Talk:Rafah offensive

45 civilians
Nowhere in the sources attached is the claim made that the 45 reported dead (23 women, children and elderly e.i. 22 adult men) were all civilians, yet the article reads: "The attack killed at least 45 civilians and drew international criticism" --192.114.91.243 (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Super Bowl massacre into this article
Article covers the same topic as this article, although in different detail. ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd support merging that into this article. Historyday01 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also support merging ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Very notable incident with lots of deaths and deserves its own article. The Rafah offensive is an ongoing battle that is still not over and it will get expanded over time  Abo Yemen ✉  12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Notable in its own right. The incident was planned in concurrence with the Super Bowl to fly under the radar in the news cycle. It cannot be so quickly dismissed. ☞ Rim < Talk 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose — For an additional reason: From a technical standpoint, this article would become too big. Yue 🌙 04:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Rafah offensive → Proposed Rafah offensive – The offensive on Rafah has not occurred yet- the article title speaks as if it has. Alternatively could be Planned Rafah offensive, idk, but I think Proposed works for now. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed: The suggested title sounds like it is describing a proposal. Who is proposing it? Who is it being proposed to? I'm also not sure the article title should depend on whether such an offensive has begun or not. I think there are other articles on Wikipedia about various planned, feared, expected, anticipated and hypothesized events that have not yet occurred that don't say that explicitly in their titles. Also, considering the incursion of 11 February and the airstrikes of 3–12 February, it does not seem clear that such an offensive has not yet begun. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Saying it is "proposed" is incorrect and promotes misinformation. This request should be withdrawn.Historyday01 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Rafah offensive is CONCISE and clear topic name. There have been bombings in Rafah already. Article body itself can address the finer nuances of whether a major offensive happened or didn't etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy close The offensive is planned, not proposed. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per Hades. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Timeline
What's with this long timeline for an offensive that hasn't taken place? Some of the subsections are just one sentence long. They should be merged into a more cohesive prose, removing unnecessary or repeated details. Super  Ψ   Dro  11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is this not marked as ongoing?
Israel has conducted operations in Rafah for over a month now, why is this not marked as an ongoing event? Bill3602 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Military operations != military offensive; the latter is an escalation of the former. Yue 🌙 04:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Deadline for the offensive"
Under February 19, it says:

Israel sets a deadline for the offensive, saying it will begin if the hostages aren't freed by Ramadan.

However, the actual date of the offensive is not pegged to the beginning of Ramadan; it merely says an invasion will take place at some point if their demands are not met by Ramadan. 675930s (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Evacuation plans?
Would it be relevant to put Israeli announcements of evacuation plans on the timeline? I've two sources right now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-15/israel-prepares-rafah-evacuation-after-netanyahu-approves-plan https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/13/israels-war-on-gaza-live-netanyahu-vows-to-finish-the-job-in-rafah 675930s (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit
The statement "Netanyahu stated [...] "Whoever tells us not to operate in Rafah, is telling us to lose the war" is repeated both in 17 and 18 February.31.221.171.151 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, sorry, the second is "an ear".31.221.171.151 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

RAFAH - published plan
https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2024_q2/Article-95775f0a0b31f81027.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

Exposing N12: step by step - this is what the Israeli plan for the Rafah operation looks like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:B6D:E300:B873:AFBF:5311:4BA4 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Addition casualty
The child that was saved from its mother's womb has died.

21 April "One woman who died in the strike was pregnant, but doctors were able to save the baby through C-section"

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68903591 Patrikooke (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Israeli strike in Rafah, on the 3rd of May
Could we get a source regarding this that isn't derived from a news source that has bias? Both of the references for this particular incident are from far-left sources or news media sources based in Arab countries. Saegenschnitter (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

