Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 38

Transatlantic Civil Servants' Statement on Gaza
I just created an article for the recently released Transatlantic Civil Servants' Statement on Gaza. Thriley (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you deemed that letter in particular as notable enough for its own article. It could easily be added to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. There is no reason to keep a subsequent redirect either, unless we want to set a precedent for creating a redirect for all the thousands of reactions and letters penned about the war. Yue 🌙 06:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling too at first blush. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Same sort of thing as the missives penned by US state employees, interesting but not notable enough for their own article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess the unprecedented nature of the letter made me think a separate article would be justified. Also thought the article would be due if the list of signatories included prominent names. I’ll wait a week or so and then redirect if nothing comes of it. Thriley (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I note that the letter is anonymous. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt names will be disclosed anytime soon. And I agree that the leter, even though currently publicised by some media, is just one of a multitude of public reactions to the Gaza War and likely won't have an independent, lasting notability any more than every other reaction. — kashmīrī  TALK  01:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Casualty counts and false precision
Giving precise figures for casualty counts in the infobox, prose, and elsewhere, is false precision. 25,295 might be the most recent number reported in the media, but of course we do not actually know if it was 25,295 or 25,294 or 25,296 or some other number. False precision not only gives the reader a likely-incorrect number, but it gives the reader a false sense of confidence in that number, as if we know down to the person how many were killed. In actuality, the casualty figure is constantly changing, minute-by-minute, and giving an exact number obfuscates that fact and presents the casualty count as if it's a fixed, known quantity, when it's actually a constantly-changing estimate.

