parts of the world that are more ignored by the West. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but given the systematic prevention of food deliveries caused by the Israeli military and settler groups, combined with complete destruction of sanitation, systematic targeting of medical personel and rescue workers, and so onwards, wouldn't the situation rationally be considerably worse than usual in terms of indirect deaths? David A (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you have some valid points and it's probably fine to say conservative. Not sure about a number like 570k since we wouldn't have a source for it (maybe stil admissible based on WP:CALC but feels iffy to me), but we could mention the 3-15x range if that works?
 * I think for balance it would also be good to somehow highlight that these are very rough projections, with a lot of assumptions (that Gaza is comparable to other conflicts, that GHM isn't already counting indirect deaths, etc) and uncertainty. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that mentioning the 3x to 15x range seems reasonable, as long as we also mention that the 4x multiple was used for the currently listed estimate. David A (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think that we should mention the 3x minimum and 15x maximum as well. David A (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I found what the authors meant to cite to back the multiples they mention: The Global Burden of Armed Violence, chapter 2. It says In the majority of conflicts since the early 1990s for which good data is available, the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number of direct deaths, and A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What if we cited this report as the main source discussing indirect deaths, and briefly mentioned the Lancet correspondence just for the 186k figure? This report just seems much more authoritative and rigorous. I think this could lead to a stronger, more verifiable statement, otherwise readers who check the Lancet source might get the impression that numbers were pulled out of a hat. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that we should use both sources in combination for stronger verification purposes. Mainly using the main source that the Lancet study used for its total casualties estimations does not directly mention the current situation in Palestine as far as I am aware. Meaning, please do not remove any current information, but feel free to add a reference and the 570,000 upper maximum number, in my personal view. David A (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should mainly cite the Lancet article, and point out that this is where they got the multiples from, for extra clarity that it's not just a random made-up number. Citing primarily this report for a figure like this makes it feel like WP:OR. It needs to be clear that the idea to use this figure in this way comes from the Lancet source.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 21:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I might have missed the part which implies that it is predictive. Though, when I first read it I interpreted it as indirect deaths up to that point (which would make sense given they're using a figure of how many people died up until recently).
 * That's not to say there's no grounds for interpreting it in that way, and I think there is good reason to think about including the "future" part Genabab (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You missed it because at no point does the report say that the 186k figure is a projection.
 * Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. A report from Feb 7, 2024, at the time when the direct death toll was 28 000, estimated that without a ceasefire there would be between 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024.
 * This is simple enough to interpret. For the current conflict in Gaza, a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death is applied (which gives us the 186k figure). These are not future projections but rather an estimate of the impact to date. The future projections mentioned are from a February report and are based on a different context and point in time. - Ïvana (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is a bit ambiguous, but I think the context from the two preceding sentences make it clear they're talking about a projection of future indirect deaths (or maybe both, past + future): Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given [...]
 * Besides, interpreting it as 186k past deaths would make the claim quite extraordinary. GHM must have a reasonable estimate of total excess (direct + indirect) deaths, which is simply total deaths minus expected deaths (based on pre-conflict data). If that number was anything close to 186k, surely GHM would have reported it and it would be all over the news. — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What he's saying is that if the war stopped today and there were only 38k deaths and nobody was killed tomorrow (like by a bomb or a gun), then there would be some multiple in indirect deaths (author goes with 186k), but that doesn't mean 186k people have already died. People will die tomorrow from disease they have today that they got from yesterday's war. So these are sort of future deaths but they're caused by past events.
 * I think the "answer" is to hew even closer to the original text, like maybe go straight with "186k deaths may be attributable to the current conflict." This may be one of those instances where plagiarism is required for accuracy. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we're in agreement about how to interpret the 186k figure; an author also somewhat clarified here (see the whole thread). I.e. it's a projection of future deaths caused by past conflict-related events.
 * I'm not sure about including attributable to the current conflict though. Normally I'm all for staying close to the source's language, but we should make exceptions for language that's ambiguous or likely to be misinterpreted, which the confusion here and on Twitter suggests this is. — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a projection of future deaths, which the author said in that twitter thread ("some already happened and some of which it is not implausible to expect in the future"). In that twitter thread, McKee says "The letter is clear," so he doesn't think it's ambiguous. To reproduce it in full: and  I think we should track that, meaning we should say there are 38k direct deaths, plus more indirect deaths, which a conservative (and reliable) estimate put at 186k but it could be higher. We should be clear that this is an estimate of indirect deaths that already happened and are expected in the future.
 * Like everyone, I am partial to my own writing, but I don't really understand what is incorrect or ambiguous about this: Except that  might be better said as  or, as I suggested above,  (which is their writing, not mine). Levivich (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My wording could have been better, I mean that the 186k figure includes future deaths (in addition to past ones). In other words, it's a projection of what the cumulative total of all excess deaths will end up being. Right?
 * (I suspect that the MoH data already includes at least some indirect deaths, as that other Lancet letter they cite seems to suggest: MoH data did not differentiate [...] whether deaths were caused directly. But yes this essay appears to have an implicit assumption that the MoH figure is direct deaths only.) — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a projection of the cumulative total of all indirect (I don't know if that word means the same as "excess" or not) deaths based on the current best available data of the total direct deaths to date. In other words, if there are more direct deaths tomorrow, there would be more than 186k indirect deaths.
 * BTW, I think 's recent edit (thanks) improves the clarity of the sentence (and maybe should be made at Palestinian genocide accusation as well). Levivich (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is my strong impression as well. David A (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoting that and citing would not be plagiarism Genabab (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely what you meant to say here was "direct quotation", not "plagiarism"?  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could quote it, but I don't think it's necessary, we can just use the same words; "could be attributable to the current conflict" is common phrasing. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The following part of this discussion started at and was moved here to centralize discussion on this topic onto a single talk page.

