Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 31

RfC - Infobox Adding Belligerents (Adding Options - US, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah)
Which of the following countries/groups should be added to the list of belligerents?

United States, Houthi, Iran, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah

Option 1 – Add X Option 2 – Do not add X Option 3 – Neutral (no comments) on X (X = Country)

RfC is not to add all of them as a yes/no, but rather which ones should be added, i.e. seven different and unique discussions. Note: Hezbollah was added to RfC on 28 October after disagreement between editors after RfC started. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Germany? AstroSaturn (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia, Germany?
 * can you provide context? Cactus Ronin (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * RfC Creator Comment – Depending on conclusion of this RfC, if any countries/groups are to be added to the list, a second discussion will take place on how to add them to the belligerents list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for United States, Saudi Arabia & Houthi, Option 3 for Iran, Russia, and Germany – In the previous RfC (withdrawn for better formatted on here), said it nicely, so I am going to partially quote them here: On Friday, 20 October. U.S. Navy destroyers in the Red Sea shot down 4 Yemeni Houthi missiles as well as 15 suicide drones that were headed towards Israel. According to Axios, the U.S. also sent a 3-star general to advise ground operations in Israel. Additionally, U.S. is reported to have delivered 45 cargo planes loaded with armaments to Israel since the outbreak of hostilities. All of these indicate clearly the US is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Israel) and subsequently Houthi is a belligerent in the conflict (side with Hamas) due attempting to attack Israel, forcing the U.S. to act militarily. Additionally, today, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States is deploying "nearly a dozen air-defense systems to countries across the Middle East". Option 1 for Saudi Arabia as well given the new report from the Wall Street Journal saying Saudi Arabia militarily shot down a Houthi missile. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that half of the western world provided supplies support of this kind to Ukraine, but no source that I'm aware of considers all of those countries belligerents in the war between Ukraine and Russia. eyal (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. —  Material  Works  18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF Ukraine war article has its unique style in many ways. It is not a guideline for every single article. Ecrusized (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a clear reliable source consensus that lists the belligerents, we should strive for a consistent definition of "belligerent" across articles. I don't think the Ukraine situation is fundamentally different: There's an armed conflict between two or more entities, and we list the armed groups doing the fighting as belligerents. Everybody else isn't listed as a belligerent. eyal (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. —  Material  Works  18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Add the US as being supported by, they're doing everything apart from fighting, they're also directly helping Israel by flying drones, which indicates a major support measure. &mdash; Karnataka  talk  09:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Add US, Germany as supporters of Israel (Weapon suppliers, alliance network...)
 * Add Iran, Russia, North Korea as supporters of Hamas (alliance network, weapons supplied...etc.)
 * Hezbollah as one of belligerents (on side of Hamas) (Fighting is between Hezbollah and Israel also, in the North). Homerethegreat (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment A new report by WSJ states that one of the five Houthi missiles fired at Israel was shot down by Saudi Arabia. Ecrusized (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added it to the list of options. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 NBC News reports that two dozen (24) U.S. servicemen have been wounded in drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria last week. Ecrusized (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Attacks in Iraq and Syria (the northern and eastern parts of it, at least) are outside the scope of this article for the time being. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA —  Material  Works  01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Option * Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So you don't have an opinion on which countries to add? I am a little confused by what you mean by "Option *". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It means the option I want is not in the list given. My comment is clear, countries should only be added to the infobox if (and only if) they are belligerents. In other words, those seeking to include any country need to demonstrate that the country being added is a belligerent. Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuine question, how is your option not on the list? It’s a yes/no/neutral question? I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but I’m taking this comment more as an option 3 i.e. no comment/neutral about the options listed, given you said your option “is not in the list given”? You are correct that it is the editor seeking Option 1 to demonstrate that a country deserves to be on the list. Forgive me, however, I truly am not sure how your option is not on the list, given the options are, in short, yes, no, or no comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, I think you missed the note under the options. It isn’t a vote on “Do all six of these get added, Yes or No?” Picture this as combining 6 RfCs. For example, focus on 1 country at a time. Does the US deserve to be listed? Yes, No, or Unsure/Neutral? If yes, then the editor shows why it is yes. If no, the editor shows/explains why it is no. Then you move to the next country. Hopefully that clears it up. It really isn’t possible for your option to not show up in a Yes/No question, given there is really only 2 options, with Option 3 (Neutral) being a no comment answer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I made my comment and I explained it as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be rude, but your explanation doesn't make sense. Sorry. Maybe someone else can better understand your explanation, but I personally do not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Let the closer worry about what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @WeatherWriter, my understanding is that @Selfstudier would respond your question Does x deserve to be listed as a belligerent? with the answer Only if it can be demonstrated that x is a belligerent. Otherwise, no. I do not believe the user intends to argue one way or another for any particular country or non-state actor - he simply sought to declare this rather circular axiom.
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA —  Material  Works  01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah that makes so much sense now. Very smart answer and I appreciate Selfstudier for answering that way. Thank you for explaining it some. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think was confused because, while Countries should be added to the infobox iff they are belligerents. is a wonderful axiom, it is not in the slightest an answer to the question of "what should the infobox say". Walt Yoder (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any being listed as belligerents Being a belligerent means taking part in a war.
 * I understand that the “supported by” parameter is now nominally deprecated. Pinging @Cinderella157 because he has been more directly involved in that than I was.
 * It may interest other editors to peruse Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and its archives, for an interesting case study.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am glad you mentioned the "Supported by" parameter. Actually, in the first/poorly formatted RfC for this, made the comment that consensus can change. If the community decides to use a "supported by" parameter (as in the parent article Israeli–Palestinian conflict), then it can be used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A belligerent is a country fighting a war (see e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary), not one sympathising with a country fighting a war. So currently there are only two belligerents. Bermicourt (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , not sure if you made a typo, but the current version of the article lists 7 belligerents in the infobox, not 2. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps that wasn't totally clear. I'm happy with the existing list of belligerents in the infobox of the article as they're involved in fighting; I'm opposing adding the others suggested above as they are not. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with opposing adding other sovereign states as belligerents, and would instead support adding them as in a sidenote about foreign support. Such foreign support should be concrete (i.e. lethal military aid) in the military conflict, not for example foreign aid to Gaza.
 * In other conflicts the consensus has usually been only to include as belligerents countries or similar entities (i.e. political parties or groups taking over a region or country) whose own soldiers are fighting in the conflict or whose territory a significant amount of the fighting has been on. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose adding any of the other countries mentioned as belligerents at this time. A single stray rocket, or shooting down of a stray rocket (especially when the exact circumstances of that are unclear), does not suddenly aggrandize the actors involved into belligerents. Most of the countries mentioned here are trying to stay well clear and avoid escalation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding most; support adding the US: The US now appears to be putting significant boots on the ground, in addition to its other forms of material and personnel support. There are reports that US special forces entered Gaza. And Delta teams are definitely being prepped for hostage extraction.(Biden's administration even moronically posted about it). The country has clearly crossed the lined into active participation and belligerence. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose all additions. None of these groups are involved in active combat. Add them as belligerents only when the sources identify them as parties in the war the same way that they do for Israel or Hamas. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — Iran has now accused (Wall Street Journal article) the United States of “orchestrating” Israel’s bombing campaign. “Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the U.S. is orchestrating Israel’s bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip. “The US is definitely the Zionist regime’s accomplice in its crimes against Gaza. In fact, it is the US that is orchestrating the crimes being committed in Gaza.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Governments are only reliable for the view of the government. You are going about this the wrong way, similar to the did Hamas occupy this territory RFC. If you want to say the US is a belligerent then find a reliable source that directly supports that. Not a series of events that you think makes it so this is true, but a source that reaches that conclusion for themselves.  