Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Requested move 13 August 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update to add other RS mentioning Gaza instead of Hamas in one way or another in at least one instance:

• Save the Children: [7]: War in Gaza as coverage category title
• Haaretz Israeli newspaper: [8]: Gaza war as coverage category title (RS per WP)
• Relief Web: Relief Web: Gaza war
• Crisis Group: [9]: Gaza war
• Norwegian Refugee Council: [10]: Gaza conflict Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support replacement of Hamas with Gaza in a new title (open to variations). It is both more accurate (not limited to Israel and Hamas) and recognizable in RS per original request. Mason7512 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nominator has presented no evidence that the common name has changed, just that a small number of selected examples use "Israel-Gaza war", and it is clear that the most common and recognizable name among our readers is Israel-Hamas war.

In addition, the title has accuracy issues - Gaza has no army and is not fighting this war, while Hamas does and is.

Regarding the evidence the nominator does present, it is highly misleading. For example, they imply Reuters has shifted to "Israel-Gaza war". This is false; in the past week they have used one article with that term, compared to many (eg. 1, 2, 3) for Israel-Hamas war.

They also cite WP:CONSISTENCY, but the proposed title is not similar to the titles they claim it would be consistent with, and even if it was the wars are too dissimilar for consistency to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A commonly recognizable name per WP is a "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)," i.e. determined by RS not by readers.

As for accuracy, Gaza has no army indeed, but Hamas is not the only one fighting this war, as it is fighting alongside Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the Gaza Strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And "Gaza war" blows away both, see here. nableezy - 05:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Taking out the "-" character provides a clearer picture of what people are searching for. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Gaza War (2023-202x) would be best, but Israel-Gaza War is an improvement over the current title. It squares better with the facts and daily coverage on this topic is largely about Gaza. Israel-Hamas is one thread of the tapestry of this war, and arguably, one point of view; it is not the whole, but a part. The war includes more than the IDF, Hamas, and other factions fighting; Gaza has been largely reduced to rubble, reminiscent of WW2 photographs; its people are killed day in and day out, excused as "attacks on Hamas," and they run from place to place with what little they have left. Hospitals, schools, and infrastructure are bombed. Doctors and journalists are killed. History is erased. The Israel-Hamas War title focuses on the part, leaving out the other big pieces, and we know that leaving out information is one technique of lying. It continues a one-sided Western narrative, that it is a war on Hamas and civilians are, unfortunately, in the way, when the facts say otherwise.

GeoffreyA (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So you wish to replace the "Western Narrative" with you narrative? PaPiker (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I only wish for all narratives to be replaced with the truth. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your truth? PaPiker (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't believe in the notion of "one's truth," which is subjective. Rather, truth is the accurate mirroring, at a certain level of abstraction (quarks vs. atoms vs. humans), of Nature or the state of affairs out there. Unfortunately, the medium of human language is prone to a host of problems. Of course, Wikipedia has other principles to go by. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The only "truth" that matters on Wikipedia is the one that is shown by reliable sources, and they consistently call it the Israel-Hamas War rather than the Israel-Gaza War. I wouldn't be opposed to creating a redirect that takes it to this page and including it the lead, though. Jdcomix (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly. That's why I added that last sentence. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is about the war, and by the way, the article still mentions the humanitarian consequences. But if you are concerned about the coverage of humanitarian issues, see Gaza genocide, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), and the many other articles detailing Israeli war crimes. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support, since the current title is a legal, philosophical and logical nonsense IMO. Correctly, wars are either between organisations (Government of Israel – Hamas) or between countries (Israel–Gaza). Mixing up the two feels badly incorrect. Also it smacks of propaganda (to give a feeling that the entire nation is fighting an organisation). Yet we wouldn't say "US – Ba'ath Party war" (rather, a US–Syria war), "US–Taliban war" (it was US–Afghanistan war; NATO–Taliban war would be correct, too), etc. In short, the proposed title sounds infinitely better than the current one, however widespread the latter may be. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  ...or between countries (Israel–Gaza). Gaza, is in fact, not a country. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, for all intents and purposes Hamas is Gaza. They started this war and that is who Israel is going after. If it was all of Gaza the Gazans would all be fighting back but they are not, it's just Hamas and its sycophants. PaPiker (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas is Gaza. Wow. Going by your logic, Israel is Likud. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas has subverted and replaced the actual authority of Gaza, the Palestine Authority. Hamas is not a political party. Hezbollah is a functioning political party. PaPiker (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main participants in this war are Hamas and Israel. Gaza is a territory, not a side in the conflict. I don’t see any reason to change the title to something less specific. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 06:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that Israel is not a territory? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Israel is a country with an army. Gaza is a territory controlled by a militant group but who’s de jure administrators are the PA. Personisinsterest (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hamas and Israel are the key players. Gaza is just a place, not a combatant. Waqar💬 20:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I think that this seems like a considerably more accurate title than what we currently use for this page, given that the Hamas fighters are only a very small part of the targets. Also, this is not a war, just an extremely onesided massacre. David A (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support per nom. One thing about the WP:COMMONNAME of Israel-Hamas war is that Wikipedia partially decided on that common name back in October 2023 when the war first broke out. A year since the attacks, media organizations are shifting towards Gaza War (2023-present), Israel-Gaza War, or variations of the two. Changing the title to either of those two, in particular the former as it falls in line with 2014 Gaza War and the Gaza War (2008–2009), would still remain in COMMONNAME and be less biased due to not having interference from news organizations possibly running with the Wikipedia-generated title. Jebiguess (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  It’s seriously flawed to compare counts of a two-word phrase with a three-word phrase. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  When comparing how often each phrase is used? nableezy - 23:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Israel-Gaza war. Both Israel-Hamas and Israel-Gaza are commonly used, but recently there has been a trend towards using Israel-Gaza. Israel-Gaza war is more accurate because the war is not just Hamas anymore. I oppose Gaza war (2023-present) because the name of the war should include Israel, per WP:NATURAL, Israel-Gaza war makes more sense than Gaza War. Mast303 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Israel–Gaza war, which is a bit hard to make sense out of considering that Gaza is an Israeli-occupied territory; it's also less widespread than the alternatives. However, I would support Gaza war (2023-present) (I think dates are preferable due to the relative recency of the other "Gaza wars"). This (or "war in Gaza") seem to be much more widespread than Israel–Hamas war based on Google trends, it's also more accurate considering that only a minority of Palestinian casualties are Hamas fighters. WikiFouf (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• • Oppose An online encyclopedia does not get to name the war. Although personally I think it's plausibly a war waged on the Palestinian people primarily with Hamas merely as collateral damage, that is irrelevant because WP:COMMONNAME applies as supported by Google trends and many media outlets. 'Israel-Gaza war' does not make more sense as there is already Gaza–Israel conflict which this is a subset of anyways and the terms are too similar. Another point is that its simply too late to change it, its been ongoing for months and when people hear or read 'Israel–Hamas war' they know its about this one, 'Israel-Gaza war' is more ambiguous & 'Gaza War' even more so. 'Gaza war (2023-present)' is no better than 'Israel Hamas war (2023-present)' because you are dropping Israel from the label for no reason at all. Colloquially people don't even say 'Gaza war', if they drop Israel & just say Gaza then they say 'Gaza genocide' Drocj (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, the proposed title is ambiguous and can refer to several other conflicts which involve Israel and the territory of Gaza (which is why it redirects to Gaza–Israel conflict). Sources appear split on both Israel–Hamas war and Israel–Gaza war, so we cannot explicitly refer to WP:common name. Other editors provide longer alternatives which include date disambiguation; the problem with this is that many of these proposed longer titles fail at both mention in reliable sources as well as concision, which is best explained as The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. The use of Hamas in the title accurately describes the scope of the article as they, alongside Israel, are the main belligerents of the war. While the current title blurs the involvement of other militant groups fighting alongside Hamas, the ambiguous Israel–Gaza war provides no mention of clashes in the West Bank nor confrontations in other territories. Renaming this page to a date-disambiguated title would also require some form of parenthetical disambiguation, whereas Wikipedia prefers the use of natural disambiguation if possible.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Gaza War (2023–present) because of the involvement of other Palestinian factions and the absence (so far) of major fighting in the West Bank. Charles Essie (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support it is safe to say that the war isn't just between Israel and Hamas at this point. Any claims to the contrary are delusional. Scuba 16:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per previous votes and previous arguments.
  — Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 16:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, though per Google Trends "War on Gaza" is the WP:COMMONNAME. إيان (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Actually it seems "Gaza War" is the common name. إيان (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support I doubt we will have consensus again but the name "Israel-Hamas" is fundamentally biased towards Israel and obscures the tens of thousands of dead on the Palestinian side- over 90% of casualties- who have nothing to do with Hamas. 16:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC) HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support for Gaza War (2023 - present) followed by Israel-Gaza war. As pointed out by Kashmiri, wars are between states or between organizations. Since Palestine has now been internationally recognized by the UN as a sovereign state, it's even more relevant that we avoid the incorrect framing of this being about Hamas.

Internet search trends in the last 7 months also clearly shows Gaza War as the most common name and Gaza War + Israel-Gaza war (without the "-" character as helpfully suggested by @PhotogenicScientist) easily outstripping Israel-Hamas War. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Israel-hamas war erases the role of other significant factions within the Palestinian Joint Operations room. That is, the PFLP, DFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees and various Fatah aligned militants. We at wikipedia should be careful to account for these things which may otherwise be swept under the rug.