One of the authors of the "Lancet" article mentioned at the end of the "Victims" section issued the following clarification:

"And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative" https://x.com/martinmckee/status/1810251590520950808

Given this clarification, it's best to remove the reference to this estimate entirely, as the author himself describes it as "purely illustrative". Zlmark (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure what this request is, are you requesting that all reference to the Lancet piece be removed?
 * Also see Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I request to remove the reference to the Lancet, because its only added value was the specific estimate, but now one of the authors clarified that it's "purely illustrative", as far as he's concerned.
 * This, along with the facts mentioned by other contributors - lack of peer-review, future projections mistakenly framed as current estimates and questionable methodology based on comparison to other conflicts with different dynamics - justifies a removal of this reference, in my view. Zlmark (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well, EC editors will discuss that and decide what to do. Thanks for your input. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These various discussions should probably be consolidated in one place? Maybe the main war article talk page? Levivich (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, what to do, copy paste? Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Tweet has been deleted; glad you copy/pasted it so others can still follow. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Deleting a tweet often means taking back a statement due to that it has been misunderstood. David A (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the paper can be put into the Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war article but is just not definite enough to say anything much about in this article at the moment. In response to a query about the GHM not estimating higher figure - its figures are just for direct deaths, it does not count indirect deaths due to things like not having medical facilities or starvation as casualties of the war. This follows the standards of the OCHR reporting. NadVolum (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The only assertion in this Lancet "correspondence" worth inclusion in an encyclopedia is, "almost certainly the indirect deaths are or will be much higher." The number of escape hatches the authors provide themselves with is remarkable. "not implausible to estimate", "up to ... or even more" → (this is the most useless qualifier), "could be", "purely illustrative". I don't see how a claim employing this kind of language should be presented as something reliable. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet study is not a peer-reviewed article, it's a correspondence. One of the three authors has now outright admitted that the estimate is "purely illustrative meant to show how high the death toll could plausibly be in the authors' view. We shouldn't use it as an official source. Let's wait for a proper estimate on the death toll.--RM (Be my friend) 20:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Or it could be used to ... illustrate. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A guess to try to illustrate a point has no place on Wikipedia RM (Be my friend) 11:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good thing it's not a guess. Levivich (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the authors openly admitted the 186k figure was purely illustrative. It's not a credible source. RM (Be my friend) 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All estimates are illustrative? What do you think a projection or forecast is? It's just a pretty line on a chart backed by a methodology whose veracity lies somewhere on the spectrum between half-baked and crystal ball. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think "illustrative" means what you think it means. It does not mean "guess." Levivich (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How would you interpret it? To me "purely illustrative" indicates that the figure was intended as an example of a conceivable number, rather than a rigorous estimate. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The 186k figure illustrates a conservative estimate in between the range of 3x-15x direct deaths (37,396 reported), i.e. 112,188-560,940. He could have picked some other figure in that range, but he chose a conservative estimate of 4x indirect deaths per direct death. It could be lower, but more likely, it will be much higher, that's what makes it "conservative." It's not a guess, it's an estimate. Whether it's a "rigorous" estimate, like as that term is defined in the field of statistics, I don't know, I'm not qualified to answer that. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey all, just so no one's confused, and to explain myself in a bit more detail than I did in the edit summary, I just prettified 's opening and closing indicators for the parts of this section that were originally copied and pasted from other pages. I added explanations in a way that should be less discouraging towards continuing the discussions in-place (I feel like calling it a "copy" makes it feel like adding anything inside of it is messing it up, but there's no reason it has to just remain a "copy" and it'd actually be best for readability if any new comments in response to something in one of the copied sections is placed right after what it's responding to, indented one level further, like normal) while still communicating the context that they started on a different talk page.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 02:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Haven't read the discussion fully but I assume it is mainly about how to describe the Lancet points in the lede? I think a good middle ground solution would be just to change the current phrasing into "at least three magnitudes higher". I wouldn't personally be inclined to go beyond that because I think it is too early, we could elaborate more when it gains more coverage and responses in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Three magnitudes higher" is imprecise and hard to understand. "Between three to fiteen times higher" would be accurate going by the source. David A (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you going on about "precision" when most of the language employed in the "correspondence" is wildly imprecise, laced with the same kind of linguistic hedging that economists often use to escape being held accountable for making irresponsible projections? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am "going on" about accurately citing the source in question and that it only used a conservative estimation of 4 times the officially listed casualty numbers. David A (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're equivocating here. These are two separate points.  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I propose modifying or completely removing the sentence, "Some have speculated that the total death toll in Gaza might be higher than reported, with roughly 10,000 Gazans believed still buried under the rubble."
