Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

I think that your suggestion here seems reasonable. David A (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please note that there is another discussion happening here with more details. - Ïvana (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I agree Hu741f4 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looks like the events section needs another mass trim. Page has grown considerably in recent weeks. CNC (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The question is what is there left to split? CNC (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Other confrontations
 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other confrontations

Moved from Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Split
 – CNC (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Survey

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

  • Comment: this article is 16657 words, so it definitely needs to be trimmed per WP:PROSESIZE rule. Skimming the article, I did notice places where lengthy quotations have been used. It’s probably better to paraphrase them per WP:QUOTE. I will try to paraphrase the quotes to help trim down the article. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing I noticed which could be an easy way to trim the article is to trim the parts that are not using the best sources. Am noticing some sourcing from a liveblog. I think liveblogs are a great way to keep up with live news and snippets but liveblogs should be used with caution in Wiki articles per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:NOTNEWS. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stopped trimming at the "Attacks in central Gaza". A lot of those sources used about the daily deaths are from a live news blog. I stopped because I think I would be removing a lot of that section if I continued, but those liveblog sources should probably be replaced with better sources and it would probably be better to report cumulative deaths in the month rather than daily reporting of deaths to help trim the article size. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with trimming daily death counts, however I think it is important to retain mention of individual attacks and massacres. Doing so allows the reader to asses a pattern of action. Unbandito (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think so. I noticed there were non-liveblog sources also reporting specific instances of casualties. I think I will keep those since the non liveblog sources thought they were notable to use in an article. I will just trim the liveblog ones to reduce the Wiki article word count. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial oppose: The Hezbollah-Israel conflict, raids in the West Bank, Israeli clashes with the Houthis, and Iranian attacks on Israel should all be extensively covered here. In fact we should have a conversation on renaming this article as "Israel-Hamas war" was very obviously made up by editors trying to do the best that they could in lieu of official names for this war. This is a multi-front war between Israel and the Axis of Resistance and should be treated as such, rather than just covering one front of it. The stuff about Houthi attacks on international shipping and NATO strikes against the Houthis, attacks on US forces in Iraq and US counterstrikes, and other stuff not directly involving Israel should be put in the Middle East crisis article. If there's more trimming to do it can be done by taking more info from here and putting it into articles on battles and campaigns in this war.--RM (Be my friend) 13:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Partial oppose in agreement with this. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Note: I changed my mind reading arguments in thread, please don't count this. <3
    Note though we had a conversation about changing the name to 'Israel-Gaza' war above, which i think we're changing it to if i understood the vote correctly. It should possibly be widened yes, but at least it works in that all the other fronts exist in relation to Gaza. SP00KYtalk 14:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fine, after all it isn't just Hamas fighting in Gaza. It leaves out the other fronts but it's a start. I do think we should consider alternative options once the war is over. Currently the war is called the "Iron Swords War" in Israel (and that's its name on Hebrew Wikipedia). I doubt that name will reach consensus on English Wikipedia but I've also read that it might become known as the "October 7th war" (and in fact there's already a book that's been published under that name), if that does go mainstream it would be the perfect name for it in my opinion. RM (Be my friend) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Maybe after the war we'll be having conversations to change it to 'Gaza Genocide'. That's certainly not a vote i'm going to be looking forward to but it all depends on the courts I guess. There is also 'Al-Aqsa Flood' which would be an obvious one, but bizarrely in my looking around 'Al-Aqsa Flood' whilst refers to the war in Arabic only refers specifically Oct7 in English. SP00KYtalk 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaza genocide is already a separate article. JasonMacker (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciated, cheers JasonMacker ! <3 SP00KYtalk 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The title, now supported multiple times, along with the opening sentences of the lead, should define the scope. Anything outside of that should be in some other article with relevant summaries here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadart (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support because it's become just way too much BarntToust 19:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As above, it's simply to long already as many people have already mentioned and with all the sections as well as being ongoing-news the article IMHO will always be subject to 'scope-creep' for a lack of a better term, and so i believe there will be many events and so on that simply won't have the space to be properly explained in the detail they could be. Things can still be mentioned with things like inline links, and {{main}}, {{see also}} or {{Further Information}} templates to articles which will go into more depth anyways. SP00KYtalk 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The recent events involving the IDF are intertwined with each other. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elimination of this as a standalone article