Gaza war on the other hand allows us to also implicitly include the other parts of the P-JOR. Genabab (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support There are many other factions in the war other than Hamas, including but not limited to, PFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Lions' Den, etc. It isn't just Hamas who is fighting Israel in Gaza. Haskko (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recognition of the State of Palestine   have recognised the State of Palestine   have not recognised the State of Palestine Common use in English is a very skewed POV, anything supported by "common use" in English language sources is going to have a United States / UK / Canada / India (BJP) / etc. bias, so anything in common use in English has a systematic bias wrt this war. Searching war and Hamas حرب حماس gets me European media in Arabic, and half of them still call it the Gaza war even in those search results. Searching all three gets me The war between Hamas and Israel الحرب بين حماس وإسرائيل France24 , The war between Israel and Hamas الحرب بين إسرائيل وحماس Germany's DW , UK, USA, etc. despite the search being in Arabic. As far as I can tell, the current title is exclusively used by media from the minority of countries who refuse to recognize the State of Palestine. FourPi (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC) This is en.wiki - of course we're biased toward English here. What's the issue with that, exactly? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC) I already explained that above. I'm disputing the claim that "common name" its unbiased. Because, as you say, of course we're biased, we're biased towards points of view in the English speaking world. Too many people seem to think that "reliable sources in English say" = global consensus. It very much doesn't. FourPi (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Per WP:COMMONNAME, English-Language sources are the scope here. If it helps, it’s a great annoyance for me in other cases, where the German phrasing is significantly different from the English ones. FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe I didn't explain very clearly? My point was not that Arabic translation counts as WP:COMMONNAME. I was using that to show that common name in English has a severe WP:POV problem. Common name used in English skews severally pro-Israel / anti-Palestine But we can use translated names to pick which English common name reflects an unbiased view of the war. FourPi (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC) I understand what you mean, but that is not what the policy says. In the same way, I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel, particularly considering that arguably all 3 have a non-insignificant bias for one of the factions of the conflict. For example, the alleged commonname Gaza Genocide is arguably a NPOV violation against Israel, as there was no consensus that there was a genocide. Nevertheless, the move was (as of now) done. That term has almost no use in German and Hebrew (afaik).FortunateSons (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC) I cannot use the German/Hebrew versions to alter English names that I consider anti-Israel But you did actually cite hebrew and german-language sources in the move request of gaza genocide article to oppose the move in your large table. Stephan rostie (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Yes, because they can be used as an argument that it isn’t a genocide, but not as an argument that it isn’t called a genocide. In the same way, one could use Arabic sources to say that „X % of fighting is against groups other than Hamas“, but can’t be used to show that the name „Israel-Hamas war“ is improper, because non-English sources can be used for facts/claims but not for names. Im with you on the policy being less-than-intuitiv, tho FortunateSons (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC) @FortunateSons You are still missing the point. My point is NOT that Arabic can be used to determine common name. I probably explained it badly, but my point is that common name in English has a bias towards one side of the conflict. So we shouldn't use common name for this page. I'm not trying to find common name, I'm trying to show that common name is an inappropriate metric to use to name this page. We should use a descriptive name instead. Or I honestly would support War of Iron Swords, it's attributable and too figurative to be inaccurate. FourPi (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Ah, that makes sense, sorry, I assumed it was used as an argument against a specific common name. The issue is that no one can agree on a descriptive title, because no one seems to agree on the scope or aims of the war. I’m hesitant to support a title attributable to the parties, because we would have to decide which, but it’s definitely an interesting suggestion. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC) I was mildly surprised I couldn't find it called a genocide in Hebrew, even B'Telem is being a bit timid on it, but I'm not sure how clearly it translates (I've not tried Local Call yet). I actually think the official Israeli name "War of Iron Swords" would be a lot better than either of the common name options being debated, I would strongly support that as a name. It's attributable, and it's not pretending to give any substantive information about who or where, so it's not misleading. FourPi (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Yeah, outside the English-speaking world, there is a wide variance in the frequency of use. FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, and copying my comment from the last time we had this discussion.The claim that Israel-Hamas War is a common name is bogus, if it were the common name you wouldnt see the Washington Post, The Guardian and so on all use Israel-Gaza war as the name of the conflict. As before, Gaza is what has been systematically bombed, Gaza's universities have been destroyed, Gaza's hospitals have been destroyed, Gaza's residents have been displaced and starved. This name is and has always been an attempt to push an Israeli POV that it is a war on Hamas. Gaza is what has had its water, electricity, and food cut off, Gaza and Gazans are what have been targeted throughout this campaign. Wikipedia is effectively pushing Israeli propaganda with this title, and it is non-neutral. Since this is a descriptive title, and not like people are falsely claiming the common name, it is required to abide by Wikipedia:NCENPOV: use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. The POV implications here are that Hamas is what is being attacked here, and that is and always has been POV-driven BS. None of these are common names, which requires an overwhelming majority of sources using a single name. They are all descriptive titles, and as a result we need a NPOV one. Not one that parrots the Israeli POV that this is a war against Hamas, despite all of Gaza being in ruin. nableezy - 05:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  The strongest and clearest presentation of what should be the most important argument in this discussion. NPOV must override COMMONNAME in cases when they are opposed, or else Wikipedia can become overrun by systemic bias. Unbandito (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Both “Israel-Hamas” and “Israel-Gaza”/“Gaza war” are all used by reliable sources, however contrary to the beginning of the war which “israel-Hamas” was a somewhat acceptable term back then, the term by now doesn’t make much sense in the current circumstances anymore and reflect nothing than a political agenda (e.g US can declare war on putin or CCP for political agenda but that doesn’t mean that the war in reality/objectively is against russia/china). as by now there are full siege on Gaza not “full siege on Hamas”, a Gaza famine not “Hamas famine”, bombing of Gaza that destroyed or damaged 70% of entire Gaza’s building not “70% of hamas buildings”, and a Gaza genocide that most scholars believe israel has/is committing against all Gaza not a “Hamas genocide”. All now make very little sense to label as “Israel-Hamas conflict” anymore contrary to the beginning of the war. Adding to this older legit arguments that the Palestinian resistance factions fighting in Gaza are not just Hamas but range from the secular marxist as PFLP to salafist islamist as PIJ who are all fighting in one Palestinian front, that Hamas is the political party that rules Gaza government (which itself doesn’t mean every government employee “is hamas”) so it would be like calling it “Likud-Hamas war”, and that “Gaza war”/“israel-Gaza war” would be in correspondence with earlier existing articles (e.g 2009 Gaza war, 2014 Gaza war, 2019 Gaza war, Gaza–Israel conflict, etc). All combined leave very little sense to keep using the current title, especially by now.

Stephan rostie (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Israel wages a war on the Palestinian people, not just Hamas. Most wars are labelled by the countries. Calling this the "Israel-Hamas war" is an Israeli POV and not suitable for Wikipedia. When this article was created, some probably thought it would be a short operation against Hamas. I doubt anyone can honestly hold that view anymore. The neutral name is the one proposed in this RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The war is between Israel and Hamas, not Israel and Gaza. Sources are quite clear on that point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is not true that the war is just against Hamas. It is also against the rest of the joint operations room (pflp, dflp, pij, etc…) Genabab (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — Per Longhornsg, whose evidence makes clear that "Israel–Hamas war" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the war beginning on Oct. 7, 2023. While I can understand the desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, I.M.O. that argument doesn't somehow make "Israel-Hamas" not the war's COMMONNAME and therefore the best article title. DecafPotato (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The war was a response to an attack from Hamas. Gaza is just a region. Nashhinton (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• If a move is to happen, move to Gaza War (2023–present). I think it's borderline impossible to argue whether "Israel–Hamas war" or "Israel–Gaza war" is the COMMONNAME, and both titles present NPOV problems: if it's "Israel–Hamas war", the implication is Israel versus terrorists; if it's "Israel–Gaza war", the implication is Israel versus civilians. Previous wars between Israel and Hamas are referred to on Wikipedia as Gaza Wars (Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War) and using the location gets around the NPOV issues. I know some will note that the war isn't limited to Gaza, but neither were the 2008–2009 and 2014 wars, and this conflict is overwhelmingly unfolding in Gaza. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 22:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza war with or without the dates per Joe and my previous votes for that title in prior RMs. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War or Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and Levivich.Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (2023–present). I already explained why in my previous comment above (I actually proposed 2023–2024 but 2023–present is obviously the best choice). - Ïvana (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• Support Gaza War (2023–present) or the proposed title. Gaza war alone may also be appropriate, as the subject appears to have seized the primary topic space, but that may be a separate discussion – though a search for "Gaza war" on Google already directs to the topic. The current title is, by contrast, grossly inaccurate. Hamas is far from the only participant on the Palestinian side, with the PIJ, PFLP, Al-Aqsa Brigades and many more also participating. This non-geographical title also violates the basic tenets of WP:NCWWW, not even stating where the conflict is principally occurring. It is exceptionally odd to not be referring to Gaza at this point in the title, as the whole of Gaza is involved, and even the peripheral conflicts revolve around Gaza: the Houthis and Hezbollah have made a cessation of hostilities contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza. The war has involved the bombing of Gaza and the invasion of Gaza, while the Gaza Strip famine and Gaza genocide pages are corollary events. There are several names for this event, but most incorporate the name "Gaza", including Israel-Gaza war, Gaza war, war in Gaza, and war on Gaza. By contrast, "Israel-Hamas war" – merely one example in an archipelago of names – is the lone exception to the rule. It is far from the common name (and the suggestions to the contrary are rather risible), and it is now diminishing in prevalence. With the likes of the BBC, Guardian and WP now defaulting to Israel-Gaza war, there is little cause for further confusion on this. The current title is one with poor accuracy, lessening applicability, and its usage now pales in comparison (per Nableezy) to the wider discussion of a "Gaza war". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Gaza war with or without dates, also support above Israel-Gaza war. Per the nominator and kashmiri, the current title is misleading as I said in previous discussion. This conflict involves not just Hamas but all Palestinian resistance movements in Gaza. The broader involvement of groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demonstrates that the title "Israel–Gaza war" more accurately reflects the scope of the conflict. Additionally, the existing title suggests a conflict solely between Israel and a single organization, while in reality, it is a war that affects the entire region of Gaza and its inhabitants. Reliable sources (RS) have increasingly used the term "Israel-Gaza war," aligning with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE guidelines. Notable examples include The Guardian, The Washington Post, BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera etc. — Ainty Painty (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: this is not a war only on Gaza's ruling political party, it is a war on Gaza. Nobody is arguing that only Hamas members have been targeted. Multiple sources have used Israel-Gaza war, or simply Gaza war. None of the fighting has occurred in Israel, so Gaza war seems appropriate. 20WattSphere (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The OP says this should be brought in line with the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza war but the big difference here is that this war was started by Hamas and it is who the war is against and thus needs to be recognized as such. There is no war here against Gaza. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas was the "main antagonist" for Israel (as it were), in all of these conflicts (as the governing body of the strip), so all of these were just as much "Israel-Hamas wars" based on the same shakey premise that is being maintained for the current title. Nothing fundamental has changed between these conflicts, so there is no obvious reason to switch for this conflict to an inconsistent and simultaneously imprecise and ambiguous descriptive title. The fuller truth is that the current title fails on numerous other levels as well, as elucidated by many editors further up this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly! So it would be much more precise, accurate and correct to rename all of them to Israel-Hamas wars and then differentiate them by the year, etc.

  What is Gaza? There is no war with Gaza. Israel left Gaza on its own accord. To say there's a war with Gaza is a complete misnomer.