 * I propose completely removing the clause, "186,000 Palestinians or more may die as a result of the conflict according to a July 2024 estimate by Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf published in The Lancet's correspondence section."
 * Reason: WP:CRYSTAL states, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate."
 * Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Myself and likely several other editors here would strongly object to such an extreme attempt to remove highly valid information, yes. David A (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "extreme attempt": How is it extreme to cite Wikipedia policy as a rationale for a proposed edit? The assertion that the aforementioned speculative statements are "highly valid information" is not consistent with WP:CRYSTAL. Please explain how the aforementioned sentences do not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Chino-Catane (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is completely invalid here because this is not a case of original research. If WP:CRYSTAL is the basis for your argument, you're gonna need to pull a different passage than this one. (It's also worth noting that WP:CRYSTAL goes on to state: Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research [emphasis in original] that embody predictions.)  Kinsio  (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 02:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As an open question for clarification to other editors here, for the sake of academic accuracy, given that there seem to be contradictory interpretations of the Lancet source, does it refer to sum total current deaths, when including all indirect causes, such as starvation and diseases, or is it a projection for the sum total future deaths as a result of this ongoing humanitarian catastrophe? What does the source of the methodology that the Lancet article writers used state regarding the topic? David A (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it is basically saying what would be the difference in population in a cople of year time between what one would have expected without the war and what the population turns out to be. But that is a valid point okay - the Gaza Health Ministry does not include deaths due to disease, starvation or lack of medical care in its figures for casualties of the war. Probably many thousands have already died due to those factors, particularly children and the elderly, but not as many as the direct casualties yet. NadVolum (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There is now an analysis of the letter to The Lancet on Action on Armed Violence's Web site: Looks like an expert to me and overall reliable organization, and we already actively cite both in other articles. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kinsio Here are the key points in the above-mentioned critical analysis of the Lancet "correspondence":
 * "these figures come from a small, non-representative sample of conflicts"
 * "each number ... is presented with unwarranted certainty. These figures are, in fact, surrounded by considerable uncertainty"
 * "a four to one ratio does not even rise to the status of rule of thumb"
 * "Historical data from other conflicts should be used cautiously, recognizing the unique factors at play in Gaza"
 * "While the letter in The Lancet draws attention to the severe human cost in Gaza, its methodology for estimating indirect deaths lacks rigour"
 * The WP:CRYSTAL allowance for speculative "credible research" does not clearly apply to this contentious Lancet "correspondence". Acceptance of the speculative estimate is a matter of opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Editors of this article are generally doing a good job. However, I think some people are forgetting that Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNP). People overreacted to a remarkable claim and decided to report it here in this article immediately. I propose striking the 186,000 figure from the article pending further supporting analysis. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And what makes this charity particularly reliable? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I support removing the figure from the infobox. Significant concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of the source and I think its inclusion in the main infobox gives the source far more weight than is warranted. EDIT: to elaborate a bit further, it does not appear that this source was subjected to extensive peer review. Also, their sole justification for using the 1:4 death ration was a citation to the entirety of a 2008 UN report on armed conflict (no page number was provided for the over 170 page document). The figure provided seems to be a rough guesstimate rather than a specific number reached through rigorous analysis. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've opened a discussion at RSN: Reliable sources/Noticeboard as there are significant problems with this source's reliability and it is cited in many articles. Suggest people participate there as well. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Should this discussion be closed and editors directed to the RSN discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, is reliability actually in question, this discussion is more how/what to include in articles. Selfstudier (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-lancet sources on 4x indirect casualties
As pointed out above, the 4x number of comes from: Geneva Declaration Secretariat. (2008, September). Global Burden of Armed Violence. The Lancet letter merely applies this to the Gaza war. Before this letter, two other sources did the same without attracting much attention: VR (Please ping on reply) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Adam Gaffney (assistant professor at Harvard Medical School) writing in The Nation: "For instance, the Geneva Declaration Secretariat’s review of prior conflicts found that indirect deaths have, for most conflicts since the 1990s, been three to fifteen-fold higher than direct deaths, and suggest a ratio of four to one as a “conservative” estimate. There are reasons to think this ratio could be on the low end in Gaza given, among other things, the protracted and brutal siege."
 * Dima Nazzal, director of the Center for Health and Humanitarian Systems at Georgia Tech writing in a couple of different places: "The report places a conservative estimate that for every person directly killed by war, four more are killed by its indirect consequences – things such as waterborne diseases due to the lack of safe, clean water and destruction of water sanitation facilities, or deaths due to birth complications because of health services being disrupted. Given the scale and scope of destruction of six months of bombing, the consequential impact of war in Gaza may be even worse. And whereas there is usually a lag before these effects are felt, in Gaza they are already occurring."