1RR violation
The last two edits you made are in violation of 1RR, waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Israeli forces have begun the offensive
Please change the status and the article as a whole Koploboblo (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2024
change title to Israeli invasion of Rafah 98.110.81.233 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. Liu1126 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

civilian casualties in third box
it puts civilian casualties on Hamas’ side, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to put civilian casualties in the box under both side’s military casualties? 142.197.246.54 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Background is too long
What's the purpose of including such a detailed timeline of so many actions in Rafah? It should only include the causes of the offensive, and actions that made major headlines for a while. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That lot should mostly (not all) go to Timeline of the Rafah offensive or some such. I might do it later if no-one else does. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just copied it over to a new timeline article, needs tidying up and some material may need to be returned to fill out the background section. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Israeli 401st brigade
The israeli 401st brigade entered the rafah crossing according to Al Jazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/7/israel-takes-control-of-rafah-crossing-gazas-lifeline-whats-going-on

therefeore we should add it to the Units Salafips1 (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Done Durranistan (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be the "104th" Brigade, not 104st SirDoor (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops, the article mentions the 401st Brigade, not the 104th, my bad SirDoor (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * my bad bro i meant to write 401st brigade Salafips1 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * dude can you change the 104st to 401st brigade Salafips1 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't this be 2024 Israeli attack on Rafah or something like that? Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem with characterization of offensive
We have here an article with an unqualified section titled "offensive". Yet reliable sources don't agree that there is an offensive. In fact The New York Times categorically stated 10 hours prior to the time I'm writing this that there is not what most readers might imagine when reading the Wikipedia article: a major ground offensive It did not appear to be the long-promised full ground invasion of Rafah, which Israel's allies have been working to avert.... ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yea, that's why I mentioned the title above, I think I might just move it if no-one objects. Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose it’s not the full offensive, but media refers to this as the ‘Rafah offensive’, before and after it started(?). This is the first time Israel went into Rafah to hold ground, not just for a raid. To me, this signals the start of the offensive. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What about 2024 Israeli operations in Rafah? Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe invasion, or just operation singular. We could open up a move request and see Personisinsterest (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have Haaretz Exclusive | Israel Commits to Limit Rafah Operation, Grant Control of Crossing With Egypt to Private U.S. Firm, usually reliable, saying that it is a limited op and control of crossing to be handed over to some private company.
 * If we can agree on a title, I think people will maybe not object to the move, avoid the bureaucracy if possible. If people should disagree then they can revert and open RM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be consensus that the title should be 2024 Israeli operation/s in Rafah or something along the lines of that for now. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would sign on for the title 2024 Israeli (or IDF) operations in Rafah, and would not object to replacing "operation/s" with "incursion". Invasion I think is a bridge too far for a technical reason: according to the UN, Israel already occupies Gaza, so either invading is redundant, or we need to have another discussion about what occupation entails, and I don't think that would be fruitful. New title would come with a corresponding change in nomenclature in the article section header(s) of course. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel maybe operations would be better, considering the seizure, fighting on the outskirts, airstrikes, and evacuations. Incursion sounds temporary and hasn't been used much by media. I feel it's between offensive and operations, and operations might be winning out for now because of the noted small-ish scale of this though. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The White House has confirmed that Israel told it that it's a limited operation. So we should use the word operation, not offensive. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The lead para looks odd and "The Rafah offensive is an ongoing offensive in the city of Rafah" is kinda pointless, it is a descriptive title which doesn't need bolding, this kind of unnecessary duplication should be avoided.
 * I don't mind leaving it at offensive for the time being on the grounds that Israel keeps threatening to carry one out but so far we are just seeing smaller operations/attacks. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the people in Rafah might demur on the topic of whether what's going on is "smaller". Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that source #34 (ToI, 8 May) states No soldiers have been wounded in the operation so far. Which is consistent with an unopposed operation, not an "offensive" if that term is to mean anything. I don't think we even are seeing a battle, referring to Military operation to find an example of the scale of things that are included in "operation". (Reuters says there may be some action near "the airport" which must be this ruin which is amid farmland outside the area of settlement.) ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that because the military operation solely consists almost entirely of murdering civilian families in tents and that no soldiers have died means that it can't be considered a serious operation. Admittedly most military operations don't consist largely of this, but Israel isn't any old state, it's an ethnonationalist perpetrator of state terror, so it's all par for the course here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The operation is not one of murdering civilians in Israeli-purchased tents . They are telling civilians to evacuate the tents. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Israel has struck Rafah every day since this began. Reliable sources are measuring seriousness by amount of ground taken. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously guys,, , can we please avoid arguing over what Israel is doing wrong or right. That isn't related to the topic we have at hand - whether this should be called an operation or offensive. Please focus on the topic and whether the scale of the Rafah attack qualifies it is an operation or offensive, do not argue about who's right or wrong here please. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not about scale; it's about effect. They've invaded eastern Rafah, up to and including the crossing (and cut off aid). It doesn't matter whether or not this is a completed offensive for the military planners at this stage or not. An offensive can start and even be aborted. Here, an offensive was announced and an offensive is underway. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's clear from your earlier comment, that your reasoning is based solely on opposition to Israel's assault. Please don't push your POV here. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet it is irrelevant when the language is both used in RS and descriptively accurate. If people want to rename the page, they may start an RM, but there is no informal consensus to do so, and I see no policy grounds for it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources measure everything that happens in Gaza as high in humanitarian effect (because it is), but also they have to measure this in ground taken. Sure, there's fighting on the outskirts, but they haven't entered the heart of the city where mostly everyone is. That's the red line for America, that's the big thing the media is waiting for. That's where the significance is.
 * It could also be argued that warnings over a full offensive sound worse than about this. Sources have warned that thousands could die in a full offensive, which makes the 60 people killed here more insignificant. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Relatively" insignificant would be better, no? Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was trying to get at that with 'more insignificant' but that's a better way to put it. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources are still using “Rafah offensive”, “Rafah incursion”, and “Rafah operation.” I can see any of these being used, but right now we don’t know what the scale or number of casualties will be. The IDF may be planning a “precise” “limited” operation based on intelligence, but that is what they planned for in their 2024 2:30 am Al Shifa operation when their soldiers were “briefed in advance regarding the importance of preventing harm to civilians, patients, medical teams, and medical equipment” and Al Shifa is now non functional with hundreds of casualties after two weeks of fighting inside and around the hospital.
 * Israel is planning an operation for at least 6 weeks which includes evacuating civilians in this urban warfare environment, so right now may be too early to determine the operational scale. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that an offensive is proceeding despite calls to stop. South Africa has asked the ICJ to order Israel to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Strength of invading force and number of brigades
The infobox wrongly suggests that "5 other brigades" are participating and the total strength of the IDF invading force is 3,000-5,000.