  Thank you for agreeing with me. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  “Of its own accord” is quite a euphemistic way of saying “putting it under full siege, controlling all aspects of its population including heir registry, resources, borders, water, and airspace, while continuing to commit crimes against its nationals int he West Bank, forcing them to live under occupation, settler pogroms, deprivation of rights, and administrative detention” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well said. If anyone lives under occupation, it's the people of Gaza under the occupation of Hamas. Can other religions be practiced freely there? Can people be openly homosexual? Israel is liberating Gaza from the rule of Hamas. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Christianity also has a small presence in Gaza Strip per sources. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Israel is doing a mighty fine job "liberating Gaza," flattening it to the ground. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also said "based on the same shakey premise", but those past events are not named that for good reason – and there's every reason to be consistent here. Since you're ignoring every single serious point being made here, however, it seems you have little interest in properly engaging with the naming discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  No not at all. My vote isn't disqualified just because you don't like it. Sorry to inform you, but this isn't Iskypedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s disqualified because you’re wrong. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  MaskedSinger, Wikipedia is not a vote. !Votes (read as: not-vote) are weighted by the quality of the arguments presented, not by the numbers alone. And I would argue "There is no war with Gaza." is absolutely not a valid argument. Your !vote isn't worthy of being counted because it made no effort to even allude to Wikipedia procedures, and instead was based entirely on the mind-boggling assertion that Gaza isn't even under attack. I can't imagine any closer determining that such a !vote holds any weight.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  If that's your preferred approach, why not name it the Likud-Hamas war, then? 20WattSphere (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: An extremely regretful oppose, but Israel–Gaza war should refer to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip rather than the entirety of the war from 2023/10/07 to the present-day. This is what seems to be the most neutral reception from what I do see anyway. Josethewikier (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support 2023 Gaza War or something similar, with the year (either "2023 to present" or "2023"): best reflects the accuracy and truthfulness of this very war. Josethewikier (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Josethewikier: Why would there be two separate "named war" titles for different, overlapping periods of the same conflict? It's the same war, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas is the political party that has been causing problems for Israel, rather than Gazans. Naming the article with "Gaza" incorrectly places the fault of the initial attack of 10/07 on "Gaza" rather than the accurate Hamas. Israel remains the way it does because the country/state voted Likud in; Hamas should be seen differently from "Gaza" as Gazans did not elect Hamas in in the last 18 years, and none of the war crimes are the fault of Gazans and/or Gaza. Josethewikier (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas attacks did not happen 'in a vacuum', Guterres says

  ""It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation," Guterres said." Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I could say the same for the Israeli people, they were just luckier that its allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help even from its closest of allies. Point is that this remains a war between Israel and Hamas, just that the victims are predominantly Gazan civilians caught between yet another Israeli invasion and much crossfire from both sides (though mostly Israeli). This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents. Josethewikier (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  allies helped the Israeli government (too much so, might I add), which directly made is possible for Israel to occupy much/all of the Palestinian Territories in the first place, while the Palestinian government received no such degrees of help What Palestinian government? There was no Palestinian government in 1948 or 1967. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  you're correct, and I never meant that. Compare Israel vs Palestine in the last 30 years or so, and their governments; anyway that is not relevant. If someone convinces me that a change in the title benefits the truth-telling of the atrocities the residents of Gaza face and have faced in the last 317 days specifically, I will retract my opposition. Josethewikier (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, calling it "Israel-Hamas" war suggests it's a war between Israel and Hamas. Calling it "Gaza war" suggests it's a war in Gaza. Which of the two do you consider more accurate? Levivich (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do apologise this is turning into an argument. I sincerely request for convincing factors and not rhetorical questions. Asking me questions do not guide me towards the truth. Josethewikier (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Accuracy is a convincing factor. Which of the titles (current or proposed) is more accurate is not a rhetorical question. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also I'd disagree with had nothing at all to do with Gaza. They lived on the border of Gaza. This does NOT mean that what happened to them was in any way justified, but they were targeted because they lived on the border of Gaza, which is something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not to forget the 1,100+ victims of the first couple days/weeks of this war though, which were predominantly Israeli and had nothing at all to do with Gaza, its civilians, or most of its residents.

  if the above is inaccurate, please point any and all errors out; else, do not misquote me. Josethewikier (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  The 1,100 victims is who I'm talking about; they lived on the border of Gaza, that's not "nothing at all to do with Gaza," it's something to do with Gaza. They got attacked because they were next to Gaza. And the attack came from Gaza. That's all something to do with Gaza. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct and I do apologise for the above statement. It's definitely not as straightforward as that, but I do get your point and agree with much of it. Josethewikier (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The current title is ok, although various titles are found in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support the proposed title (second choice) orGaza War or equally Gaza War (2023–present) (first choice) or another title that names Gaza. By now the main reason the war is notable is the mass casualties and destruction, not the underlying motives or the names of the belligerents. These details can go in the text of the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Recent comments have persuaded me that "Israel-Gaza war" could make it appear that Gaza is a belligerent. I'm not against "Israel-Gaza war" but I don't think it's an improvement either. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  To make things clearer for the closer: I do not support a move to "Israel-Gaza war" at this time as it could appear POV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  A quick search of the ABC website reveals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I also support the opinion of FourPi. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Seems pretty straightforward that Israel-Gaza war is the term to use here, first because it is not merely a military conflict between Hamas and Israel but also other Palestinian factions, and second and more important because the entirety of the Gazan population and area has been subjected to the war.

As noted by others, the change also follows WP:COMMONTERM and WP:NAMECHANGES guidelines to accurately reflect how it is generally referred to now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  Support per every argument listed is also not how RMs work... 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is. Plus you should read WP:BLUDGEONING Abo Yemen✉ 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I didn’t mean to bludgeon, just wanted to say that if someone else here voted with Oppose per every argument listed. I don't really remember anyone still referring to this war as the "Israel-Gaza war" anymore then it’s not really a well-structured comment to the RM, sorry Abo. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and per Wikipedia:Article titles. This would be consistent with Gaza War, Gaza War (2008–2009), 2012 Gaza War, and 2014 Gaza War. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is the most widely recognized for the war, supported by all major reliable sources, and it accurately reflects the two sides involved. Maybe a different, more recognizable name would emerge in the future (as with the Six-Day War or Yom Kippur War) but at this point I don't believe any change is necessary. Galamore (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. both "israel-Hamas" and "Israel-Gaza"/"Gaza war" are WP:COMMONNAME, and both are sufficiently and equally used by all reliable sources. Contrary to Longhornsg and probably everyone argue with WP:COMMONNAME for "Israel-Hamas war", google trends shows that both "Israel Hamas war" and "Gaza war" are roughly equal, it in fact shows that "Gaza war" is slightly more frequent and used now than "Israel Hamas war". Thus the COMMONNAME argument for "Israel Hamas" is void. I had explained my reason for why should the article be renamed "Gaza war" above, so I am not rewriting it again. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm didn’t know that I now change my opinion I support the change to “Gaza war”. Black roses124 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t no if it is wrong to do that, but i think everyone who cited WP:COMMONNAME here should be aware of that: @Makeandtoss @Longhornsg @Clayoquot @Unbandito@Nableezy@Figureofnine@Selfstudier@DecafPotato@TheJoebro64@Ainty Painty@IntrepidContributor@WillowCity Stephan rostie (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. "Gaza War" has merit due to its neutrality and consistency with former article titles. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  My point exactly I’m against “Israel-Gaza” war due to POV but Gaza war is no POV just identifying geographical location of the war. Black roses124 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, a simple solution but a good one. Props to Stephan rostie. This is one of those situations where you smack your head and say "why didn't I think of that?" Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Gaza War" is arguably more NPOV than "Israel–Gaza War" in fact. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Been on board with that from the start as well. nableezy - 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Really in what sense? Black roses124 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  In the sense that "Israel–Gaza War", as an A–B construction, might tend to imply that Gaza is a belligerent in the conflict rather than the location of the conflict. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  COMMONNAME is determined by use in reliable sources, not Google searches (which are WP:USERG). DecafPotato (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I prefer Gaza war but above all, support any of the proposed changes away from Israel-Hamas war. Unbandito (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Gaza War or 2023 Gaza War or similar. As others have said, "Gaza War" is a widespread name for this war too. First, the examples at WP:COMMONNAME demonstrate that for a name to be the "common name," there has to be no widely recognizable alternative which is not cumbersome or overly formal. But that is not the case here: the alternatives to "Israel–Hamas War" proposed here are not used negligibly in comparison to "Israel–Hamas War", so the latter is not a common name. Indeed these alternatives are used interchangeably with "Israel–Hamas War", e.g. by Reuters, which others have shown using "Israel–Gaza War" and uses "Gaza war" here (and which has a record of neutral reporting on this topic).

Since "Israel–Hamas War" is not the common name, the alternatives used in RS are at least viable options for the title. "Gaza War" or one of the variations on that is best for a few reasons: (1) it is consistent with the titles of previous armed conflicts between Hamas in Gaza and Israel, conflicts which RS identify as forming a continuous pattern; (2) it reflects the highly localized nature of the warfare; and (3) it represents a neutral middle ground between "Israel–Hamas War" and "Israel–Gaza War." ByVarying | talk 03:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support: it is daylight clear this is not simply a war on Hamas, but a broader war on Gaza (or Palestinians in general, including the natives of West Bank and Golan Heights). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Gaza war As the source analyses above have demonstrated, neither "Israel-Hamas war" nor "Israel-Gaza war" are clear commonames, so that is not my main point of concern. Instead, the problem with the title is that many other groups besides Hamas have taken part in the conflict in Gaza, so the title is innacurate. However, "Israel-Gaza war" is sub-optimal, as it may seem to imply that Gaza is actually a combatant. Instead, we should title "Gaza war", which accurately reflects the scope of the article. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the source analysis above, Israel-Hamas is the commonname and arguably also the optimal descriptive title, naming the two primary combatant groups. There is no overwhelming use of any other name.

Of the titles that include Gaza, Gaza War (in whichever variety) is probably optimal. While it doesn’t geographically include the area in which the Casus belli occurred (which was in the Gaza Envelope, but not within Gaza proper), it does solve the consistency issue: Gaza is a territory, that may or may not (depending on where the editor lives) be part of the State of Palestine, but it’s not a State. Making a title State vs. Territory is less consistent than “entity controlling combatants on side one vs. entity controlling the majority of combatants on side two”, which we have now. Nevertheless, the exclusion of Oct. 7 makes Gaza war a significantly worse title than the current one, by excluding both areas of combat (thereby being worse as a descriptive title), and lacking the necessary common use. Due to the significant combat outside of Gaza, consistency with the other Gaza wars would be undesirable because of their diverging nature.