This possibility was mentioned by user:Makeandtoss above and it's not something I'd considered until now, but there is some logic in it. We already have an article on the general war between Israel and allies versus Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and allies: Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). We also have an article on the portion of the war which is in Gaza, between Israel and Hamas: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. So what is the purpose of this article other than to duplicate information in those articles? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last RM, My !vote, not that it gained any traction. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I think Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip should be merged into this article. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. Removing this as a standalone article would cause confusion, as there are certain events such as skirmishes with Hamas in the West Bank and the assassination of Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders that did not take place as a part of the Israeli invasion but are inexorably linked to the Gaza front of the war and its main belligerents. Unbandito (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think if we try to look ahead, this will doubtless be the Gaza War, as documented here. I can't see the sense in removing it or merging it into an overarching article. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it does end up as Gaza War, then the invasion article could be merged, for now the two things should stay separate, just like 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel is separate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war exists but should probably renamed to something less cumbersome. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So start a new RM if you want. Andre🚐 20:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! Andre🚐 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppets were an addition to the existing issue with the closing, so I have requested a move review: [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MR closed, but some endorsers seemed to express support for starting a new RM specifically for Gaza war. Before we start that (please don't start just yet!), I think we should carefully collect sources and once we start it we should ping everyone who took part in the last discussion. Feel free to add them here, Makeandtoss.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groups

@Smallangryplanet: You can add this source to the footnote. [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Achmad Rachmani: [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates in the article lead

Why is there a Iran–Israel proxy conflict template, but not Israeli–Palestinian conflict template?? Bogazicili (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not a template guy is my caviate, but i would recommend if you think that there should be a 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict template' You should make one? 'D.I.Y', 'Be Bold', etc. :) SP00KYtalk 13:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Israeli–Palestinian conflict Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are links to articles in the lede being removed? I have noticed two already being removed in the past week: the one linking to domicide and the other linking to Israel's destruction of Gaza's health care system. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I just noticed that the Israeli destruction of the Gaza Strip healthcare system article was deleted, apparently on the grounds of it having been created by a banned user. @ThadeusOfNazereth: How can I check for myself if the article had indeed not been "substantially edited by others" as per WP:G5? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think non-admins can view the history of deleted articles. I can tell you that the banned user in question, wrote the entirety of the article's content. The other edits on the article by human users were either phrasing changes or reference fixes that I did not feel amounted to "substantial" edits as they did not actually modify or add content. You are welcome to ping another admin if you'd like a second opinion ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 12:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThadeusOfNazereth: Is it a possibility to put an article in this situation for some sort of review instead of nominating it for deletion? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I did not nominate the article for deletion - That was a different user, I only processed the request per WP:BANREVERT. You can request undeletion at WP:Requests for undeletion or ask Selfstudier for a copy of the article text once he gets it. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 14:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I did not mean to imply that. Just a question I have because I genuinely do not know the answer. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a copy of the deleted material, if appropriate, the article can be recreated, meanwhile I replaced the now redlink with another related link. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss See MOS:DUPLINK. If you ctrl+F and search for domicide, you will find this word already in the article and wiki linked. As for the lede, if you check the source that was used for the part about destruction of houses, it didn’t see the word “domicide” at all (although I may be mistaken, you can double check). So I removed the domicide wikilink per mos:DUPLINK as well as it being possible WP:OR. It is still linked in the article per MOS:LINKCLARITY. Also in terms of style, see MOS:LEADLINK, MOS:OVERLINK, and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. But the body and lede are separate parts of an article and can’t be considered to have duplicate links. Refs in the lede are optional, so it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t support domicide there if that is supported in the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss You are free to restore the link. I personally think taken overall, the manual of style and OR policy do not support its inclusion, but you or someone else can restore it if you think having the link is more important than the style guidelines. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18 Nov 2024

Borgenland, "undue and possible POV pushing" Why? MOS:LEADLANG إيان (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it sourced and provides a balanced understanding of the war for the general public and not just speakers of just one belligerent state? And does the word armed conflict directly translate into such poetic euphemisms such as Iron Swords in Hebrew? If not, then there are grounds to suspect as such. Borgenland (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for the Hebrew name for the war here in the lead. It doesn't even link anywhere, or provide any additional relevant information.
And per WP:LEADLANG, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence." Considering this article is about a war between two parties who speak different languages, rather than try to determine which is the "more common language" to identify in the lead, I'd just as soon not use either. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence is all right as it is. One-sided poetic descriptions, claiming ownership of the conflict and recasting it in a different light, are best left out. GeoffreyA (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think i am missing the context here, but i think the lead should possibly say in brackets 'Operation Swords of Iron' and 'Operation Al-Aqsa Flood/Storm' potentially in the leade as it is usual style guidelines as far as i've seen, to put other and popularly used names in parentheses next to their main name as i understand, and it seems the norm generally for all the other IDF wars/'mowing of the lawns' in my lifetime, i just checked at least. SP00KYtalk 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem one would have for those is that Flood is generally used to refer to 7 October while the swords thing is the response to that, which in my opinion refers to stages of the war and not the war in general. Borgenland (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I think it's a good point. The current conflict is qualitatively different from Cast Lead or Pilar of Defence and so on in it's length and phases. SP00KYtalk 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1259058475"