nableezy  - 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did in my original reasoning. The US is supplying Israel with weapons and has already defended Israel militarily. I’m not going to repost my entire reasoning, as you can read it above. That comment from the Iranian government better supports my claim and reasoning for the US to be a belligerent, at least as a Supported By belligerent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in that link does it say the US has joined the war, become a belligerent, or anything related to anything beside potentially "provided material support" to Israel. Again, a source that reaches the conclusion that these actions have made the US a belligerent in the conflict. Not actions you think qualify.  nableezy  - 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * “US military equipment pours into Israel”. That source directly states the US is providing military material support. That justifies a “Supported By” inclusion of the United States. You need to find a source that says military material support does not justify one to be supporting a country in a war for your reasoning. I am WP:COALing out as I made my reasoning very clear and I have supported it in detail. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of editorial judgement, and so far, that judgement is no. Also you are making it rather clear the real reason why this RFC was started. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is rather simple. Identify a country as a belligerent if reliable sources do so. And that doesn't mean drawing that conclusion ourselves based on other reliably sourced facts. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this too, we can just follow the reliable sources. BogLogs (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well put. – SJ + 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this opinion so long as there is one or more reliable sources that identify a country as a belligerent. This removes the interpetation and opinions of editors and keeps it clean and objective. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose all additions.Countries should be added to the infobox if they are belligerents, as said succinctly by Selfstudier or more explicitly None of these groups are involved in active combat, therefore they simply aren't belligerents. Clearly text should make clear who is supporting whom with hardware, diplomatically or in other ways, but (thank God), there are (as yet) no groups actively engaged in combat except Israel and Hamas and related groups. Isn't that bad enough? Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum added after RfC reopened. All these proposed additions fail WP:V. The sources and quotes cited are dependent on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and don't come anywhere near the level of coverage or certainty that we would expect if the war had escalated in the manner implied. DFlhb's excellent list of sources outlined later, clearly show that all of these parties, particularly Hezbollah are being treated by the majority of sources from various countries as potential beligerents if the war escalates and any actual present military action is being treated as a 'border incident' or sabre-rattling. As User:DFlhb says If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we?. Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Add: United States, Houthi, Iran.
 * Do not add: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Germany.  Abo Yemen ✉  13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose all additions until RS states that they have troops actively taking part in the fighting. - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Add Hezbollah, oppose all others as per other users below. - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note – Hezbollah was added to the RfC discussion as there was a disagreement between editors and agreement to merge Hezbollah's belligerent discussion into this RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose all except Hezbollah. None of these countries have deployed their own militaries for combat, and "supported by" has been deprecated. Hezbollah, on the other hand, initiated a low-intensity war on day two officially "in solidarity" with the Palestinians. Hamas has operatives in Lebanon who can only operate with the cooperation and the consent of Hezbollah, and they have done so since the start of the war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn Parham wiki (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Close RFC there's no way we're realistically getting a consensus from this RFC query, which is simultaneously too complex and also too simplistic (encouraging voting rather than citation of sources that actually describe these entities as belligerents, and inherently inviting false equivalences). These should be discussed group by group. Also, it's worth noting that the situation in this conflict is changing more or less daily at this point so a month-long RFC is going to be a challenge. There should be no rush to get belligerents added, of course, since we're not a newspaper and there's no deadline. VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Add Hezbollah per @Mikrobølgeovn and also Add Syria Hezbollah has stated they are fighting in support of the Palestinians in Gaza and the fighting at the border of Lebanon and Israel has been described as a second front in the Israel-Gaza conflict. As for Syria, Israel itself said it is attacking it to prevent Iran from providing support to Hamas. Thus Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria should be reinstated as soon as possible. Also, as per Wiki procedure, it shouldn't have been removed in the first place since a discussion was first supposed to have taken place, while the contested issue remained in a status-quo from before being contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors here are coming up with their own arguments for including Hezbollah (or anyone else) rather than pointing to the many sources recording the escalation - which undoubedly would exist - if sources considered these 'border skirmishes' really were part of (not loosely related to) this war. Doesn't that concern anyone? That editors here have decided there has been an escalation before sources or official bodies have! Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, basically every RFC about combatants or status or maps has been a series of exercises in original research.  nableezy  - 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "For Hezbollah, heating up the Lebanon-Israel border has a clear purpose, Kassem said: "We are trying to weaken the Israeli enemy and let them know that we are ready." [...] "Do you believe that if you try to crush the Palestinian resistance, other resistance fighters in the region will not act?" Kassem said in a speech Saturday during the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter. "We are in the heart of the battle today. We are making achievements through this battle." Original research, was it? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, because all that supports is a Hezbollah leader saying they are in the heart of the battle. It does not provide a third party reliable source saying that to be true as a fact. I dont get how this doesnt make sense to so many people who have been here as long as they have. A source has to directly support the material you want to include in a Wikipedia article. This source directly supports that Naim Kassem said these things. What is still needed is a third party source saying this makes them actively engaged in this conflict.  nableezy  - 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No original research. Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. See here . Title "Authorities name 315 soldiers, 58 police officers killed in Gaza war". The IDF has published the names of 315 soldiers "killed during the ongoing war with Palestinian terrorists since October 7, mostly on the border with the Gaza Strip", they then further expand stating the number includes soldiers killed on both the Lebanon border and in the West Bank. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel itself considers what is happening on the border with Lebanon part of the Gaza war. No disrespect, but newspapers connected to either of the two main beligerents should not define who is or isn't a 'beligerent'. Were I to suggest that the US - or any other group or nation - should be considered a beligerent because a Hamas source had said so, editors would probably - quite rightly - roll about in incredulous laughter. This isn't a question of reliability, there are very understandable reasons why an Israeli newspaper, addressing an Israeli audience would be inclined to think of all current actions against Israel as being part of the same existential threat. We should require more robust analysis and more explicit and specific claims however. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fully agree on exercises in original research. We can't add Hezbollah as a belligerent; see "What's Hezbollah's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict so far?" from Reuters: there have been skirmishes, but not a full frontal war. The NYT says Hezbollah has so far been "restrained", has "engaged only in limited skirmishes with Israeli troops", and currently "sits on the sidelines of the conflict"; the article goes into the reasons why Hezbollah hasn't joined the war; it quotes the Lebanese foreign minister saying "my impression is that they won’t start a war". An expert is quoted saying: “Hezbollah today is in a position to inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war,” said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut (italics mine). That's as of today! Arguments that are based on OR by definition lack policy basis. DFlhb (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "These clashes have led to a rising death toll on both sides, sparking fears of a new war front" ... "Which leads to the second front: Israel against Iran and its other proxies. That is, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Islamist militias in Syria and Iraq and the Houthi militia in Yemen. All of them in recent days have launched drones and rockets toward Israel or at U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria." West Bank a possible 'THIRD front' for Israel
 * It's not about Hezbollah entering or not entering the war, but whether or not the clashes will cross a threshold of escalation (or "full frontal war", as Reuters put it). As of October 26, Hezbollah had lost 46 fighters. That would have been a rather high death toll for an 18-day period during Hezbollah's first war with Israel. Hezbollah itself says that it initiated these clashes as part of the war Hamas started, and as another editor pointed out, Israel too considers them part of that war. Add in the active involvement of Hamas fighters on the Lebanese-Israeli front, and it is starting to look increasingly absurd that this front is left out of the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your first and third source frame Hezbollah/Lebanon as a potential future front, not a current front; they contradict you. The second source is considered generally unreliable. The next paragraph is original research contradicted by sources. It's true that the skirmishes are a response to the Israel-Hamas war, but it is also irrelevant. DFlhb (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of what I wrote is contradicted by sources? Both Israel and Hezbollah consider the clashes as part of the war; the only ones arguing otherwise are seemingly Wikipedia editors. (Also, read again the part about threshold of escalation. There is no contradiction at all. The first source makes a distinction between a full-scale and a limited war.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't include something that fails WP:V, or side with original research over sources; this is sensitive enough that we need to be careful. Sources say Hezbollah has not yet joined the war. That makes them not a belligerent.
 * New York Times, yesterday