 * It's less and less an extraordinary claim then, and more a common sense, practical application of a widely regarded conservative rule of thumb. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this research. We can write a line about indirect deaths that summarizes all three now. Levivich (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you greatly for your investigation. I also think that this seems like a common sense practical application and conservative estimation then. David A (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * VR thanks for these sources—I just want to note that Gaffney is a pulmonologist without formal qualifications in public health. He has written at least twice previously on this subject, including If, as the Trump administration has urged, it entirely overturns the Affordable Care Act, 19.9 million individuals could lose health coverage. Based on the same approach as outlined above, we estimate that this coverage loss would lead to 22,892 – 68,345 excess deaths among nonelderly adults annually. The life and health ramifications of this case — and of November’s election — are enormous. (link) and 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade. (source). So there's a consistent political activism to his statistical analyses.
 * Dima Nazzal is a professor of industrial engineering with an administrative role at CHHS. She is sometimes accorded a courtesy credit as final author on CHHS publications, but she is not a scholar of public health.
 * Ultimately the question is whether these three opinion pieces are enough to overcome WP:SYNTH issues with using the Small Arms Survey report's general conclusions. To me they don't move the needle. This claim requires attribution and clarity to readers re the underlying logic. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede Hamas motives
This is using too many words for a summary, any objections to trimming it this way?

From

"Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, as well as alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinian refugees and prisoners"

To

"Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's continued occupation, blockade of Gaza, settlements expansion, as well as threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinians"? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep "alleged threats", but otherwise looks good to me. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Summarized accordingly then. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with BilledMammal, overall a nice trim which more or less retains the meaning. — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Liked billed mammal said, keep the threats alleged. Also recommend you include “international silence and Israel’s disregard for international law” as it was one of the factors Hamas cited as a reason for October 7 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really into politics or conflict, but I think the status quo is better and should be kept. Wretchskull (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The original certainly reads easier for me, the replacement sounds a bit garbled like it was being timed. NadVolum (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Redundant?
This article is, fundamentally, an article about the invasion of Gaza but with an extra-layer covering minor developments of the Arab-Israeli and Iran-Israel conflicts, none of which are really meaningful in the overall topic of the article; and discussing the October 7 attacks, not as the trigger of the war (as say, 9/11 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), but as a part of the war itself (as if it was comparable to, say, the invasion of Poland in WW2).

The lack of consensus on what the article should even be named (as evidenced by the three-month long ' wiki-ceasefire ' earlier this year), let alone the fact that the article itself is basically a replica of the article «Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)» with a bunch of bloating of minor, distantly related topics (aside from the over-emphasis on October 7 discussed above), make me question about if we should even have this entry in the first place, since, as it stands, the only battlefront of the war is Gaza. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 02:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Last lede paragraph
Any objections to trimming this part?

From:

"The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large protests have occurred across the world, primarily pro-Palestinian ones. Israel's conduct have been denounced in the Muslim world and much of the Global South. In December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza; with the court later ordering Israel to immediately halt its ongoing Rafah offensive."