There is no consensus among RS that the primary target of the war is all Palestinian people, and as such, there can’t be a title based on that premise without deviating from the WP:PAGS. Therefore, Israel-Hamas is the title that is most consistent with the way other pages are titled, such as War against the Islamic State also being States vs. non-state actor. FortunateSons (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oppose. I was going to add a paragraph explaining why, but everyone opposing this has said all of my opinions and more. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Concur in that "Israel-Hamas" no longer accurately describes the scope of the war, since Israel is fighting other groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. However, "Gaza War" doesn't really describe it accurately either, since the war is being fought on more fronts than just Gaza, such as the West Bank and Lebanon.

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

Hezbollah and Houthis say they are fighting in order to help the Gazans. Havradim leaf a message 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• oppose : For the 1000th time, no. Per above. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Per the sources OP has given, Israel-Gaza war is very common. I've always believed that the current name is a one-sided term which serves only to mask the w:Gaza genocide by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza. It is an ideological term and ignores all realities on the ground and is only used by supporters of Israel to frame the war as something that it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. "Gaza War", with or without dates, is my first choice; I also support Israel–Gaza War. I support moving the page away from Israel–Hamas war to one of those two other titles. If the term Israel–Hamas War is not cleanly used overwhelmingly more than other names (and it isn't, as numerous reliable sources using terms like Gaza war and Israel–Gaza war go to show), then it isn't a common name, and per WP:NCENPOV, we should use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. Israel–Hamas war is a POV name that characterizes the war as exclusively happening between the nation-state of Israel and the Hamas organization. As that is not a consensus interpretation in academic secondary literature, with a considerable literature holding the war is against persons in Gaza beyond the Hamas organization, it is a POV interpretation and name and should be avoided for the article name. Gaza war neutrally describes the primary geographic field of the war. That very reputable reliable sources also use the term Gaza war is a reassurance about the suitability of the term. Comments that assert Israel–Hamas War is the common name have not convinced me, sometimes for the evidence (age of cited articles or to the language used therein, irrespective of titles or tags), sometimes for inattention to Gaza war as an alternative and not just Israel–Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - On every news site I look at, the top story about the war is in the West Bank. The current title is bad, but Gaza is even less accurate. Common name is the wrong strategy for this page, we need an accurate descriptive title. FourPi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment At a quick glance I am not seeing consensus for the change. However, why not added "Gaza War 2023-2024" as a secondary name like how the Iraq War also has the "Second Gulf War"? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I support moving the title to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" (first preference) and if not, "Israel-Gaza war". There are several armed factions in Gaza fighting the Israeli occupation forces. Current title is biased as well as inaccurate. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I agree it's a problem that it makes it seem as though both Israel and Hamas are equally at war with one another. There's a reason why Russian invasion of Ukraine is called Russian invasion of Ukraine, not the Russia-Ukraine War. And even then, Ukraine actually is fighting back on Russian soil, but it's still obvious that one side is invading the other. The same is obviously true here. This is another reason why I rank "Gaza War" above "Israel-Gaza" war, but I like your suggestion to emphasize the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as the main page about the subject.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Russo-Ukrainian War is a separate article that deals with events beyond the act of invasion. JasonMacker (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  The Russo-Ukrainian War comprises three primary conflicts: the annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and the 2022 escalation; while the so-called «Israel–Hamas war» comprises one primary conflict: the invasion of Gaza.

  So, while having an article on the Russo-Ukrainian War is not redundant to having one on the 2022-present invasion specifically, having one in an «Israel–Hamas war» is redundant to having one on the invasion of Gaza. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is not redundant in the case of this war though. You want the war in Ukraine as an example? Okay. Say, in an alternate version of history, after the Revolution of Dignity, in a fit of frenzied nationalism, Ukraine attacked Kursk, Belgorod, and Rostov, massacring thousands of Russian civilians and taking hundreds hostage. The Russians then easily pushed the Ukrainians back, and invaded. That would add a fourth phase to the war: the initial Ukrainian attack, i.e. October 7.

  The October 7 attacks are an integral part of this war, which comprises two primary phases, not one. By your logic, this war began on October 27, when Israel unilaterally invaded Gaza. That isn't true. This war has two parts on the Gaza front: the October 7 attacks and the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. They are both separate stages of the same confict. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  And both yet another phase of the IP conflict in general, the point is that this war did not "start" on October 7 or 27 (of 2023), the Gaza Wars have been going on for a while now, same enemies, Hamas and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  The October 7 attacks are more comparable to 9/11 and its relationship to the war in Afghanistan. 9/11 isn't considered a part of the war, instead, it is usually described as the final straw in a longstanding conflict waiting to happen.

  So, the October 7 attacks, although being what caused the invasion of Gaza, isn't really a part of the war itself, in the same way 9/11 isn't a part of the war in Afghanistan. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, the October 7 attacks were clearly part of the war. Hamas invaded Israel and attempted to capture three considerably-sized cities; no such thing happened in 9/11. In no way is that anything but a war. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and Coffeeandcrumbs. मल्ल (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War as a first preference as "the war in Gaza" is what I most commonly hear this war described as, both from the media and from politicians, and it avoids the above bickering over whether to call it the Israel-Hamas war or the Israel-Gaza war. Very easy to argue it's the common name. I also still support the proposed title (Israel-Gaza war), as it makes more sense for both halves of the title to be polities/locations, but I suspect that proposal is less likely to get a consensus. I will be pasting this !vote in both subsections because Makeandtoss requested "Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well?"  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am unconvinced that the current title is no longer the common name per many prior arguments. However, even were that to be the case, it would establish that there's no longer consensus for WP:COMMONNAME (it certainly has not established that the proposed title has consensus). If that is the case, "non-neutral but common names" under WP:NPOVNAME would be impossible (no accepted common name, neutral or otherwise) and thus WP:NDESC would take over: the Israeli declaration of war specifies Hamas as the target of the war - one of the few explicit declarations of war since 1945 and thus easier than most conflicts to objectively describe. The current title is accurately descriptive of that. That there are other groups involved (whose level of involvement is certainly different) does not change the fact that it is a declared war by Israel against Hamas specifically, and changing its description on the basis of whether one thinks the involvement of other parties is significant enough is ultimately a subjective judgment call, not a basis for a title. (Edit to add: this also provides a very convenient example of natural disambiguation in consideration of WP:NATDIS, in the way that iterations and variations of "Gaza war" do not.) Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  How is the Israeli declaration of war in any way NPOV? It’s the definition of POV Kowal2701 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  +1 – the logic that "one side asserted a POV, so we should adopt that POV" is a prototypical NPOV violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  My argument isn't underpinned by anything Israel puts out being neutral, and I certainly don't see it as neutral. (Though as a point of order: you did read WP:NPOVNAME, right? That in the absence of a neutral common name, a non-neutral common name can be used? Neutrality isn't the highest-order priority of Wikipedia titles.) The article describes a war, an official state of armed conflict, traditionally established by a formal declaration of war, and more commonly nowadays by a statement referring to "a state of war existing". As it so happens, this one is one of the rare few to have a formal declaration to define the state of war. Other conflicts which do not have official states of war, and do not have concrete statements to refer back to, are titled as conflicts, not wars, (e.g. Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)) unless WP:COMMON overrides that (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War which until very recently had neither declaration nor "existence of a state etc."). This is a factual statement of who the official state of war is between; should other belligerents (such as Hamas or Hezbollah) issue similar statements, then by nature the Israeli declaration no longer adequately describes the official state of war. But until that happens (if it happens), Israel and Hamas remain the only parties you can point at and confidently say there is a formal state of war between. I don't rate the Israeli declaration for supposed "neutrality", I rate it for being descriptive of a legal and political interaction between two entities. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Benjitheijneb. The current title describes the conflict in the best way. "Gaza war" and all of it's alternates do not. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per Longhornsg . Additionally, in the month since these arguments were set down, this editor observes that the same mainstream media outlets (i.e., TNYT etc) continue to employ "Israel-Hamas War". "Israel–Hamas War is the most accurate description, is the most commonly used name. " Additionally, "Gaza War" is ambiguous, not commonly in use, and does not describe the war as well. Drsruli (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support; as per the rationales listed above. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64 and WP:CONSISTENT. Avoids any POV considerations. Havradim leaf a message 14:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 02:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) per OP's sources. The only flaw in either of these names is that they are, if anything, too limited - Israel has been attacking the West Bank, and ramped up attacks on Lebanon and Yemen since the last time I participated in this discussion. However, either Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) are at least far more accurate than Israel-Hamas War, an increasingly confusing name which doesn't even cover all of the parties involved in Gaza itself. Albert Mond (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support any title with the word Gaza in it (Israel-Gaza War or Gaza War (2023-present) or even Gaza war etc), per many RS presented above.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Why hasn't this been closed yet? Can someone make a request at WP:CR? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Middle East war (2023–present). Now that Israel has launched a ground invasion of Lebanon, the scope of the war is broad enough that I think it needs a more general title. The Houthis in Yemen had already been involved but now the scope of the war is broader. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose based on Google Trends data which suggests the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. Awesome Aasim 17:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Here's the trends data for the last 8 months. Gaza war is almost always more frequently searched for instead of Israel-Hamas, and also has spikes when particularly gruesome atrocities are committed by Israel. It's almost as if the world doesn't think that all of Gaza is Hamas. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Can we take a look at the full picture? [12] The only spikes I see are those related to past conflicts. Only since the beginning of this year has the title "Gaza war" actually overtook "Israel-Hamas war". Also "Gaza war" is too vague as there are many wars in Gaza, the last one being 2014 it seems. Awesome Aasim 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  This war is the WP:PT above the other Gaza wars, having lasted ten times longer and caused at least fifteen times more deaths than all other wars in Gaza combined - so your vagueness argument is moot. I do agree with your point about the views, though, it is intriguing how new the spike for Gaza war is. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for agreeing that Gaza War is the term that is WP:COMMON throughout 2024. Are you in support of Gaza War (2023 - Present)? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I recommend that you reread WP:COMMONNAME Abo Yemen✉ 16:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't make things up without evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Note: I moved my comment and the thread attached to it to the correct section. Awesome Aasim 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support (but preferably Gaza War (2023–present)), same arguments I made in previous discussions here and here, plus consistency with all previous Gaza war articles, and recognizability (see Google Trends argument above). DFlhb (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME and per the arguments and evidence by Longhornsg. Perhaps "Gaza War (2023–present)" would be a better alternative?? IJA (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, the lead sentence states: An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups... so I think the current article title is fine. Some1 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I remember the 2006 Gaza–Israel conflict well; media sources at the time often simply used shorthand terms like "Gaza war" or "Gaza conflict" the same way they use them today. Declaring "Israel-Gaza War" to be the correct common name now because these terms are used currently to describe the current conflict ignores the fact they were also used in the past to describe past conflicts. It's an exceptionalist fallacy being peddled by contributors with extraordinarily short memories, or maybe just too young to remember the 2006 war. To them, this is the Gaza war because it's the only one receiving coverage now, and that is problematic from an encyclopedic timeline perspective. --Katangais (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Common ground