 * Hezbollah sits on the sidelines of the conflict and will enter the war if... (future tense). That's from yesterday.
 * They quote an expert: inflict pain on Israel if they choose to enter this war (hypothetical)
 * Quotes another expert: The stakes for getting involved are high for Hezbollah (implying they are not yet involved).
 * Washington Post, October 29
 * “All Western countries are talking to us, are sending their ambassadors, saying Hezbollah must not enter the war,” said a senior Lebanese official (implying they haven't entered the war yet)
 * Bloomberg, October 23
 * Israel’s military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the fighting with Hezbollah “is mainly in the contact line.” Hezbollah has adopted similar rhetoric, saying the clashes remain within the so-called “rules of engagement,” which limits the battle to Lebanese areas Hezbollah considers occupied.
 * Hezbollah has so far not entered real combat with Israel (as explicit as can be)
 * CNN, October 11
 * Senior administration officials do not believe at this point that Hezbollah is likely to join Hamas’ war in force against Israel, and officials think the warnings are having an impact even though there have been some escalation on the border. They're saying Hezbollah had not joined the war, despite the skirmishes.
 * FT, October 11 (after the skirmishes escalated)
 * Quotes an expert: If it’s a ground invasion [...], Hezbollah will feel compelled to join [the war] (future tense).
 * Says: Hizbollah’s entry into the war would have profound implications, and Hizbollah’s participation could also trigger, and Joining the war would be (all hypotheticals).
 * You (and others) say the skirmishes make Hezbollah a belligerent in this war. That's WP:OR. The FT describes them as belligerents in a flareup of the separate, decades-long Hezbollah-Israel conflict. You are confusing the flareup being a reaction to this war, with the flareup being part of this war. FT quote two experts who say years-old "red lines" (preceding this conflict) have not been crossed, which concurs with the Bloomberg quote above.
 * Bloomberg, published October 11 but still on their main page:
 * if Hezbollah were to enter the war (hypothetical)
 * Even if you dispute this, logically, if there's any ambiguity, it belongs in the body not the infobox. Note Hezbollah is already listed as a belligerent in 2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashes, where it belongs, and we describe that as a "spillover" of this war. RfCs based on WP:OR are a waste of everyone's time, and I wish we'd treat them as malformed. If it met WP:V we wouldn't have needed an RfC, would we? DFlhb (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) edited 12:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Restore Hezbollah to the infobox and add the Houthis - Hezbollah has clearly stated that it is participating in the conflict and is actively participating, there has been sustained combat on the northern border with israel since the war began. The Houthis have also launched attacks.XavierGreen (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Add Hezbollah per users above. W9793 (talk)
 * Add Hezbollah since it is directly involved in the war at the North of the country. Houthis can also be added since they openly declared that they fired the missiles. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Add the Houthis and the United States. The US has stated it shot down missiles heading towards Israel, and NPR (a RS) stated this action "could represent the first shots taken by the U.S. military in defense of Israel".VR talk 02:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Could represent" does not mean "is". Levivich (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Add US, Houthis and Hezbollah. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose all If any of those named become actively and significantly involved in the fighting, RS will clearly identify them as combattants. This is not currently the case. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose all as almost all sources avoid making such obviously contentious statements. This is why we avoid original research. Per DFlhb this is not a good use of RfC energy;  please be more careful in how you solicit people's time. – SJ +  18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose all per DF and SJ et al. The sources don't support listing anyone else as a belligerent, and proposals to add belligerents to the infobox need to come with sources describing the proposed parties as belligerents -- not potential belligerents -- in order to comply with WP:V. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the infobox haven't cited any RS in support of their views. Countries/governments delivering armaments — the reason could be treaty obligations of, as harsh as that may sound, business as usual. Having people talk to the parties involved in armed conflicts could have any number of reasons, from military advice to efforts to end the conflict. Hezbollah attacking settlements along Israel's northern border is nothing new, there are just more attacks now than "normal". Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. I see Nasrallah is already, absurdly, listed as a 'commnander' in the war, anticipating an outcome of this discussion. If Hezbollah's pressure by minor skirmishes on the northern border (retaliatory threats are a chronic part of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict for decades) constitutes participation in the war, then placing battleships offshore, and having US military experts in the IDF's operations warroom could likewise lend itself to such a construction. Multiple sources do not permit this inference and neither shopuld we.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't add anything we exclude obvious relevant players at Russian invasion of Ukraine so let's do it here too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Add Hezbollah I did a google search this morning and here are the most recent news that bears on this issue:

Hezbollah has traded fire with Israeli troops along the border since the day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 surprise attack in southern Israel sparked war in the Gaza Strip. Both sides have suffered casualties, but the fear is that the conflict will escalate and spiral into a regional fight. - From AP

While insisting that "all options are on the table" the militant group has confined itself to cross-border attacks, hitting mainly military targets. More than 60 of its fighters have been killed, but it has plenty more battle-hardened supporters to replace them. One fighter buried in Beirut this week was the fifth member of his family to die for Hezbollah, going back generations. - From BBC

In a highly anticipated televised speech Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah — which has previously vowed to destroy Israel — has already entered the fray. Hezbollah has increasingly traded fire with Israel along its northern border with Lebanon in the most significant escalation in violence since Israel fought Hezbollah in a bloody 2006 war. Over the past few weeks, some 30,000 people have fled southern Lebanon in anticipation of further violence. Hezbollah’s next steps, Nasrallah said, depend on what Israel does in Gaza. According to Nasrallah, a ceasefire would prevent broader regional war, but he did not elaborate on what other actions Israel might take to ensure Hezbollah doesn’t more fully enter the war. He did add that the US bears responsibility for the war in Gaza — but also has the power to stop it. Vox

Does the above makes Hezbollah a belligerent? The answer is not so clear. My reading of the sources above shows that Hezbollah and Israel have definitely engaged in skirmishes at the border. These skirmishes began after the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and are reactions to Israel's attack on Hamas, as the Hezbollah leader commented in these sources. So Hezbollah and Israel are not grinding their own axes in these skirmishes - they are related to the Israel-Hamas war. If by being a belligerent means having boots on the ground, a definition that some editors have adopted from time to time, then Hezbollah fits that definition.

Based on the [https://thelawdictionary.org/belligerent/#:~:text=A%20term%20used%20to%20designate,“neutral.”%20U.%20S.%20v. definition of a belligerent] in Black's Law Dictionary, a belligerent is either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively cooperating; as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a “neutral.”

Hezbollah is not in a state of full out war with Israel. However, it is also not a nation, and it definitely is not strictly indifferent as between the contending parties, which is Hamas and Israel. Hezbollah is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. I prefer adding Hezbollah as a belligerent because it is closer to a belligerent than a neutral party, and it satisfies many Wikipedia's "boots of ground" test, adopted in various other context. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Add US - has both troops on the ground in unknown capacity and naval vessels for deterrence. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, US commandos have been deployed, not necessarily in direct combat roles, but these are units that are neither purely advisory or data gathering in nature. They are deployed. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Add US The time has come. Statements have been issued throughout the week confirming their support for Tel Aviv. This is no longer in doubt. Dl.thinker (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That and the otherworldly volume of ordinance handed over. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per, WP:CRYSTAL, let's wait until American forces get involved in combat. Non-combat and material support is not belligerence. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why Belarus was added to the infobox of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? There are no combat involving Belarusian government soldiers! Dl.thinker (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly it was added because Belarusian territory was used to launch a ground invasion of Ukraine. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The editors supporting adding all or some of the countries to the IB did not present enough relevant sources. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the addition of any of these countries as belligerents, as they haven't participated in actual combat, and sourcing is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is contestable that