To

"The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large, primarily pro-Palestinian protests have been occurring across the world to call for a ceasefire. In late 2023, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice to look into allegations of Israel committing genocide in Gaza; with the court having ordered Israel to immediately halt its ongoing Rafah offensive accordingly." Makeandtoss (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * How about this as a tentative cross between the two: "The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large, primarily pro-Palestinian protests have taken place across the world, calling for a ceasefire. In late 2023, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, and in 2024, the court ordered Israel to halt its Rafah offensive." GeoffreyA (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Works with me. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The remaining sentences, being bulky and not running too well, could also be tackled next. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about a further summary? From "In late 2023, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, and in 2024, the court ordered Israel to halt its Rafah offensive"
 * To "The International Court of Justice is currently reviewing a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza." Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I like this proposal. The comma placement in previous is still wonky in previous. We should at least say "South Africa brought a case" if this isn't accepted. And I think we can strike "currently" as redundant, also because it might condition the reader to expect a ruling soon, which is not going to be the case. Finally I think "calling for a ceasefire" should be struck. I, an informed July 2024 reader, know that it means "primarily pro-Palestinian protests, which primarily call for a ceasefire" but I don't the sentence itself is clear to a less-informed or future reader. It doesn't make clear that the pro-ceasefire protests are themselves a subset of pro-Palestinian protests and when understood the double-limitation still makes it impossible to guess what percentage of the total number of protests is pro-Palestinian-pro-ceasefire. I suggest The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large, primarily pro-Palestinian protests have taken place around the world. The International Court of Justice is reviewing a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Works with me. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's not clear what subset is calling for a cease-fire. We could cut it, as you've suggested, use a qualifier before "calling," or even recast the sentence, putting "primarily pro-Palestinian" in comma parenthesis. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss, I agree with your improved summary: it abstracts the details better. Concerning the "bulky sentences not running well," I was actually referring to the next section, from "Israel has received significant support" to the end of the paragraph. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize; let's take it a step at a time. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence in the war crimes section
Seems there's a bit of a content dispute over the following sentence, at the start of the "War crimes" section: Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of attempted or imminent genocide, and several other war crimes, including sexual violence. I felt that putting this sentence upfront unduly promotes a fringe view which equivocates the 7 October attacks with Israel's subsequent invasion. Based on the sources in the rest of the paragraph, I would say that it's reasonable to open this section by saying that both Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes - they have, and both by equally credible, numerous and important sources. However,

The Genocide Watch source says the following in the cited article: The massacres by Hamas constituted acts of genocide. The attacks were also crimes against humanity and war crimes... Both Israel and Hamas are committing war crimes... Genocide Watch considers the war in Israel and Gaza to be at Stage 3: Discrimination, Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 5: Organization, Stage 6: Polarization, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 9: Extermination. The article does not accuse Israel of acts of genocide. This article was written before the ground invasion of Gaza had begun, so to be more charitable to the source it's worth including that in a more recent article Genocide Watch also says We note Israel’s asymmetrical warfare in Gaza. Israel has committed multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. Its warfare has also included many acts of genocide. If the content stays in, it would be worth updating the source.

Beyond that, I think that the assertion by Genocide Watch that the 7 October attacks constitute acts of genocide is not supported by the bulk of RS, the international proceedings that have taken place during the war, scholarly/expert opinion etc. The sentence is therefore undue to lead the section. If it remains in the article, I think it should come attributed and be moved beneath any official proceedings by the UN and other international bodies.

I'm interested to hear what other editors think; tagging @BilledMammal @Catleeball @GordonGlottal as you each were involved. Unbandito (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This should be generalized. The "including sexual violence" is unnecessary, that is only one of many war crimes, it should mention crimes against humanity, which includes genocide among others. Picking out specific crimes is not the right thing for the opening sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "including sexual violence" should be removed, or all the war crimes included. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the sentence should likely be revised for clarity regarding the claims and reduced to summarize better as a lede be removed.
 * I also think you're right that the source should probably be updated. On an initial look, here's some sources we could explore as an alternative to the current Genocide Watch link regarding the claim that Israel is committing genocide in this conflict:
 * https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2022.2065261
 * https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
 * https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf
 * Sorry for my restore edit earlier! I only saw the claim that Genocide Watch was not a reliable source in the edit summary; I reverted without checking the edit history for context and didn't see the earlier revert/restores.
 * If I have a minute later tonight I might workshop a new lead and post it here, but don't wait for me if anyone else has time to do so first. :)
 * Catleeball (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, re-reading the War Crimes section, given that there is already several "see also" links including the gaza genocide article and pages for war crimes from each side, as well as discussion of the UNHRC investigation, I think I agree the lede here can just be deleted entirely. Catleeball (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is historically a bit reliant on "NGOs" that are basically bloggers based in Western countries. I include Genocide Watch and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. These are not RS in the sense that they have neither institutional processes to guarantee reliability nor unique expertise. It makes no sense to me that we should disregard our usual RSP in favor of these sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Muhammed Bhar
@BilledMammal can you explain in greater detail why you reverted my edit mentioning the killing of Muhammed Bhar, and propose an alternative presentation?