Do supporters of the Israel-Gaza war support the Gaza war (with or without dates); and vice versa? Also do opposers of the Israel-Gaza war title support Gaza war (with or without dates)? I think answering these two questions will help reach better consensus for one of the three proposed options. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we need dates here. This is the biggest war of them all and does not need to be disambiguated Abo Yemen✉ 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  The only conflicting point here is “Gaza war” usually refers to the 2008 one, since it is he first full scale war it was often just called the “Gaza war”, otherwise I completely agree The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes Stephan rostie (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Black roses124 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support I support Gaza war (with or without dates) and Israel-Gaza war as title. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Either/or is fine with me. nableezy - 16:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for Gaza War, with or without dates. No for Israel-Gaza War. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for Gaza War, with or without dates. No for Israel-Gaza War. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• The problem with "Gaza War" is that it may imply that the fighting is restricted to Gaza, though this does not reflect the scope of this article. For instance, it also includes the October 7 attack on Israel. However, as others have pointed out, "Israel-Gaza war" is also somewhat problematic, as it may seem to imply that Gaza is actually a combatant. So both titles have slight issues. My personal preference is "Israel-Gaza war", though I wouldn't per se be opposed to "Gaza war". Gödel2200 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  The fighting in Israel was largely in the so-called Gaza Envelope, so the key word is all-embracing regardless. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for pointing this out. I have now updated my vote to be in support of "Gaza war". Gödel2200 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Gaza war for choice but either will do.Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for Gaza war. I would not capitalize "war" because it's not a proper noun but a descriptive term, but I'd support "Gaza War" too. With or without dates, but preference for without dates. I'm neutral on "Israel-Gaza war", I don't support it, but I don't oppose it either. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment (uninvolved in RM). While I support Gaza War as title per WP:PRIMARY, the ongoing battle in gaining consensus for Israel–Gaza war that has failed before and appears to be failing again is the clear issue here. Regardless of the arguments for/against, the current RM proposal remains too close to Israel–Hamas war, which is also a WP:COMMONNAME, and becomes a dispute over one CN and another. However, based on the reason for opposing the current RM, I struggle to believe this proposed title has any better chance in passing either at present.

From skimming through the Oppose !votes, most of the arguments are based on the fact that the war is against Hamas and not a war against Gaza. Which while I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars, given Hamas governs Gaza; Longhornsg raises a very valid point, somewhat unintentionally here. Both "Israel–Hamas war" and "Israel–Gaza war" are arguably POV-framing titles, an argument being reiterated as an oppose vote ironically. The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs. Without getting into semantics of where Gaza starts and Hamas ends, there is seemingly no moving forward between that current stale mate.

The only hope is that the current Oppose !votes are more accepting over a title that describes a war in Gaza, as opposed to against Gaza. The fact that arguments against moving to a POV title in order to remain at a POV title would ideally be acknowledged by all here at a minimum. Likewise with supporting one POV title over another. We are clearly never going to find common ground in this matter otherwise.

The only realistic issue with the title "Gaza War" would be based on October 7 context, which could simply be moved to part of the Background section, given everything after this has been based in Gaza, not elsewhere. I'm also excluding "Other confrontations" from this, as per description of the section itself, these confrontations are disconnected (geographically at least) from the war in the Gaza strip, and only included in the article for context. Apologies for the long-winded reply, but based on the opening question, I think some further analysis was very much due here.

CNC (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: "The former assumes a war against Hamas, the latter assumes a war against Gaza, and both are POVs." The war is actually not against Hamas, but against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and etc; all of which are based in Gaza. So I do not think there is a POV here. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with this and argued it before, hence my point prior to this "I do think is a misinterpretation of most titles for wars", but the CN counter-argument is that it doesn't matter as Hamas is considered the primary target. There are two POV-based CNs by default, as they are literally opposing viewpoints – whether intentional or not, or whether one is more accurate than the other or not – which is why I believe Gaza war is the only correct NPOV title here. You only need to skim through the RM to see that this is the issue imo: supporters believe the proposed title is the accurate CN, Opposers believe the current title is the accurate CN. CNC (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think whoever is going to close this move request will get gray hair by the end of it while trying to determine the consensus. Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Either/or is fine with me. Prefer dates for clarity but I don't think they're strictly necessary. Unbandito (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• I support Gaza War. I do not support Israel–Gaza war. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (with or without dates) as a first choice, and Israel-Gaza war as a second choice. - Ïvana (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Isræl–Gaza war (with or without dates) as the only preference. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose significant major combat is taking place outside of Gaza during the war, including along the Lebanese border, in the West Bank and in the Red Sea.XavierGreen (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  In the lead of the Vietnam War page:

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

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

• Yes; I support Gaza war (with or without dates) as a first choice and Israel–Gaza war as a second choice. I support both over the current title, Israel–Hamas war. I mention this in my comment in the above section of the thread as well. 03:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support a move to Gaza war (with it without dates) per OP and reasoning given by Kashmiri. The war is spilling outside of Gaza, but that doesn't justify using the status quo "Country-Organisation" formula, which is inaccurate and reflects a particular POV framing of the war. – GnocchiFan (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support a title move to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" as first preference. If not, I would support moving the title to "Israel-Gaza war". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support a title move to "Gaza war (with or without dates)" as first preference. I think this war, like many wars, should be named based on the primary location of the conflict. Gaza war, like Vietnam war, does not imply that the conflict solely took place within that geographic region. Names such as the current title (Israel-Hamas war) or Israel-Gaza war are POV and should be avoided. In addition, I'm having a hard time thinking of different war that has a similar title. Looking through List of wars: 1945–1989, List_of_wars:_1990–2002, and List_of_wars:_2003–present, you won't find a single article using a similar title construction of "noun-noun war". Instead, you will find "adjective-adjective war" (Arab-Israeli war, First Iraqi–Kurdish War, etc.). The closest title to the current title would be Sinaloa Cartel–Gulf Cartel conflict, but that is a conflict between two drug cartels, and not a war as commonly understood. In conclusion, this article's title is clearly an outlier and should be changed. --JasonMacker (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support as per nom. Well laid out case with policy and examples. WP:SPADE applies, I think. Lewisguile (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support both Gaza war and Israel-Gaza war (preferably without the dates). نعم البدل (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Israel-Gaza war, oppose Gaza War (WP:NATURAL).

Mast303 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you !voted twice? Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This one is under the Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Common ground subsection where folks supporting the move in the main section clarify if they also support a move to Gaza war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Silly me, apologies. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Gaza War as a first preference as "the war in Gaza" is what I most commonly hear this war described as, both from the media and from politicians, and it avoids the above bickering over whether to call it the Israel-Hamas war or the Israel-Gaza war. Very easy to argue it's the common name. I also still support the proposed title (Israel-Gaza war), as it makes more sense for both halves of the title to be polities/locations, but I suspect that proposal is less likely to get a consensus. I will be pasting this !vote in both subsections because Makeandtoss requested "Can everyone who mentioned their preferences here explicitly and in a clear way do so in the original discussion as well?"  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza war (2023-present); I think dates are preferable due to the relative recency of the other "Gaza wars". This (or "war in Gaza") seem to be much more widespread than Israel–Hamas war based on Google trends, it's also more accurate considering that only a minority of Palestinian casualties are Hamas fighters. I oppose Israel–Gaza war, which is a bit hard to make sense out of considering that Gaza is an Israeli-occupied territory; it's also less widespread. WikiFouf (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  {{oppose}} israel fight against hamas, not gaza. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 18:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and other reasons as per Nableezy Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza war as an NPOV solution. The status quo is clearly POV and ought to be changed. Gaza war actually appears to have overtaken Israel Hamas war as the WP:Common name. Out of the WP:Criteria I don’t see any that favour Israel-Hamas war. I suppose you could argue consistency with other wars in the region which have the two main combatants, but there’s also Gulf war and Iraq war which use geography. There’s too much WP:I don't like it or I like it in the responses Kowal2701 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War or Gaza War (2023–present) per TheJoebro64, Levivich, Nableezy and others. Israel-Hamas war is no longer WP:COMMONNAME, so it should be changed accordingly. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fighting happened not only in Gaza (the Red Sea, terror attacks in the West Bank and Israel proper, rocket attacks by Hamas and the Houthis, October 2023 invasion) so calling it Gaza war fails WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 12:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fighting in the Vietnam War occurred in Laos and Cambodia too but it's still titled that way because it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Gaza War is the common name here.[13] मल्ल (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Interest over time" measures the popularity of google searches and isn't a good indication of the common name. Alaexis_¿question? 11:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Israel–Hamas War is the most accurate description, is the most commonly used name. Mag1cal (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  According to what metric? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose after @ Longhornsg . Additionally, in the month since these arguments were set down, this editor observes that the same mainstream media outlets (i.e., TNYT etc) continue to employ "Israel-Hamas War". "Israel–Hamas War is the most accurate description, is the most commonly used name. " Drsruli (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Considering that NYT is extremely hesitant to even use the word Palestine, I think its use can be taken with a grain of salt here. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. Drsruli (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support The clear majority of RS's refer to "Israel's war in Gaza" or the "Israel-Gaza" war. Not all RS's do (NYT says Israel-Hamas war generally but even they refer to the "Israel Gaza Conflict"), but a clear majority of them do. Do a quick google search and see how the RS's in the news are reporting on this; The Guardian, DW, Hareetz, Al Jazeera, even the times of israel call it the "gaza war". I found one, the NYT, calling it the Israel-Hamas war. If an editor can present a policy based argument for "Israel-Hamas war" given a clear majority of RS's use "Israel-Gaza war" then i'd consider it. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support the current name is highly reductive and the proposed name is a better representation of the ongoing conflict. Jotamide (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Hamas and Israel stand as the primary actors in this conflict, while Gaza itself is merely the stage upon which the struggle unfolds. Gaza is not a participant, but the land where the battles are fought. --Sakakami (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Strike sock. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  The primary actors in the Vietnam War were the United States and the Viet Cong. Even so, its not the "US-VC war". Instead, the war is named after the primary location of the conflict, Vietnam. This article should follow the same pattern. Hence, "Gaza war." JasonMacker (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  But sources call it Israel–Hamas war; and besides, Gaza War is not only ambiguous but it is the title of an existing disambiguation page. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Right, because all the other wars against Hamas were called Gaza wars of one sort or another? The current title sticks out like a sore thumb on the disambiguation. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Gaza War sticks out like a sore thumb on dab, too. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support either option. 20WattSphere (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was and remains a war between Israel and Hamas and its affiliates and allies. Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support I actually prefer Gaza War to Israel-Gaza, its consistent with other titles. But both alternatives are not factually inaccurate like "Israel-Hamas" is. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hamas was the initiator of the conflict trough the attack at Nova Festival and subsequently other kibbutzim and villages inside Israel in October 7th. Israel began operations next day in Gaza to avenge the attack and defeat Hamas. It was a Israeli counterattack, not a pre-emptive Israeli invasion of Gaza or something similar.--MaGioZal (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it seems that the COMMONNAME is still the current title, therefore I oppose a move, but I would change my view if it seemed it were not in fact, the most common name. Andre🚐 06:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Israel-Gaza war, or even: "2023 Israel-Palestine war": impartial, geographic. On the contrary, "Israel-Hamas war" sounds like a biased view and even hypocritical judgement of what is actually happening. Hamas, of course, was the initiator of the 2023 conflict, but wars are never named after the episode that started them (e.g. WWI is called a "World war", as it actually was, not the "Austro-Hungary vs Young Bosnia war") pma 20:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (with or without dates) followed by Israel-Gaza war. Internet search trends supports Gaza War per WP:COMMONNAME. It's also consistent with Gaza War (2008-2009) and 2014 Gaza War. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support for Gaza War (2023 - Present) and then "Israel-Gaza War" if we must. "Israel-Hamas War" ignores the other factions and nations involved in one way or another. "Gaza War" would make it clear that this isn't a conflict between the armies of Israel and Gaza, though at least "Israel - Gaza War" includes the full scope of the theater of conflict. (Especially important now with conflict spreading to other places as well.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment it's been close to two months and people are only saying stuff that's already been said. Maybe this should be wrapped and closed. ByVarying | talk 03:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support. This name does not reflect the reality of the situation. Kingofthedead (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Wait. If the Invasion of Lebanon gets moved then support Braganza (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Gaza War (2023–present) or Gaza War. These are the common names of the conflict. Oppose Israel–Gaza war. The Hamas doesn't consider itself to be 'Gaza'; no country called 'Gaza' exists. The Fatah (PNA) and Hamas both consider themselves to be ruling a single country called Palestine, there are no two separate countries called West Bank and Gaza. PadFoot (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that a new RM should be opened to consider a move to Gaza War, which seems to be the undisputable common name of the conflict. PadFoot (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Gaza War (preferably without a date but idrc) but I do think Israel-Gaza War is an improvement on the current name. Nojus R (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support "Gaza War". In the table below (searched 2023-2024, titles only) it would appear that Gaza War and its variants are more commonly used than Israel-Hamas war and its variants.