 * (a) This is a war between two parties, Israel and Hamas (read also the Palestinian people)
 * (b) The overwhelming bulk of sources used to document it are Israeli newspapers
 * (c) The Israeli sources named (and not named, Haaretz etc.) thoroughly identify themselves with 'our boys', and the Israeli victims. I read most articles and 95% are so partisan and emotional that they are 'unreadable' for facts, as opposed to how facts are to be neutrally represented.
 * I didn't state that they are unreliable sources. They qualify technically. I read an account of the British-Argentine war in the Falklands recently: newspaper accounts were alluded to quite often for how they egregiously spun, twisted, invented stories to titivate the anxious home readership. Serious military histories (and I read Burton Maugham's Tobruk and El Alamein (1952) as a control for this) use war memoirs (from both sides), government archives to describe the technical mechanics of battle, and almost never allude to, or rely on, contemporary newspapers. No time is wasted documenting that Rommel, for example, was a general in an evil regime's armed forces, or that Italians were pawns of fascism, an equally despicable regime. The narratives tell you the only thing that is worth grasping. How one or another side managed, with what matériel, or strategic stroke, to win ground or lose it, and why the adversary retreated.
 * All wars are accompanied by intense efforts by specific army/government related bodies to massage, manage, persuade and dominate the home side's perceptions. An informational war kicks in, as the governing states or bodies view to dominate the narratives to the end of enlisting public and international support for their respective campaigns.
 * Wars are 'sexy' and attract a large influx of editors wishing to participate in shaping the way the narrative is represented on wikipedia. Most have no background understanding, quite a few are emotionally committed to one party. This makes for a perfect knit between source bias and editorial passions. The result is massive WP:Undue, as the factual record, very thinly accessible, is flooded out with official points of view or one's side's commentariat prejudices.
 * Nothing can be done to fix the resulting WP:Systemic bias. It will take a year down the road for us to access reliable independent analyses that are even-handed. Till then we will have this mother-lode of tripe to represent wikipedia's idea of NPOV.
 * My note was just a wake-up annotation to remind readers and editors that these articles are intrinsically flawed and will remain so for some considerable time. Caveat lector.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * - A caveat about your comment, specifically part a. You seem to say it is not contestable that this war is between two parties (Israel/Hamas). That, to me seems more like a weird amphiboly comment. While true that it is between two parties, if one was attempting to say only two parties, that would be factually false as more than two parties are involved. I would also point out that the "inarguable" comment might be more or less "pushy" (not sure if that is the right word I am looking for), since several editors have argued for the inclusion of another party proposed in this RfC. Just a few small things to keep in-mind. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Add Hezbollah, Neutral on Houthis, Oppose rest. Hezbollah is widely documented as engaged in fighting on the Israeli-Lebanon border as part of this conflict. With the exception of the Houthis, the rest lack documentation along those lines; neutral on the Houthi's because while some sourcing exists, the minimal scale of their participation has resulted in a lower level of coverage detailing their participation. BilledMammal (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are now reports that Israel retaliated against the Houthis . As for Hezbollah, they struck IDF posts along the border within hours of the Gaza ceasefire ending. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Add the Houthis, Hezbollah, and US support - Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been documented on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and the Houthis have attempted to fire missiles towards Israel and have attacked Israeli-owned ships. US ships have shot down these missiles and drones. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Add the US, Houthi and Hezbollah per all above. Also per Template:Infobox military conflict: the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. No mention of WP:OR and direct support by RS. If we proceed with this argument, we must eliminate even Israel and Hamas. Parham wiki (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli rejection of ceasefire
and, you have both removed that Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire on the basis that they agreed to one. They did not, and they were very adamant that this was a pause and not a ceasefire, and they continue to reject such calls. Why are you removing that? If you think that the temporary pause should factor in to that why not just add the word "permanent" before ceasefire?  nableezy  - 01:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Andreas JN 466 06:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am only concerned that the article is consistent. This article literally has a section entitled 2023 Israel–Hamas war. So any statement that either party has rejected calls for a ceasefire is so obviously incorrect that it looks like a glaring error. "Permanent" ceasefire is a very different matter, but the sources referenced all predate the 24 November–1 December, ceasefire the discussed later, so, if the statement is to remain, it should be supported by recent sources that make the differentiation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the references in the article and given the reasons the statement cannot be verified in each. I think the statement is likely correct, but it needs to be properly referenced with reliable sources. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they were tagged, until User:Ecrusized removed them here, accusing me of disruptive editing. Generally, when one accuses another of disruptive editing, one explains it on that user's talk page. Perhaps you could do me that courtesy? As you should be able to see, we are trying to discuss those sources productively and in good faith, but you just removed my notes about them. --Bsherr (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of disruptive editing, although that is what the essay I linked in my edit summary describes tag bombing as. I think one tag in lede is enough to bring the issue to editors attention, 3 long tags next to each other seemed unnecessary to me. Ecrusized (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Ecrusized, if the work to address the sourcing of that sentence offended your sense of aesthetics, why not consolidate the notes I left in the reason parameter into a single tag, or cut and paste those notes here to the talk page? Instead you just deleted them without a word here on the talk page, and left an edit comment linking to an essay about disruptive editing, of which you say you are not making an accusation. May I revert your edit with an with a comment consisting of a link to WP:VAND, which I am similarly not accusing you of? Do you understand? --Bsherr (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can restore the notes. Like I said, I just removed 2 of the 3 same tags next to each other because it seemed excessive to me. Ecrusized (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We can remove the note now. Reuters, today: The United States and ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages [...] Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan accused Guterres of reaching a "new moral low" by sending the letter to the Security Council, adding: "The Secretary-General's call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas' reign of terror in Gaza." I don't think this was even needed, because Israel has been vocal in saying that the war won't end before Hamas is defeated. I've renamed the section heading "ceasefire" to "truce" to prevent confusion. DFlhb (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Kfar Aza atrocities
Over at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre, there is discussion regarding whether unverified claims regarding the massacre (baby decapitations, etfc.) should be included, following a recent Haaretz piece on the matter. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guerre_Isra%C3%A9lo-Palestinien_octobre_2023&redirect=no Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Reaction statement in the lead
The following sentence, currently in the lead, is quite objectionable:

"As of 11 October, at least 44 countries have condemned the attack as a terrorist attack, while other countries have placed the responsibility on Israel and criticized it for occupying Palestinian lands."