I also invite other editors to weigh in as to whether and to what degree the event is deserving of a mention in this article. Unbandito (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s too detailed for this article. Plus, most of the details you added weren’t supported by the provided source, and one was even contradicted by it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's clearly worthy of a one sentence mention at a minimum, and I would be surprised if a significant number of other editors disagree. Which details in particular do you think were unsupported or contradicted by the source? Unbandito (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? A single death is rarely significant enough for inclusion in this article, as adding one on every death that had relieved as much coverage as this one would make the article impossibly long.
 * Pretty much all of them; take a look over your source again and you’ll see. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? This was a particularly egregious and torturous killing of a vulnerable civilian that was picked up by reliable sources and has led to significant public outrage. Imo, the Killing of Hind Rajab and of Refaat Alareer deserve a mention in this article for the same reason. We already mention the killing of two journalists and a handful of World Central Kitchen workers in the article, as these are clearly significant incidents for reasons other than their death toll.
 * After re-reading the BBC article. I was able to find one mistake: The IDF dog attacked Muhammed during a raid of his family's house, and the family was ordered to evacuate without him only hours later. I will correct that. If you have other criticisms of the story or my summary of it, please substantiate them. Unbandito (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see any issues with your summary of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly a notable incident; I have created the relevant article Killing of Mohammad Bhar. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There’s a lot of problems with that article, including that some of the claims are unsupported by the sources, and that one of the major sources, MEE, contains false information. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am yet to see details of these “problems.” I have wrote the article myself and all the claims are in the sources. Either way this is irrelevant to notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I expect there'll be more coverage coming, and a killing of this nature certainly warrants a sentence in this article. GeoffreyA (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent lede changes
Why did you remove the information about indirect deaths and people trapped under rubble? And why did you remove mentions of Israel's settlement expansion and clashes in the West Bank, a major occurrence during this war? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I reverted the phrasing about the Axis of Resistance because the proposed version made it seem as if it is a monolith, rather than a series of semi-independent groups. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A few wordings that I changed:
 * I don't think "plight" is the sort of word we should ever put in wikivoice, too pathos-y.
 * I changed "impending famine" to "widespread food shortages" because the source was dated 2/27/2024. We can't describe something as "impending" based on a 5-month-old source.
 * I removed "cut off basic necessities" because it's redundant--we already say healthcare and food.
 * I removed the line about trapped under rubble because it wasn't accurate. The Red Cross says that 6,400 total people have been reported missing since 10/7/2023. Some of those people, according to the Red Cross, probably are or were under rubble at the time of the report, but they don't say how many. Nobody can know how much overlap exists between that number and the casualty count we already include, which accounts for 13,000 reported deaths with no name attached as well as names with no body identified.
 * I changed "children" to "minors" because BBC Verify has said that although the GHM doesn't describe its criteria this number corresponds to a count of (all females) + (males under 18). "Minors" is more specific than "children" and it seems to be entirely accurate.
 * I think we would need an estimate specifically about indirect deaths in Gaza to include it in the lede without attribution. The Lancet correspondence piece just quotes that the average of 2008 conflicts was 4x, but the range is very wide. US-coalition wars achieved lower indirect deaths rates, and rates improved between 1992 and 2008. Or it may be higher because harder to flee, etc. And the 4x average counts deaths that continue to occur long after the conflict ends, it's not something we can say about the death rate now. A lot will depend on post-conflict politics. The same research institute put out a briefing paper in 2017 with methodological considerations. There will be research on this subject but I think the general fact that 2008 conflicts averaged 4x doesn't need to be mentioned in the lede of pages like this.
 * The Houthis have not distinguished between Israeli, US, and UK ships. There are very few Israeli ships, so almost all of the ships attacked had a US or UK connection instead.
 * The logic behind removing the West Bank line is that it isn't the main subject of this page. It would belong in the lede of "Israel-Palestine history 2023-2024" but I think on "Israel-Hamas war" we can cut it. The ledes on contentious pages tend to be very long because hard enough to agree without having to agree on priorities too, but if we can limit length we should.
 * GordonGlottal (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Concerning the use of the word minors vs. children, I believe it was discussed on the Talk page before. "Minor" is related to the age of majority, which is usually 18 but not always, and rings of someone, to my ears at any rate, not far from adulthood or an older teenager. Using it here sounds euphemistic and, as far I can remember, sources are using children.