Engine	Gaza+war	Israel+Hamas+war
Google scholar	590	257
JSTOR	26	24
PubMed	57	17
Taylor & Francis	60	24
ScienceDirect	15	9

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support' Lots of compelling reasons above. For me personally it just makes more logical sense because it is not only Hamas fighting from Gaza and explicitly a multitude of resistance organisations. SP00KYtalk 03:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per InfiniteNexus above. I don't see a reason to change a good, neutral and precise title. Galamore (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There's more than one Gaza war, so a google search might be referring to the one from 2005. It's also therefore less WP:PRECISE Andre🚐 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There's also more than one war between Israel and Hamas, however, this war overshadows all previous ones.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

We aren't less precise if we use the year in brackets as has been suggested by numerous editors. Do share if there's a shortcoming with that approach as well and we can try and workshop a solution. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A quick tally of opinions here shows a 34-7-1 vote in favor of changing the name of the article to "Gaza War" (with or without dates). While of course we must take into mind WP:DEMOCRACY, this seems to be reflect a quite strong consensus (or at the very least, supermajority approval) for this name change; one much stronger than "Israel-Gaza War". The specific points made against this change appear to be:

1. That "Gaza War" does not reflect the true situation on the ground, and that since "Hamas started the war", it should be included in the title. I'll refrain from adding my own opinion other than to say that our job as Wikipedia editors is not to editorialize or imprint our own opinions onto sensitive matters like this other than to follow the media consensus as best we can.
2. That "Israel-Hamas War" is still the COMMONNAME and is more commonly used in the press than "Gaza War". This point is stronger in my opinion. If there is real reason to suggest that "Israel-Hamas War" is notably more commonly used than "Gaza War" then I think this would be a good reason to not move. Otherwise - if "Gaza War" is used as commonly or more commonly than "Israel-Hamas War" - then the case for moving seems pretty airtight.

What are yall's thoughts? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@AwesomeSaucer9: I think "Gaza War" is more common, see table above.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of views I think should be considered too in the above discussion. In general at this point it seems that there is no consensus to move Galamore (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How did you count !votes? There are certainly more Oppose votes since August 13. Alaexis_¿question? 20:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@AwesomeSaucer9 pinging you in case you no longer monitor this thread. Alaexis_¿question? 20:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! A recount on my end shows a 35-8-2 tally.

Given the table that @Vice regent: mentions, the true consensus to move to "Gaza War" remains. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Gaza war (without dates): Poland has been invaded several times, Russia has invaded Ukraine several times, and the Soviet Union has had other military conflicts in Afghanistan, but the articles on Invasion of Poland, Russo-Ukrainian War and Soviet-Afghan war are without disambiguation titles. Per WP:CONCISE, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. Also see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Parham wiki (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Closure

Please could someone close this particular requested move, as it has been running for two months now. Everyone has had their two cents by now.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A request has already been submitted at WP:CR on September 30, two weeks ago. Hope someone will take this on soon. मल्ल (talk) 19:20, 14 October 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.

Total deaths

The following study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University establishes that, in addition to the officially reported deaths, over 10,000 people in Gaza are dead under the rubble and at least 67,413 have been killed from starvation and diseases, due to lack of access to healthcare, based on reliable data, making the total number of estimated Palestinian deaths over 120,000.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/IndirectDeathsGaza

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/10/08/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-exceeds-120-000-if-indirect-causes-are-included-study-finds/ar-AA1rQIOg

I think that these numbers should be reported within this article.

David A (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can make out the Palestinian estimate of indirect deaths so far [14] from September 12 is about 6.5 times that before the war meaning about 55,000 deaths where normally it would be about 8,500. This is about 12,000 less that the estimate in the citations above but given the circumstances the figure is credible enough I think. NadVolum (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Has the US actually given $22 billion away or will Israel repay that? That's a large amount. It is about $18 million for each person killed on October 7 or $180,000 per dead Palestinian at a ratio of 100 Palestinians per Israeli. NadVolum (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out.

I think that the United States government has given away 17.9 Billion USD of taxpayer money to Israel in return for AIPAC support to government election campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, but I noticed that this information had already been added to this and other pages, so I removed that part of my text above earlier. David A (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think 'documented' is appropriate, total estimated deaths would be better. THe Gaza Health Ministry identified or recorded figures for deaths are not the same as the extimated number of direct Gazan casualties. NadVolum (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If I remember and understood correctly, this was based on quite specific numbers that were sent to the United States government, but please read the pdf file yourself if you wish.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2023/2024/Costs%20of%20War_Human%20Toll%20Since%20Oct%207.pdf

David A (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of the figures are of documented deaths but theres also estimates like > and a entry with on a question mark in it. And by the way the Palestinians counted most of the deaths as due to disease from the lack of drinking water, sanitation and medicine. The very high death rate probably is caused by acute malnutrition but actual starvation as a cause of death has not been the major factor so far. The overall figures are estimates. NadVolum (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked again, and you are correct about that these deaths are estimated rather than confirmed, even though 62,413 sounded very specific. However, that number was specifically from actual starvation, and seems to come from a highly reliable source, so I still think that it is very valid to add to this page. David A (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Permit me a small snort about Estimated Deaths from Starvation 62,413, but I'm definitely not objecting to you sticking it in the article. NadVolum (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will attempt to do so in a proper manner then. Help with improvements in that regard would obviously be appreciated. David A (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now done my best to properly do so: [15] [16] [17] [18]

Help with improving the quality of my edits is obviously still greatly appreciated. David A (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Mother Jones article [19] would be better as a sources as it is green at WP:RSP. The National (Abu Dhabi) doesn't appear there, it's not terrible - it's main bias lies in strongly avoiding anything the UAE doesn't like - but that is a strong bias and it is not a major source. NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. I have added it. David A (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Came onto the talk page to ask the exact same question. I think the number should be cited in the infobox, but with brakets as an estimate or even as a conservative estimate (the numbers are probably way higher), at least for the time being. I've already edited the numbers into the Gaza Strip famine infobox and think they should be shown here in a similar format.ThePaganUK (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in any infobox, at least until their methodology has been supported by experts in secondary sources. It's an extraordinary claim, considering that there have been only 38 recorded deaths in hospitals (per HRW) from malnutrition and dehydration. Not everyone gets treated in a hospital, but it's hard to see how 99.94% of starvations could have occrred outside of a hospital.

No objection to mentioning it somewhere with appropriate attribution, but putting it in the infobox (even with "estimate" or similar language) implies a certain level of authoritativeness. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I can go both ways on this, that's why I think it should be liable for a discussion amongst editors. I agree it should make an appearance in the article at the very least.ThePaganUK (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and agreed, at the moment there are a few small discussions, it might make sense to close most of them with a link to one main discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is the systematic assault on healthcare facilities in Gaza to consider. The argument that most starvation deaths should show up in hospital records doesn't hold up in this specific context. Unbandito (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Very strongly agreed. David A (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that the report put in famine as the reason for deaths in its table whereas it is clear from reading it that the deaths they describe were due to people not recovering from illness or injury because of extreme malnutrition. Technically that is not the same thing as famine, which is something the UN can declare and has real world consequences. It looks to me like the report used the word because Biden might respond to it, but not if they are described as natural deaths like Euro-Med and other reports in the area do. I don't see what can be done except with an agreement that the word is just inappropriate. NadVolum (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way I would suppose the figures are in the right ballpark rather than "the real figures being way higher". The last figure I've seen was from Euro-Med with about 51,000 at the end of June. NadVolum (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately after reading the Brown University report again I have come to the conclusion that they very likely have their figure swrong - that they did mean direct starvation and have a ? for the huge number that have died of disease and injuries they did not recover from because hey were starving. The 51,000 by June from Euro-Med for total deaths other than direct casualties is probably closer to the truth. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it has been several months of killing, mutilation, starvation, and diseases since then. It does not seem unreasonable at all that the number of dead not stemming from direct violence would increase from roughly 51,000 to 67,000 during that time period. David A (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@David A I'm not yet convinced by the BU report's methodology. It claims 62,413 starvation deaths, and for that it cites the analysis in Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024. That letter's analysis synthesizes (on page 5) the well known IPC scale with the classification of Gaza's population in accordance with that scale (I've added that data here). In fact, the appendix claims "in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to at least 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day". But the IPC report instead states "It is likely that these extreme levels of malnutrition have not yet translated into 2/10,000/day Crude Death Rate" (page 27). And a later report (page 19) attempted to measure the crude death rate, but it came out to be 0.55 deaths 10,000 per day. Now certainly FEWS NET cautions (page 12) that this data is not very transparent (methods weren't published, data wasn't disaggregated by governorate) nor will gathering such data from a constantly displaced population be reliable.