To avoid this false precision, I propose saying "25,000+" (in the infobox) or "more than 25,000" (in the prose) and then updating that by the thousand ("more than 26,000," etc.), and doing the same with all casualty figures (e.g. "more than 1,400" Israeli casualties, etc.) throughout the article (and Wikipedia, really). (In the case of hostages, the precision isn't false, so exact numbers can be used, but that doesn't apply to casualty counts.) Levivich (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * But the figures are backed by the cited sources anyway. -- M h hossein   talk 06:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I would also like to address the inclusion of casualty breakdowns by occupation on one side. Journalists have been killed in Israel too but that's not lede-worthy. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The figures from the Gaza Health Ministry are believed to be accurate, they are registered deaths. They also have estimated numbers of dead missing as 7000+, however I think that is a gross underestimate despite their experience from previous bombing. The Euro-Med figures are estimates of actual deaths, it still has problems though and can be debatable. We should indicate better how figures are got at. NadVolum (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article has Israeli sources confirming that Israel also believes the GHM stats to be reliable, fwiw. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the number is based on registered deaths, it's a lagging indicator, so it will systematically be an undercount. That looks like an average of about 120 deaths per day.  If we're getting daily updates, we should probably round to the nearest 100. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong agree. Actually, this is something I feel so strongly about I'd be willing to consider starting an RfC if this discussion goes nowhere. The Gazan Health authorities have admitted that they're unable to keep track of the ever increasing death toll. To be clear, this has nothing to do with their reliability or authenticity, but rather it is due to the rapid pace of the war and extremely large number of casualties, as well as damage to civil/medical infrastructure, which makes keeping track difficult, in addition to the large number of people missing likely dead under rubble. We should avoid a precise number but rather an estimate like "25,000-30,000" or something of that form as is done in the Ukraine War article. JDiala (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The only thing we should do is say 'registered deaths'rather than 'deaths' for the Gaza Health Ministry, and that is an exact number. The actual number of deaths is quite a bit higher. The IDF figures for militants killed is all adult males of military age if they are going by the standards of the Israeli Open University report of 61% civilians killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want estimates use the Euro-Mediterranean ones, which are based on the Gaza Health Ministry but then try to account for the missing presumed dead. My own estimates indicate they are still underestimating by quite a bit but that's OR on my part. NadVolum (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think you're missing the point. This is about avoiding false precision and precision bias, it's got nothing to do with the reliability of casualty counts or the source. False precision is false precision regardless of the source. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting zeroes at the end achieves nothing - the figures for deaths from the Gaza Health Ministry are many thousands too small for actual deaths. Putting zeroes at the end might give people it is estimated actual deaths when it is not. They are accurate registered deaths. It should say registered deaths for those ones. The Euro-Med ones are where zeroes could be stuck at the end though then it starts being OR how many to stick in, basically one would then be second guessing them. NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Registered deaths aren't all death, though. What putting zeroes at the end achieves is avoiding false precision. Is it that you don't believe false precision is a problem to be avoided? Levivich (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting zeroes at the end would achieves the opposite of what you say. They should be described as registered deaths. The problem is not false precision but the wrong description. If you put zeroes at the end people like you might actually have just skippd over it thinking it was anywhere near a correct figure because it is an estimate of actual deaths. It is not an estimate of all actual deaths. It is actual deaths but those which have been registered rather than all deaths. They should be described as registered deaths. Just sticking zeroes in fixes nothing - it makes things worse. NadVolum (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain more than fifteen thousand children have been killed so far. What is the point of changing 12,345+ children killed into 12,000 or 13000 children killed? But saying 12,345 registered deaths of children makes some sense and is supported by sources. NadVolum (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly where we're miscommunicating. The point of changing 12,345 registered deaths of children to 12,000+ deaths of children is to avoid false precision. If you're asking what is the purpose of avoiding false precision, I'd say that's answered by the article false precision, but among other things it's to avoid precision bias. As I said in my OP, "False precision not only gives the reader a likely-incorrect number, but it gives the reader a false sense of confidence in that number, as if we know down to the person how many were killed. In actuality, the casualty figure is constantly changing, minute-by-minute, and giving an exact number obfuscates that fact and presents the casualty count as if it's a fixed, known quantity, when it's actually a constantly-changing estimate." I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, I just honestly don't know how else to explain "What is the point of changing 12,345+ children killed into 12,000." Levivich (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How about reading those articles yourself. This is not a problem of false precision or precision bias. You are misunderstanding what they are about. What is happening here is that a figure is being misunderstood and being used for something it is not. If a bus full of passangers falls into the river and by SUnday 11 bodies are recovered the number killed is not 11 and it is not 10+. What we can say is the number of bodies recovered is 11. The actual number might be elenen or twelve or it might be twenty or thirty. In this case we know the figures are out by many thousands. There is no point putting the figures out fuzzed a bit as if they are estimates of all actual deaths. When we quote the registered death figures we should just give them as they are and say what they are which is registered deaths and separately give their estimate of missing dead qhich could be out by thousands - but we shoudl say that is an estimate and say by whom. Basically just follow the sources which we are not doing at the moment. NadVolum (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - I couldn't agree more. I just went and looked at recent stories from five sources:
 * BBC:
 * AP:
 * Reuters:
 * CNN:
 * NBC:
 * See, they all avoid false precision; they're all saying "more than" and except for the BBC, rounding down to the nearest thousand (BBC to the nearest 50). This war is not at all like your bus accident example. In a bus accident, it can be known how many people were on the bus and exactly how many died. In a war, it cannot be known exactly how many people died. That's what makes war casualties susceptible to false precision, while auto accident casualties are capable of real precision. Levivich (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see for example about how the figues are calculated. The more than is more than the recorded figure. We should just take the figure fromthe best source and say more than if we're going to follow sources. However I think it is far better to give some indication of what type figure it is. I do wish you would give up on your 'false precision' when referring to the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry. They are not an estimate of all deaths and if you had any concepton of what the term means you'd know it is inapplicable here. The sources are right in saying the deaths are more than the recorded deaths but the figures they give are not accurate to within  a few thousand which is what using thousands normally means. They are just dumbing down for their public or following some agenda to like the 'Hamas run health ministry' business. The meaning behind figures is important and registered would explain everything even if some people just want things dumbed down. For instance the two civilians to one militant business from the IDF is almost certainly based on the sort of stuff in, and if you read that it doesn't once mention the basis of that figure. That figure is from a 'conservative' estimate of civilians which is got by eliminating all adult men between 18 and 60, see . The newspaper has copied it without giving any indication of what it meant. Is that a right thing to do? We can't do much about the 2:1 or 9000 militants here because they don't say how they get the figures but we do have source informtion for the figures you want to bowdlerize. NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So much for following the sources. Levivich (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We have to follow sources for citations but we don't have to copy news style. The provenance of the figures is well documented in numerous sites, there is no good reason to ignore that and good reasons to say what they are. NadVolum (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hahaha
 * "follow the sources"
 * *shows sources*
 * "we don't have to follow the sources" Levivich (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the Israeli figures, there are multiple reliable sources saying Israeli authorities came up with a final count, e.g. The Guardian, 8 January 2024, "Israel’s final count for Hamas’s 7 October massacre is 1,139". That figure came from AFP and is quite widely quoted (sometimes phrased as "about 1,140").
 * Having said that, AFP has come up with another figure in just the last couple of days, 1,163. See e.g. . However, that figure is not yet widely quoted. I am also not sure whether it really measures the same thing. Apparently, it "includes those taken hostage on October 7, whose deaths have since been confirmed." Andreas  JN 466 13:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes the figures killed later are unknown yet, the news is at least sixty have been killed by bombs which strikes me as a bit high but very possible as they would have been hard to move. At they have described what the number means which is all I'm arguing for rather than rounding a figure and trying to imply it means or is a reasonable estimate of something quite different. NadVolum (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way they still haven't come up with a final figure for the number of militants killed or captured in Israel during the October 7 attack which they should have an accurate number for after this amount of time. NadVolum (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert of alternative name
This revert undoes the addition of a well sourced alternative name for the war, viz:

also referred to as the Israel-Gaza War,   Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First, we don't include the primary name in the lede. Given this, why would we include any alternatives?
 * Second, MOS:LEADALT tells us not to include alternative names in the lede if there are three or more such names and in this case there are many alternative names. No objection to creating an etymology section as recommended by LEADALT. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First, we don't include the primary name in the lede I didn't bold the aka, but do go ahead and include/bold them both.
 * many alternative names What are they? Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In just the four sources you provide here we have two; "Israel-Gaza war" and "Israel's War on Gaza". Above, you have provided sources that have even more alternatives - and then we have Israel's official name for the war, "Operation Swords of Iron", and Hamas' official name for the war "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two operations is an alternative name for the war. Both terms refer specifically to the actions of respective militaries, and not to the overall situation in the region nor to the legal aspect (war has a very specific meaning in international law, which is also different from military operation). — kashmīrī  TALK  13:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 - war ≠ operations Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since we're sticklers for exact wording here, "Israel's war in Gaza" or similar definitely cannot be a source for "Israel-Gaza war". PrimaPrime (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the title is descriptive, it doesn't matter. Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me - there seem to be exactly two prominent names, and the suggestions that there are more are pretty uncompelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This works better for AJ Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is one among many variations, and the opening paragraph does not need junked up with alternative names, it just hurts readability.  // Timothy :: talk  16:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the title is merely descriptive, that's so. Else if it is common name which many appear to be arguing, then it is standard practice to bold the main and principal altnames. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

ZAKA
Death and Donations: Did the Israeli Volunteer Group Handling the Dead of October 7 Exploit Its Role?

"An investigation reveals cases of negligence, misinformation and a fundraising campaign that used the dead as props"

Think we should not be using material from them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Haaretz is a WP:RS source, so it is fine to include the source as a criticism of ZAKA and a counterweight to the claims of widespread sexual violence. However, I don't think we can discard ZAKA entirely as many other WP:RS sources do use the source; there is certainly no consensus that ZAKA is unreliable. JDiala (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As things develop, more things will become visible. In the case better sources exist, ZAKA can be neglected. But ZAKA's act itself deserves covering. -- M h hossein   talk 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "As part of the effort to get media exposure, Zaka spread accounts of atrocities that never happened, released sensitive and graphic photos, and acted unprofessionally on the ground." The bizarre thing is how little appetite there is in the Western media – many of whom spread these stories, as did Biden and Blinken in very public comments – for reporting on this. The problems with ZAKA testimony of this sort were first raised two months ago by Haaretz (archive) and even more forcefully by The Grayzone.
 * Now I know The Grayzone is deprecated in Wikipedia ... but I have a feeling that future scholarship will look more kindly on Haaretz and The Grayzone here than on all the Western mainstream outlets who first reported these stories and then remained conspicuously silent about how they were discredited. (One exception is The Times, which mentioned the false atrocity tales in a story about something completely different, under the headline Hamas plans show it meant to strike deep inside Israel, which gave no clue whatsoever to that aspect of their coverage.) Andreas JN 466 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier See . It's now addressed in the text. I think it's better to report what was said and widely circulated, and then add what was debunked. Regards, Andreas JN 466 10:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are we using Hamas casualty figures for civilians?
Weak attempt to discredit the Gaza Health Ministry against the existing consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [Unhatted Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)]