 * Arguably, a remark on the West Bank is not amiss because what is going on there is a separate but parallel thread to the situation in Gaza, and sources are often reporting on it too under the banner of the present war. Of course, Gaza information should prevail. GeoffreyA (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are sources that refer to Israeli actions being carried out under cover of the Gaza war, those would be relevant, certainly. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. GeoffreyA (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess the terms will vary across cultures but to me "minors" means 0-18 and "children" refers to a younger population. I asked ChatGPT (one of its few good uses IMO is colloquial language) and it confirmed that The term "minors" generally refers to individuals under the age of 18. and The term "children" typically refers to individuals from birth up to around 12 years old . . . In some contexts, "children" can be used more broadly to include adolescents up to 18 years old. How about "women, children, and minors"? The AP and Al-Jazeera have used "children and minors" so it does seem possible to use them non-ovelappingly. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Though we shouldn't put weight on what ChatGPT says, considering that LLMs are subject to hallucination, in this case, I do agree with its assessment on children. (Incidentally, the information is likely coming from Wikipedia because these LLMs are often trained on its corpus among other data.) My concern was that using minors gives the impression that children, the young ones, are not included, when the facts show they certainly are. Women, children, and minors could work, but depending on one's view, could be considered superfluous. What do other editors think? GeoffreyA (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RS are using "children" to describe the Palestinians killed in Gaza, not minors. Also, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as, "A human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I linked in the previous edit, RS have used "children" and "minors" and "children and minors". A wiki page is not a legal document for international human rights lawyers, and terms with technical definitions at odds with colloquial use will confuse our readership. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Plight is not used in WP voice but attributed to Hamas at the beginning of the sentence. Source was updated on famine, and per WP link. Cut off basic necessities like water and electricity and medicine goes beyond food and health sector so not redundant. Children per RS and UN definition, not minors.
 * As for the removal of the sentence on the indirect Palestinian deaths, this is pretty much personal original research going against RS findings like the Lancet.
 * About the trapped figures, no need to specify we can just say "thousands" per RS.
 * As for the removal of West Bank settlement expansion and clashes, this is a major component of war, as per RS.  Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no "RS findings like the Lancet". They published a letter about the indirect casualties which is not a peer-reviewed article. Alaexis¿question? 11:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Peer review is not a requirement of RS. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ^ Peer review is a requirement of scientific papers, not of RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It may have been your intent to write "the Hamas-alleged plight of Palestinians" but that's a grammatically impossible parsing of the actual sentence. You can't say "alleged . . . the plight of Palestinians" in English, so "as well as alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinians" means "as well as alleged threats to Al-Aqsa and the [non-alleged] plight of Palestinians". It needs to be something that can occupy the same position in the sentence word order, so something plural or uncountable like "mistreatment."
 * The Lancet correspondence article does not present "findings" because it is not the result of research. It's at best an opinion piece that has to be attributed and doesn't belong in the lede. The Lancet proper, where research is published, requires authors to specify what criteria were used to determine which data points were relevant, and how the method used fits a research design. I'm just clarifying from the Lancet correspondence authors' source what the number they quote actually means.
 * The Save the Children article is published on June 24 but source for this claim is PCD in April, now months out of date. PCD used to say this regularly and I don't think we can assume it's still true if they've stopped.
 * Can you clarify which RS says that "West Bank settlement expansion is a major component of the war"?
 * GordonGlottal (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources about how trouble in the West Bank has accelerated since, and seemingly under the cover of, the Gaza war:      GeoffreyA (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant; the sentence starts with: "Hamas said its attack was in response to.....the plight of Palestinians." The alleged part followed by threats ends there and does not extend to the plight part. This is perfectly grammatically correct.
 * Lancet correspondence article is clearly based on desk research as evidenced by the use of references in it; a desk research letter published in one of the world's most prestigious medical journals. I do not understand the objection to this and does not seem to based on any legitimate concerns.
 * If an RS publishes something on 24 June using April data, then we follow the RS and reflect that on WP.