I think all of these sources should be presented at Gaza famine, where this material will be more WP:DUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, Cdjp1, Levivich, and Kashmiri: I am likely unqualified to properly evaluate this information. What do you think should be done here? David A (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think for purposes of this article, there have been a number of RSes publishing estimates of indirect deaths, and these should be summarized in the body, probably expressed as a range (between X and Y indirect deaths) or possibly a multiple (3x or 6x direct deaths or whatever is supported by the RS), and the summaries included in the lead and maybe the infobox here, with more detailed discussions (individually cataloguing the estimates, with attribution) in sub-articles (like the famine one). Alternatively, maybe we should attribute specific estimates in the body of this article and summarize in the lead. But these seem to me to be the reasonable options for proceeding. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As per other editors, I also believe the numbers, to some degree, warrant mention in the article (the question is whether there is the weight to attribute specific estimates and methods, or whether we provide a broader "there are likely to be many more dead currently uncounted" statement cited to the multiple studies). While I would like mention in the infobox, about the best we could hope for is an "efn"-style note with a full paragraph explainer in it, due to the current weight these studies have. And even that is likely to face immense push back from other editors.

As Levivich and VR suggested, more detailed discussion of the estimates and analyses of this and the other studies will be more appropriate for relevant related sub-articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Also as a note Kashmiri was blocked. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your replies. I also think that Levivich seems to have made a good suggestion above.

Also, it is very unfortunate that Kashmiri was blocked. From what I could notice, I thought that he was a constructive and knowledgeable editor. David A (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Add America to Israeli Allies

It was one thing when America was sending military and economic aid to Israel. But very recently as much as 100 American soldiers have been deployed in Israel alongside a THAAD missile system meant to plug up the low-running supplies of anti-air missiles for Iron Dome.

If America is placing boots on the ground, I think that is good enough reason to add America under an Allies category, in much the same way Iran is now.

Reliable sources have also reported on the significance of this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1

"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed in combat in Israel during the current crisis."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13961393/israel-iron-dome-hezbollah-iran-missile-strike-tehran-air-defence.html

"It comes as the White House declared the US military had dispatched a state-of-the-art Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system to Israel along with some 100 troops. [...] 'It projects the message to Iran that (Israel's expected retaliation for a recent missile strike) is likely to be significant yet restrained... it also suggests that a continued tit-for-tat will only be further devastating to Iran, with the US willing to back its allies with boots-on-the-ground deployment.'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html

"It is the first deployment of U.S. forces to Israel since the Hamas-led attacks there on Oct. 7, 2023."

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/israel-iran-antimissile-system-us-troops/index.html

"But the deployment of additional US troops to Israel is notable amid the heightened tensions between Israel and Iran, and as the region braces for a potential Israeli attack on Iran that could continue to escalate hostilities. Approximately 100 US troops are deploying to Israel to operate the THAAD battery, according to a US defense official. It is rare for US troops to deploy inside Israel, but this is a typical number of troops to operate the anti-missile defense system."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-sending-100-troops-and-missile-defence-system-israel

"The presence of these US troops also possibly places them in the direct line of fire if another Iranian strike on Israel similar to the strike earlier this month were to happen." Genabab (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that your suggestion here seems reasonable. David A (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Only if US troops directly engage with Hamas. From what I understand from the sources, the deployment of US troops is in response to a possible Iranian strike, not Hamas, which would make this part of the broader 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. But the Iran-Israel conflict in 2024 is part of the Israel-hamas war in turn.

If we applied this principle universally, Iran would have to be removed from the infoboks as well Genabab (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel the difference here is that Iran's attack on Israel is in support of Hamas, while those that helped Israel against Iranian strikes were doing it against Iran specifically, not Hamas. If you really wanted to list any country which helped Israel against Iranian strikes you'd have to list Jordan as well (as per the list in the article on the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict), when that clearly is not the case. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that there is another discussion happening here with more details. - Ïvana (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I agree Hu741f4 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Iran has fired off direct attacks on Israel twice now, by their own words as retribution for the ongoing war effort in Gaza and against Hezbollah.

Call me when the U.S. acts in a similarly belligerent capacity, rather than staging 100 troops to man a defensive system. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be splitting discussions, like what's happened over at the template page for the infobox. That template page exists solely to serve this article - if we're going to discuss the content within, it should be at this article page. Moreover, a discussion on this page should get much more attention and participation (801 watchers, 999,117 pageviews) than the template page (42 watchers, 2,843 pageviews ). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We do not add supporters, and you are only a combatant if you are engaged in military operations, so no. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I advertised this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Should_the_U.S._be_considered_a_combatant_in_the_Israel-Hamas_war,_in_the_infobox?, where more opinions on the matter have been offered. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There's now an open RFC, where people who have previously participated in discussion can now come to restate their opinions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Lede structure

@Personisinsterest: I disagree with this edit [20]. Clearly, the second lede paragraph talks about events in the lead up to the war, while the third lede paragraph talks about the events of the war. Israel's assassinations of Hamas leaders belongs to the events of the war, not the lead up. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

To me, the second paragraph talks about the war and the third talks about the humanitarian crisis. I dunno. I don’t mind if you put it back Personisinsterest (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will move it back down then given the non-objection. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

RM closure

Finally that rm had been closed. Yall up for a new one? or should we do another 3 month moratorium? Abo Yemen✉ 10:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown that a majority of RS are now referring to it as something other than the current title, best just wait per comments in the close. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth suggested waiting for a few months and this is correct. It is not good practice to reopen discussions as soon as they have closed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If we aren't going to place a moratorium then i bet you a wikilove cookie that someone is going to open a new rm before the end of this month (or year) Abo Yemen✉ 10:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor IanMacM, for the notification! Just to be clear, on Wikipedia moratoriums are pretty much voluntary ongoing suspension activities. Actual waiting times are a matter of common sense. Essential to success is the strengthening of arguments and, if possible, the study and research that results in the discovery of new and stronger args. This takes time, and the longer the patience and work ethic, the better is the chance of success. Usually. Of course, I've been privileged to see both short- and long-term approaches many times, and yes I have seen quick reopenings work sometimes. However that's usually the result of meticulously overcoming the previous objections with a much stronger rationale than before. More than twice I've seen RM reopenings that happen too soon and just piss editors off, which results in massive opposition. Being patient is like listening to music – it can have a soothing effect!>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'm up for a new one - what exactly counts as a "firm" consensus in favor of moving? That is an unclear definition open to interpretation, while in reality the arguments in favor of not moving to "Gaza War" were not upheld. To be clear, if there are more arguments to be made in favor of keeping the current name that have not already been discussed, it is more fair to say that no consensus has been reached - but wouldn't this strengthen the case for further discussion. In my opinion, the RM was prematurely closed. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the RM was prematurely closed The RM was open for over 2 months and has been at the bottom of the RM backlog for a while now. If that isn’t long enough to develop a consensus to move, there is no consensus to move. I say wait at least the same amount of time that this discussion was open before starting the next one. cyberdog958^Talk 00:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea isn't that there was no consensus to move, the idea is that there was in fact a consensus to move and that whoever closed the RM did not take it into account and is needlessly delaying the move to "Gaza War" that seems to be overwhelmingly favored by Wikipedians on this page. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but think it is best to wait. At any rate, since the main chord of that discussion was struck, circumstances have certainly changed, with the incursion into Lebanon, talk of resettling Gaza, etc., so the grounds for "Israel-Hamas" grow weaker and weaker. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It's more of a Levant war than a Gaza war now. Too bad no sources use that name Abo Yemen✉ 08:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

But we do have an article on Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's more what I would be looking at as a sensible way of dealing with what's actually going on, which is obviously not just a Israel Hamas thing. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Split

The article now has over 520,000 bytes and my computer is lagging a bit because of that. Should we split to prevent bugs from showing up? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it lagging when loading or scrolling? On my computer, 4-core 2200G and 16 GB of RAM, the article loads in about a second or so in both Firefox and Chrome. On my budget, 2 GB Samsung phone, it loads in about two to three seconds. Scrolling is solid on both. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

My core i7 10th gen and 32 gigs of ram just die when i press the edit button Abo Yemen✉ 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing, it does take a bit longer to load, but still solid and responsive. Honestly, I'm surprised: the 10th gen was, I think, the last iteration of Skylake and quite fast. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

lil update: Found out the my cpu was missing the fucking cooling fan. Moral of the story: dont get prebuilts Abo Yemen✉ 11:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the events section needs another mass trim. Page has grown considerably in recent weeks. CNC (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What really matters here is WP:SIZERULE, and according to the prosesize tool, the article is currently at 17,933 words, which is well over the 15,000 at which splitting is recommended. My browser is also noticeably slow at loading this page, which is why splitting/trimming at >15,000 words is usually recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll second (third?) having issues with this page loading. It typically takes 20-25 seconds to become scrollable. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The question is what is there left to split? CNC (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So I joke about splitting off Events section, but according to section sizes it represents 52% of the article and approx. 9,500 words, which in itself, would be a full sized article that would benefit from trimming... CNC (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have problems loading the article on my computer, but perhaps some trimming is in order. I find mass moving of content to timeline articles to be undesirable, as I don't think these articles get as much attention and they are often of poorer quality than the main page. I think the best way to trim the article would be to find sources that cover the breaking news content in the events section in more of a summary manner, classifying similar events together and using aggregate figures to describe trends rather than reports of each massacre. Unbandito (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Moving some content out of the Events section and to the Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war may just be an unfortunate but necessary restructuring.

This article by necessity covers the whole war as its topic. And we should try to keep it readable and accessible to as many people as possible, per WP:SIZE.