The source used (Al Jazeera) says that IDF is "redeploying a force of about six brigades (3,000-5,000 soldiers) to a base near Rafah."

The article clearly says these are brigades deployed to a IDF base near Rafah (likely a border base). This doesn't mean they're participating in the assault, but defending Israeli border. And it doesn't include the 401st Brigade, nor it is mentioned as one of them.

Since the language is a bit clear, users seems to have also misunderstood this as implying a total strength of 3,000-5,000. However 3,000-5,000 is the strength of each brigade deployed to the IDF base near Rafah. Another article by Al Jazeera clearly says so. And if you look at the typical IDF brigade size, it is between 3,000-7,000 soldiers.

Clearly users have misunderstood what Al Jazeera is saying. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "Since the language is a bit unclear..." is what I meant. Sorry. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah I guess I read that wrong. Thanks for bringing that up. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Content
Not sure why the article is filled with quotes and news snippets instead of a coherent overarching narrative. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The current event tag just came off, although it is imo still very much a current event, needs a bit of time to settle down. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Translation of sources
Hi, please, the first source of Argentina has a bad translation of the word "aberrante — abhorrent" 190.246.97.81 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

11 more israeli soldiers wounded by hornets
Please edit the casualties Koploboblo (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A continuously updated information page
Hello.

Here is a very informative page with continuous updates, which may be useful for your work here.

https://reliefweb.int/updates?view=reports&advanced-search=%28PC180%29

David A (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but most of it is about the aid into Gaza. Linkin Prankster (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Map in lede/infobox
Shouldn't there be a map of the offensive in the lede? I thought that was standard practice for ongoing battles/conflicts, especially if a map is available. Zinderboff(talk) 23:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Actual us option
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/us-encouraged-by-israeli-changes-to-plans-for-rafah-operation?srnd=homepage-middle-east 2.55.20.41 (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2024 [Belligerents section]
add Hezbollah to Belligerents 98.110.81.233 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mr. Komori (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2024
make article name Israeli rafah offensive 98.110.81.233 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Jamedeus (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

ICJ order
What are we saying for the ICJ order?