Given that Hamas' own strategy involves maximizing civilian casualties and publishing propaganda to the effect that the Israelis are killing indiscriminately, why does this article quote Hamas when reporting the civilian death toll in Gaza? It would be better for there to be no numbers at all, instead of this aiding the terrorists' propaganda campaign. The Pittsburgher (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Even with the best of intentions, casualty figures are rarely reliable. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I point you to WP:NOTCENSORED. We're not here to ra-ra-ra for anyone, just to edit in accord with reliable sources and neutral point of view like WP:5P says. Firstly the Gaza Health Ministry figures are generally accepted to be reliable and they are reported in reliable sources. Secondly they do not issue figures for civilians killed, they give the figures for all those killed who have been recorded by them and do not distinguish between civilians and military as described in the section about casualties, the article does not say what you say. Thirdly the figures they give do not include those missing presumed dead under the rubble so they are under-reporting deaths and so acting against Hamas by your reasoning. NadVolum (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Gaza (Hamas) Health Ministry isn't reliable or neutral. Its numbers are released with the deliberate intent of creating a distorted narrative, so it doesn't matter what qualifiers they give. I propose either deleting these numbers from the infobox or explicitly adding "Hamas claim" in boldface above them.The Pittsburgher (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that why after the 2009 war, the 2014 war, and the 2021 war their death toll for each was estimated to be accurate by both the UN and Israel? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, for the sake of both accuracy and neutrality I propose listing civilian deaths on both sides underneath those of the combatants, in the same way as in other articles covering war. The Pittsburgher (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a Hamas claim. Thwe GHM prexisted Hamas, and the medical and administrative technicians running it before 2006 were not sacked and replaced by Hamas stooges. No official source in this area is 'neutral'. What we do know, and this has been determined by numerous discussions on wikipedia, is that historically the overall statistics on casualties issued by Gaza Health Ministry in several wars with Israel are accepted internationally by authoritative bodies as reasonably accurate, esp. considering the indeterminacy, in the vast havoc of carpet bombing practices, of ascertaining very precise numbers. Israel has mapped every household in Gaza and has updated registers of births and deaths, and the GHM provided the names of all victims when several thousands died in the first month. Had there been any abuse of misrepresentation by the GHM it would have been seized on by the Israeli government. Updating of the public record by the GHM is far more diffucult because Israel has systematically bombed out all of the offices where these records are kept and maintained. Your proposal simply ignores the extensive discussions on this on several pages for the past four months. Read them, rather than opinionize.Nishidani (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * White House spokesman John Kirby stated directly: "We all know that the Gazan Ministry of Health is just a front for Hamas. It’s a — it’s run by Hamas, a terrorist organization. I’ve said it myself up here: We can’t take anything coming out of Hamas, including the so-called Ministry of Health, at face value."
 * This was after "Gaza Health Ministry" claimed an Israeli bomb killed 500 civilians at al-Ahli Arab Hospital; later we found it was a Hamas missile and the number of dead was a few dozen at most. The manner in which Israel is waging war in Gaza is also far from carpet bombing: given the scale of both the participating forces as well as the civilian population it is in all likelihood one of the most "sanitary" such campaigns in an urban setting in modern history. The Pittsburgher (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source that isn't using Gazan Ministry of Health data please provide that source. We are simply using the most reliable data that is avaliable to us. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Israel's data, for one, is certainly more reliable than Hamas' since it's corroborated by the United States. But no number at all is better than a propaganda one. The Pittsburgher (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as anyone's concerned, Israel hasn't been counting civilians in Gaza. What you are proposing is tantamount to obstruction. Borgenland (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lots of questions. Why is Israel's data more reliable than Hamas's? What makes you think Israel's data is corroborated by the US? How does the US corroborate casualty counts -- you think the US are counting bodies? And even if they were, why is the US and Israel's body count more reliable than Hamas's body count? Levivich (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Iran would "corroborate" Hamas's claims if we asked. The infobox makes clear the number comes from the Hamas government. And unless and until we get better sourcing, it's adequate. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed ad nauseam on this Talk and elsewhere that unlike the casualty numbers provided by GHM, those provided by Israeli authorities can't be trusted, especially as regards the balance between killed civilians and combatants. The international community, and then the editor community here, has long settled on using GHM data as sufficiently reliable.
 * Your argument boils down to "I dislike Hamas, so everything Hamas must be bad". That's not a helpful approach when working on an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī  TALK  13:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a valid topic for discussion and I agree that there is a need to state that casualty counts emerge from a Hamas-run operation. As for the contention that this has been discussed "ad nauseum": please look up and observe the umpteenth attempted page move. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked up and observed the umpteenth page move has a moratorium proposal that is passing. What is your point about repetitive discussions? Levivich (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am closing this discussion. The claim made by Kirby was back in October 26, 2023, and currently the GHM's data is vastly being treated as reliable or an (unfortunate) undercount. Unless you can bring something new to the table, which you have failed so far, there is no point to continue this discussion to overturn the existing consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * “Everything I slightly disagree with is hamas” isn’t a good argument The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Unhatting this. This is not an off-topic discussion, and as far as I know WP:TALK does not countenance active editors on a page hatting and collapsing discussions because they are on-topic but don't like them. Please leave it to administrators to collapse inappropriate talk page topics. This clearly is not off-topic. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The US, and Israel, has acknowledged the Gazan Health Ministry's numbers are accurate. (WSJ: U.S. Officials Have Growing Confidence in Death Toll Reports From Gaza, NYT: On Monday, a senior Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity under army rules, told reporters that the Gazan ministry’s estimate of 15,000 total deaths was roughly accurate but that at least 5,000 people killed in Gaza were combatants, rather than civilians. (from 12/5)), and The Lancet has also said that the numbers are likely accurate (No evidence of inflated mortality reporting from the Gaza Ministry of Health). And sources have largely dropped the "Hamas-run" well poisoning when reporting the numbers, eg NYT reporting the Gazan Health Ministry said the death toll in the territory since the start of the offensive had surpassed 25,000. with nary a Hamas-run to be seen. This entire section is based on personal opinion and not reliable sources, and as such should be ignored.  nableezy  - 14:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Wall Street Journal today: More than 27,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war, the majority women and children, according to Palestinian health authorities, whose figures don’t distinguish between civilians and combatants. I believe sourcing is sufficient for Wikipedia to make note that Gaza casualty counts do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article already says "The Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between combatant and civilian casualties in its reports." Levivich (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We dont specify civilian deaths for Gaza. But thank you for another source that attributes it simply to "Palestinian health authorities".  nableezy  - 14:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced POV language
In spite of being warned here by, User:BanyanClimber continues to file disingenuous edit summaries like ...Nothing to do with food coming in while deleting well-sourced materials.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Copyediting"
This is a disingenuous edit summary:. Copyediting does not involve removing mentions of the Israeli occupation as one of Hamas' motives, nor removal of Houthis motives in the war. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, PrimaPrime needs to revert. . KlayCax (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Evidently one person's trimming poorly written, redundant or run-on sentences is another person's disingenuous POV-pushing. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to get consensus first, . I agree with you that MakeAndToss's/SelfStudier's preferred wording needs to be revised substantially for the reasons listed above.
 * Apologies. Hope you didn't interpret my comments wrong. KlayCax (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hind Rajab
There was recently a sad story of six-year-old girl Hind Rajab who witnessed the death of her family and called emergency services. For a few days her whereabouts were unknown but it recently has been reported that she was later murdered killed (whoops can't WP:SOAPBOX here, my bad) by the IDF, along with paramedics who discovered her body.