However, in practicality, this always becomes a nightmare to actually accomplish for current events. Because we would have to develop some sort of "threshold" criteria on what to keep in this article. And this can go horribly wrong and devolve into edit wars and interminable talk page discussions along a few different routes:

1. We only include coverage from "the most reliable" sources ("Well how can you say that X source is more reliable that Y source? I think Y source should be included because...")
2. We only include events that are extensively covered ("I've got three whole marginally reliable sources that cover this event, how is that not extensive coverage...")
3. We only include events that historians and scholars consider to be significant - obviously nigh impossible for a current event

And so on. Potentially for every single bit of content proposed for relocation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tricky problem, it being too soon to expect scholarly summaries of things. We might try and identify key "topics" idk, anything war crime related for example, I think it might well be possible to find suitable summaries relating to those, without specifying every potential war crime. Or humanitarian aid, attacks on healthcare, Northern Gaza, etcetera. Incidents within should go straight to the timeline articles. Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How about we just merge some sections and/or rewrite sentences in a shorter form for clarity...? It might not help as much but it's worth a try. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the first step would be to to reduce the events section through trimming without removing content. I think we should be aware that Wikipedia serves an important archival function, and we should balance size considerations with an imperative to preserve sources. We should strive to retain the sources in the article unless they contain meaningfully outdated information. Thematic organization helps cut down on redundancy. As more scholarly and analytical material is developed, we will become more able to shorten the article without sacrificing material. To reduce bytes, we can remove quotes from non-paywalled sources unless a claim is in particular need of embedded context. Unbandito (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the events section, which needs to be compressed, I think Other Confrontations could also do with a bit of summarising. As for the remaining sections, they are reasonably small. Another round or two of trimming would shorten them further. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support since we have already split for example the background section into the Background to the Israel-Hamas war while keeping an intelligible four paragraph summary here which led to good results and set a precedent. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I found a page I created for a wbsite I run took over ten seconds to reload after Javascript changed it and less than a fifth of a second when I switched the anti-virus protection off. It may be a problem like that is causing the wide difference in experience above. But I agree the page is too long. If something is covered by a sub article the normal rule is to only include some edited version of the lead summary and put a main link at the top of the section. And if some section is too long then convert it into a sub article. NadVolum (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

How would everyone feel about removing the "Use of propaganda" section and adding its child article, Misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war, to the See also section? Unbandito (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Other confrontations

 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Other confrontations

Moved from Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Split

 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Much of the content of the "Other confrontations" section could probably be moved over to the Middle Eastern crisis (2023-present) article, although that article probably needs a rewrite. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of the material in other confrontations, and I am planning to do this soon. We can keep a basic summary and some aggregate statistics here and move the more detailed material over there. I like the idea of the middle east crisis article but I'm not sure how we would go about getting it to the quality and level of attention where it can act as a true parent to this page rather than a neglected distant relative that splits valuable context out of the page readers are looking at. I think the first step is broadly improving it, then getting this page replaced with that one on the main page. Unbandito (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Approve of this. Only just realised that Other confrontations is supposed to be a summary of the middle east crisis article. It's also 21% of the article at 3,500 words so would help a lot to bring article under <13,000 words. The fact that the MEC article is only 3,200 words in itself, the content is clearly misplaced here, and merging it would create a full article over there. Overall the section should be summarised similar to how we summarised background section after splitting. Any objections? CNC (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I only object to wholesale removal of the other fronts. If the middle east crisis page reaches the quality and readership levels of this page, we should reconsider making it more specific to the Israel-Gaza front. (Another reason to reconsider a name change for this page at some point in the future) Unbandito (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The quality/readership analysis here is backwards; the reason there aren't as many views on that page is because the content isn't there and it's poor quality. If the content was there, and the quality improved, there would be more views. This is a chicken and egg scenario: as why would anyone visit MEC article when most of the content is here? The views argument also isn't relevant to policy or guidelines on summarising main articles to parent articles. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the first step is to improve the MEC article, but I also think this page's status comes from its presence on the main page, its age, and its proximity to common search terms like "israel" "hamas" "israel war" etc. I just think we should wait to completely remove the other confrontations until the MEC article, which I believe is brand new, is more established and serves its function. Some of the material in other confrontations, like Israel's prison system, the Iranian strikes, assassination of Haniyeh, and the conflict with Hezbollah are inexorably linked to the Gaza front and should probably remain as a brief summary in this article for some time so that the bulk of readers about the conflict as a whole aren't misled based on what article they choose to start on. Unbandito (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed there should be a brief summary, at present that section is not brief nor a summary. Managing article sizes shouldn't be based on searches or views, but on scope and guidelines. CNC (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say the Israeli prisons and similar sections, the West Bank section and the Israel-Iran section deserve the most detailed summary on this page but each front should have an adequate summary of major events here. Unbandito (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The stuff about the Houthis blocking off the Red Sea and attacks on US forces in Iraq? Yes. The Lebanon and West Bank fronts as well as attacks in Israel? No. They should be treated as integral fronts of this war. In fact one of my issues with this article is that it has too little emphasis on that. This is a proper three-front war now, it isn't just between Israel and Gaza. RM (Be my friend) 14:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This article's scope is specifically about the war with Hamas and the war on Gaza, which is part of a broader Israeli war on seven fronts (if we count Jordan). The scope of this article is not about Israel's seven front war. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a mistake then. The Hebrew Wikipedia article for example treats all fronts Israel is fighting on as the same war. I actually think there needs to be a discussion on changing this. Wikipedia's job is to describe the war in full, not just one part of it. It's like the World War II article focusing heavily on the European theater and neglecting the Pacific War. In any event, we should move more stuff that doesn't directly involve Israel to trim the article if needed but we should keep stuff about the other fronts with a view to eventually expanding it. RM (Be my friend) 14:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not our problem at the English WP if the Hebrew one is treating the war from an Israeli perspective. The Gaza war is a topic on its own and it fulfills the notability guidelines for a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza War is one front of a multi-front war. Wikipedia's job is to summarize a war in it's entirety, not just one particular front of it. RM (Be my friend) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Upon which RS are you relying for "multi-front war". Just because Gallant and Halevi say it is, doesn't count for diddly. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaza War is indeed a one front of a multi-front war from an Israeli perspective. That doesn't change the fact that: 1- Gaza War satisfies the notability guideline for a standalone article 2- that the Israeli perspective is not the only perspective in this world. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea that we are debating whether this war deserves a standalone article is baffling, especially when is an article that already documents this "multi-front" war that could be expanded. CNC (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As explained above by Makeandtoss, this article is about Israel–Hamas, not the Middle Eastern Crisis. The section should be summarised just like every other section that has a main article (without exception). CNC (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My point is that this article shouldn't just be about the Israel-Hamas war. The very name seems to have been sort of made up as a filler in lieu of an official name. This is in fact a proper multi-front war. Everything not involving Israel can go into the Middle East crisis section. RM (Be my friend) 14:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If we merge Other confrontations to MEC as explained above this article would still be over 12,000 words. That is still arguably too big based on WP:SIZERULE and the scope should be further reduced if anything, certainly not expanded. I get that some editors want all the information to be in the same place, but if that were the case, this article would be 100,000+ words based on all the child articles combined. This is why we should split/merge/summarise. CNC (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I never said we shouldn't significantly trim it. We can focus more info in spin-off articles such as specific battles and "allegations of" this or that to trim the size, but we need to focus on all fronts as integral parts of the same war. This article needs a major restructuring at some point, and as part of it we should give info on all fronts in a similar manner, not treat it as a war solely between Israel and Hamas and all the other fronts as spin-offs barely relevant to the article. RM (Be my friend) 15:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We're supposed to follow the sources, not right great wrongs as you are doing here. Desist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Calm down. There are many sources that treat it all as one war. Israel's official list of casualties for one. This is very obviously a multi-front war, and the article just puts overwhelming emphasis on one front. Which is indeed the main front but not the full story. The article simply needs to give more attention to the other fronts and not cut back on it. RM (Be my friend) 19:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we are going round in circles a bit here so have created survey below for support/oppose votes, in case there are more editors with opinions beyond this discussion. CNC (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Should Other confrontations section be merged into Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)? CNC (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be, with very brief summaries here. But that was not what some editors were proposing, which was the elimination of this article as a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of RM

Hi @Paine Ellsworth, can you re-evaluate this close please? I don't see a response to the WP:COMMONNAME argument which is firmly in favour of Israel-Gaza War despite the many data wrangling attempts to make it seem otherwise.

The vote count is 54 in support and 37 against per my count. Most of the 37 seem to be arguing that the search term frequency data somehow suggests that Israel-Hamas is more common than Israel-Gaza, which is not true as pointed out by several rebuttals to these comments. Similar arguments have been made suggesting WP:RS don't use "Israel-Gaza" whereas the RM, as well as follow-up comments, clearly linked to numerous cases where this is not true. WP:!VOTE suggests that an incorrect argument is as good as none. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Take this to closer's talk page (you need to do that if you intend to ask for close review). Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Posted to the closer's talk page. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. You can either go to the closer's talk page, or WP:MR. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in the latest RM

Users: UnspokenPassion, FourPi, and Sakakami have been blocked as sockpuppets, all of whom had opposed the last move request. I think this should be taken in consideration, particularly as myself and other editors have asked for a rereview of the colossal task that the closer had appreciatedly undertaken to determine the overall consensus of that lengthy discussion. Pinging the closer of the move @Paine Ellsworth:. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To editor Makeandtoss: users who pull this SP stunt don't realize that closers are bound to the fact that decisions on Wikipedia with few exceptions are WP:NOTAVOTE. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed not a vote. But still consensus is determined by how much weight editors have placed to each argument, and now we have three minus that number, which is significant. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So start a new RM if you want. Andre🚐 20:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly right, editors Makeandtoss and Andrevan. It's weight of the args that prevails, and while each of those SPs have a different editor (which makes no difference at all), their args were either minor non-arguments or just repeats of good arguments already made by other editors. That means that their participation means little to nothing in the overall outcome, so I still recommend waiting the customary few months to start a fresh move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Andre🚐 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The sockpuppets were an addition to the existing issue with the closing, so I have requested a move review: [21]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yariv Levin calls for 20 year prison sentences for Israeli citizens that support sanctions

Something of possible interest to include in this and a few other related articles:

After Amos Schocken, the publisher of the Haaretz newspaper, called for international sanctions against Israel to put pressure for acceptance of a two-state solution and an end to ethnic cleansing, Israel's justice minister Yariv Levin demanded a new law imposing up to 20 years prison sentences for any Israelis who call for sanctions.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=tQmE0o4C9dE

https://www.jns.org/israeli-justice-minister-urges-jail-time-for-boycott-calls-by-citizens/

https://skwawkbox.org/2024/11/02/israeli-justice-minister-calls-for-law-for-20yr-prison-sentences-for-israelis-who-call-for-sanctions/

David A (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)