The vast majority of reliable sources say the court ordered Israel to stop the offensive. The ruling itself says Israel has to halt the offensive. But with six judges, Israel, and some sources saying it only orders it to prevent genocide, we have to consider what we say. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The very source used here says: "Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate" which could bring about "the physical destruction" of the Palestinians - alluding to what constitutes a genocide under international law."
 * This is also noted by other sources that the court said so. Notably five judges wrote opinions on the decision, and only one states it meant a full halt. All of the judges involved in the ruling didn't give an opinion.
 * Look at the ICJ website itself, it also says "Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" page 5 of the order
 * We shouldn't go by what majority of sources say, but what the ICJ actually said. My edits aren't meant to favor any one interpretation however. Which is why I've included opinions of the judges and kept it clear that ruling orders Israel to halt operations that harm civilians, I haven't inserted whether the offensive was ordered to be halted completely or not. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of these sources say the court said Israel must halt the offensive. It didn't condition the offensive on genocide-prevention; it said it must stop the offensive, AND any other genocidal acts. About the judges, they simply could've made a statement saying their interpretation, they aren't limited by their opinions. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both those sources while stating that cite the part about operations that harm the civilians. No source quotes any direct statement from ICJ ordering a full halt.
 * Also the opinions of the judges are there in the order document itself actually. Please check "Annex to Summary 2024/6" after the 6th page of the ruling in the order of ICJ I linked.
 * It seems the media has added its own interpretation rather than what the court has said. We are WP:NOTNEWS. And I think it's more important to follow what the court meant while avoiding any personal interpretations rather than news sources. But let's see what the consensus says. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also discussion at South Africa's genocide case against Israel talk page about this. Agree about keeping it as factual as possible. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess that’s the most logical thing to do at this point. But we should keep the footnote because it is still disputed Personisinsterest (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The wording of the decision strongly suggests that the court is ordering the halt of the military offensive, as an immediate and unconditional requirement (in order to prevent any potential escalation or harm that could lead to such conditions) and beyond halting the offensive, Israel must refrain from any other actions in the Rafah Governorate that could create conditions threatening the physical destruction of the Palestinian group in Gaza, addressing not only direct military actions but also indirect measures that could lead to severe humanitarian consequences. Lucasdmca (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but I guess with the majority of judges writing an opinion interpreting it in a different way, it might be best to just write it the other way but clarify it's disputed. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's actually not the majority of judges, among the 15 judges, only 4 expressed the alternative interpretation, it's relatively a small number, it's worth noting that 2 of these promoting the alternative view were the 2 dissenters of the decision, I think the article should mention that:
 * "The order had been widely interpreted by the media and government officials worldwide, including those of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as requiring Israel to cease the military offensive in Rafah altogether. However, four of the 15 judges, including the two dissenters, presented a separate opinion suggesting that the court order did not mandate an absolute halt of operations in Rafah. In contrast, the South African judge on the bench argued that it explicitly requires Israel to cease all military operations in Rafah." Lucasdmca (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Personisinsterest meant majority of the judges who wrote opinion on the judgment. Like I said five judges wrote opinions on the judgment. Four of them said it meant a halt only to those actions that might harm the civilians, one said yhe judgment required a complete halt to the offensive. He didn't mean all 15 wrote an opinion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The judgement is the judgement (ratio decidendi, binding), opinions are opinions (obiter dicta, not essential to the decision and not binding). Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That maybe so. But the opinions are of the people who passed that judgment. And I'd rather go with them over what the media thinks. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are due for inclusion if they are covered in reliable sources, of course. However, RS is essentially treating the matter as I just described. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So the judges themselves are not reliable? Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. If the judges comments are reported in reliable sources, then we can attribute them with due weight for their views, views that are not a part of the judgement. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are reported though. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said they weren't. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024
add Israel moving in to central Gaza to status 98.110.81.233 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: wikipedia is not a newspaper. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are the two officials listed as commanders
Per israel the two hamas members killed on may 26 were the commanders of hamas in the west bank, why are they listed as the commanders of hamas in rafah? Nowhere in the sources does it mention anything like that. Koploboblo (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Killed
The Israeli government's spokesman for foreign media, David Manser, told Reuters that approximately 300 terrorists have been eliminated since the start of the IDF's ground operation in the Rafah area. Also, in the meantime, the IDF said that the fatal explosion in which three soldiers in the Nahal Brigade were killed on Tuesday occurred as a result of the explosion of a trapped tunnel shaft that was in a civilian clinic in Rafah.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hy2mvx8na 2.55.3.37 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - change "209+" to "3+" Palestinian civilians killed in the infobox
Please change in the infobox from "209+ Palestinian civilians killed" to "3+ Palestinian civilians killed". This is because none of the source used says that 209+ civilians were killed. Except source 37, none of the sources says anything about how many civilians were killed, but rather specifying that people were killed in Rafah (the highest number mentioned is "more than 56" in source 29). Source 37 mentions that at least 3 civilians were killed.