Should we make an article about her? This is clearly fairly notable as the BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN have reported it.

I'd be happy to take the initiative myself but wanted the opinion of others before I proceed. JDiala (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * NYT and Guardian too. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Very notable  Abo Yemen  ✉  15:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not my usual foray, but here's an article from NRK (in Norwegian) if that is helpful. I'd suggest waiting with the article creation until sustained coverage of the subject can demonstrated, but you can still go ahead and start a draft in your sandbox or the like. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been created Hind Rajab RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Date nickname
In skimming the interminable debates here, I noticed a reference to the event as "10/7". All countries in that part of the world, including Israel and Palestine use the DD/MM/YYYY format. Some also accept the ISO 8601 International format, YYYY/MM/DD. None use MM/DD/YYYY. Consequently, I think the 10/7 shorthand shouldn't be used even on the talk page, perhaps especially on the talk page. Such nicknames can be confusing, so it is best to indicate the month with letters, i.e. 7Oct or Oct7. These use the same number of key strokes. Humpster (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Will it also apply to UNRWA October 7 controversy? — kashmīrī  TALK  23:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"7 October attack" or "October 7 attack"?
Very minor thing but this is bugging me since there's no consistent choice between "7 October attack" and "October 7 attack" in this article. I don't know which would be more appropriate and in particular which would align best with American English. JDiala (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * October 7 is the standard in American English and so that's probably how it should be used in this article. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so the article needs a substantial revamp to ensure correct date formatting, since it's suppossed to be in American English. JDiala (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a lot of unnecessary repetition anyway, one can replace in many cases with the simpler "Hamas attack". Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Article mandates the use of the DMY date format; see code. This is the format used pretty much everywhere outside the US anyway (alternately with YYYY-MM-DD). — kashmīrī  TALK  17:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Assistance in invasion(s) summaries
I have recently created and began working on the List of invasions in the 21st century. Obviously, this invasion and offensives amid the invasion are included in the list. I have a few short summaries already listed in the chart, but I would appreciate if anyone who is familiar with the invasion wants to help out. My current thought process is that anything significant related to the invasion/offensive needs to be mentioned in the summary. So, if anyone wants to help out, feel free to work on, improve, or completely rewrite the summaries in that list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Pal. Mujahideen Mov., Muj. Brigades
Nothing on them. They hold the Bibas family, so interest is there. Flashpoint has a few facts on them (here). Anything else? Ideology? Arminden (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)