 * The sources about settlement expansion under the cover of war were provided by GeoffreyA above. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss, you wrote previously that Plight is not used in WP voice but attributed to Hamas. Are you now agreeing that's not true? The problem isn't assuming Hamas' statements about their motives are true, which I agree we don't currently do, the problem is referring to the situation as a "plight" in wikivoice. It's just not an encyclopedic word because its function is to provoke emotion.
 * I don't understand what you mean about the Lancet correspondence. It's not based on any data about the Israel-Hamas war, "desk research" or otherwise. All it does is quote that SAS research shows that the average ratio of direct:indirect deaths in 2008 was 1:4, and apply that ratio to the then-most-recent reported Gaza casualty count to produce 186k. Should we just multiply the reported casualty count of every modern conflict by 5 and put that number in the lede without attribution?? No other page does this.
 * I don't think it makes any sense to say that a number must be current if its still appearing in fourth-hand citations, even if the actual source is now 4 months old. Numbers continue to float around. Save the Children claims that "the UN estimates that 10,000 people" are buried as of June 24, but that simply isn't true. The UN attributes this claim: "More than 10,000 people are estimated to be missing under rubble in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Civil Defense" and it most recently said this on May 1, because the estimate is from April. Again, the PCD included this number in their statements for months, but has not since April. Anyway, no source can tell us what the relationship between this number and the reported casualty count is, so if we include it (dated, attributed) we have to be careful that we don't suggest this is just in addition to the 39k as before.
 * i just think the West Bank line is among the most-strikable and the lede was too long, but as I said before "The ledes on contentious pages tend to be very long because hard enough to agree without having to agree on priorities too". I bow to this reality. — GordonGlottal (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Hamas said its attack was in response to.....the plight of Palestinians." Everything after in response to is attributed to Hamas, including "plight of...". This is grammatically correct.
 * "Should we just multiply the reported casualty count of every modern conflict by 5 and put that number in the lede without attribution?? No other page does this." As WP editors we reflect RS and it is not our job to make our own conclusions.
 * "About 6,400 Palestinians reported as missing to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since the outbreak of the war in Gaza on 7 October are yet to have been found, the group has said. Many are believed to be trapped under debris, buried without identification, or held in Israeli detention while others have been separated from their loved ones, who have been unable to contact them. Approximately 1,100 new cases of missing people have been registered and remain unsolved since April, the ICRC said." This is the latest RS on the topic. We can rephrase to say: "while thousands remain missing including under the rubble." As a compromise?
 * I get this is your confirmation that you wouldn't oppose the re-addition of the part on settlements after seeing the RS?
 * Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Gaza Health Ministry qualifier
Please see Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Individual attacks
Regarding this edit, we cannot mention every single strike or killing in the main article about the war. The sources supporting the added content are news pieces published only a short time after the event and do not prove that these events had a major and lasting impact on the conflict. I'm pinging, who commented on my talkpage. Alaexis¿question? 08:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Isn't it being mentioned because of the individual's notability? What's wrong with that? The poem part maybe doesn't need to be there tho. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit in question does not mention every single strike or killing in the war, it mentions two of the most culturally salient killings of the war. Hind and Refaat's deaths have received significant coverage in the press and have been taken up and memorialized in pro-Palestinian protests around the world. I'm curious what criteria you and @SPECIFICO are using to evaluate notability where the two most recognizable martyrs of the Palestinian cause in this war are considered non-notable.
 * Refaat has been memorialized regularly in the press and in the world of writing and poetry. A sample of his notability here:         Brian Cox's reading of Refaat's poem has nearly 100,000 views on Youtube and 70,000 shares on Instagram. My local library bought dozens of copies of Gaza Writes Back after Refaat was killed. Students at Penn, Berkeley, and Portland State unofficially renamed campus buildings after Refaat during pro-Palestinian protests.
 * Similarly, the killing of Hind Rajab, her family, and the rescue workers trying to save them received coverage from every major news outlet:       According to ABC, Hind's death has sparked widespread outrage as the audio of the PRCS call went viral on social media. Her name has become a rallying cry across the world. Protestors at Columbia unofficially renamed Hamilton Hall as Hind's Hall during their historic occupation of the building. The UN and the US State Department have commented on her death.
 * A google trends analysis shows that Hind and Refaat had a stronger and more lasting impact on the search engine than Marwan Issa, whose reported killing is included in this article. In my opinion there is no question as to the notability of these events. Unbandito (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about search engines. It is UNDUE and RECENTISM to elevate these two above the tens of thousands of other civilians killed in Gaza. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)