I'm not saying that only 3 civilians were killed, but rather that the sources that we reference say that. If anyone will add a source stating that "X civilian were killed in Rafah" I will support changing the death toll to X and adding the source as a reference. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree 209+ civilians seems wrong, but 3+ civilians doesn't seem like a meaningful replacement metric. If reliable sources don't have much data on civilian deaths in particular, isn't it more meaningful to give a broader metric, like 209+ Palestinians killed?
 * I'm a little lost in the mess of references. Is there a reference which would directly back up a statement of 209+ Palestinians killed, or was that number arrived at by aggregating several sources?
 * If it's an aggregation, it seems like WP:OR; there's an exception for routine arithmetic (WP:CALC) but this may be too messy to fall under that. — xDanielx  T/C\R 04:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, regarding your first question: No, there isn't any source stating that 209+ civilian (or 209+ Palestinians in general) were killed. I'm not sure how this number was calculated, or if it's an aggregation of the different sources. If you want, I can try to come up with some range of killed according to the sources, but as there are many sources (which probably covers the same events), it will be difficult.
 * Anyway, besides source 37 which states that 3+ civilians were killed, the other sources don't mention "civilians", but rather report something like "On, X people were killed" sometime adding "including Y women and Z children". Even if we will try to come up with some range of killed Palestinians in Rafah, I don't think we can put that number under "killed civilians".
 * As I see it we can either say "3+ civilian killed", or say that "X" (or some range of) Palestinians killed, without using the term "civilians". I favor the first option. As this is very hot topic, I'm sure that quickly someone will find a reliable source with higher killed civilian number and update the info box accordingly. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I removed "civilians" since that clearly doesn't seem to match the sources, as you said.
 * I'm not sure what to do about the seemingly synthesized total. 3+ civilian killed may seem misleading since it's probably an extreme undercount.
 * It might be better to just delete the number with no replacement. I'm a bit hesitant to do that without more input, so I just added Template:Syn for now.
 * Yeah, hopefully someone will find a reliable source with a total number (whether civilians or Palestinians broadly) which would resolve these issues. — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2024
In the Middle East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_offensive#Middle_East) section under Egypt, change "A previously unkown" to "A previously unknown".  Maxic  💬 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Wiiformii (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Spelling
Antony Blinken not Anthony Blinken. Tkaras1 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thank you, ! Favonian (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * yes that is correct his name is spelled Antony without an h 173.72.3.91 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
Paragraph 4, second sentence, says "Over q million..." I was just going to change the "q" to "a". Chivalry (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I changed this to Over 1 million, thanks for pointing it out. Jamedeus (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to have difficulty tracking commanders of modern battles, especially insurgent forces, because that information is not reported on much by media sources. None of the commanders listed are likely all that high up in Hamas hierarchy and has a strong bias towards whatever mid-level commanders were killed. The ISW Order of Battle from November indicates that the commander of Rafah Brigade is Mohammaed Shabana (which is reported on by Israeli news sources as well) and that Muhammed Sinwar is likely the commander of the Southern Division. 9876andoP (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024
add Benjamin Netanyahu to Commanders and leaders section as he is the prime minister of Israel 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Left guide (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister of israel
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/15/we-have-to-do-what-we-have-to-do-israels-netanyahu-stands-firm-on-rafah-offensive-despite-us-tensions.html 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)