The sources used to support this claim are a Thinktank and the Reuters, with the Reuters does not seem to be supporting the sentence in the lead. The think Tank source is not really a suitable source for this purpose. Aside from the sourcing issues, why should this reaction be stated in the lead? How about adding that thousands of protest are taking place against Israel against the world? -- M h hossein   talk 15:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That text has problems. Better sources are needed, and the WEIGHT of a substantial sample of RS needs to be used to provide suitable and suitably-framed article text.  SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * More thoughts? -- M h hossein   talk 21:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the 44 should be removed unless better sources can be found. But it's cler that some countries have called the attack terrorist. Though I'm not sure if that's lead worthy.
 * Second, Israel's occupation of Palestinians is a fact and should not be presented as an opinion of some countries. Even the US and EU (and even Israeli courts) treat the West Bank as Israeli-occupied territory. VR talk 05:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While it is true that the thinktank is pretty heavily biased, I'm not sure that alone warrants removal entirely. According to a Non-Profit Think-Tank rating group sponsored by UPenn, among about 4,000 nominees, The Washington Institute was voted to be among the best in Transdisciplinary Research and Policy Oriented Research Programs, earning number 43 and 51 respectively. A source that is biased doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be removed. Perhaps we could insert an attribution or a tag?
 * As a side note, a country's borders is literally an opinion of most countries; all borders are made up after all -  AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we should discuss if it can be included in the lead. -- M h hossein   talk 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I can help here friends. There are other reliable sources, for example: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Guardian and Al Jazeera Media Network. Let me add them to the article to help. You may see them in Bearing Witness (2023 film). With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * After that, the same Winep (not a great source) is now cited three times. (Strike, it has been reverted) Seems that is the only source for the 44 countries thing, so I agree this sentence would appear to be undue for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which source is not great? All three? Why so you believe so? With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said above and again when you raised this issue below, WINEP, a pro Israel think tank, so should be attributed anyway. Seems the only source for the 44 countries thing, undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Copy from below section

Hi Duvasee. Let's discuss why do you want to remove this content. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is already included in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Duvasee (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to remove the addition in another article. Please read prior discussion where it was mentioned regarding this current article. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the prior discussion, your edit effectively added winep (a poor source) three times, and it is the only source for "44...etc", so I think undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are other sources such as the Economist etc. that also support that statement that it is the bloodiest day in Israeli history and the deadliest for Jews since the Holocaust. This has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not undue. This is due. The deadliest day for the Jewish people since 1945 is not due? The deadliest day in Israeli history is not due? Homerethegreat (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We are talking about this sentence - "As of 11 October, at least 44 countries had condemned the Hamas invasion as a terrorist attack,..." sourced to WINEP. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking on the title: the bloodiest in Israel's history and the deadliest for Jews since the Holocaust. Look at the edit @Oleg Yunakov is referring to. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed it with the justification Per talk, WINEP is a biased source that should be attributed and therefore undue for the lead as the only source for "44 countries...", Reuters source does not support it.
 * First, I would suggest that the statement in general is due for the lede; a summary of international opinion is highly relevant.
 * Second, their bias or lack thereof doesn't come into play; they are making a clear statement of fact (at least 44 countries had condemned the Hamas invasion as a terrorist attack) and unless they are unreliable - and this statement could be used to prove they are, if it is false - we can and should echo it.
 * As such, I've restored the content. BilledMammal (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WINEP is a biased source and requires attribution, therefore it is unsuitable for the lead which is presenting the statement as fact. Independent RS is required to support this, it is telling that there no other sources for the statement (the Reuters source does not support the material, either).
 * This discussion is actually an improperly titled continuation of the section above where this issue was originally raised by another editor so I am going to copy this section there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the UNDUE aspect. There are lots of factoids about this conflict. For example, ALJazeera, a reliable source, points out that Israel has killed 136 children per day in the first 30 days, compared to 0.6-3 children killed per day in much larger conflicts like Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. But if it is only a single source making this (indisputably true) claim it would be undue for the lead. VR talk 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

End copy

I have tagged the disputed material undue inline. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Aside for the reliability of the cited source, some users have raised objections against the inclusion of the sentence in the lead. -- M h hossein   talk 18:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)