Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Requested move 12 January 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Israel–Hamas war. There's a clear consensus that moving is needed to fix the year in the title. I see a consensus in favor of Israel–Hamas war over Israel–Hamas war (2023–present). Galobtter (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war → Israel–Hamas war (2023–present) – The war has now extended into 2024 for two weeks, so the current article title using only "2023" is contrary to standard naming practice on Wikipedia: we would only use "2023" as the year disambiguation if the war had ended in 2023. The standard policy for disambiguation of multi-year wars is to include the years in parentheses after the war name. Compare with War in Sudan (2023–present), Yemeni civil war (2014–present), etc. For context, there was a recent RM which ended up very complicated thanks to discussing three separate issues at once (whether to change "Israel–Hamas war" to something else, what to change the year disamguator to, and whether year disambiguation is needed at all). It was closed with the result being to retain the "Israel–Hamas war" form of the title but with no consensus as to the other topics, and there is an ongoing unofficial discussion about the title following on from that RM. This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible: a clearly incorrect title shouldn't be left in effect long-term on a heavily viewed page. It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

The discussion is about disambiguation, not the generic name. Parham wiki (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
No, the discussion is about whether to rename the article to Israel–Hamas war (2023–present) or to something else. There are no reasons to avoid discussing the larger issues with the article name in this thread. MClay1 (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Are my preferred order of preferences... ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn’t “israel-Palestine war” be better here considering not only is the war in the Gaza Strip not just against Hamas and considering the deteriorating situation in the West Bank? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) moved here from Move header at the top, by Mathglot (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
No. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank neither invaded Israel nor deploys its police/army against Israel, and Israel is not attacking the PA (which is already in its pocket) but rather assisting settlers in the violence and expropriation of land which has been characteristic of that territory for some decades. Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Current support level as I write seems strong enough that this discussion section might not be necessary, but nevertheless I prefer to have some data behind any decision I make in a formal discussion, so I went ahead with it. I did some search tests to see what they reveal about the proposed move question. The results appear to support "Israel–Hamas War" without any addtional qualifying terms such as year.

The tests purposely don't mention a year, in order to see whether titles that include the core title of "Israel–Hamas War" also mention a year (or some other term), or do not. Results from two searches appear to show that only a tiny number of results mention a year.

The first test I tried was intitle:Israel–Hamas_war -wikipedia and looked at 87 results (Google claims 240 results for that page, but I see only 87). Other than daily reports (e.g, #7 CNN's "January 17, 2024 Israel-Hamas war") very few titles have a year in them; the only one I see is #57: "2023/24 Israel-Hamas conflict: UK and international response" from the House of Commons Library.

The second test was similar, but uses three 'intitle' terms, to elicit titles that may have the same terms as in "Israel–Hamas War", but in any order, and conceivably with other terms mixed in. For example, if there are highly relevant published articles with the title "Hamas–Israel War" or "Gaza War between Israel and Hamas", the second test would find those, whereas the first one wouldn't.

Test two was this: intitle:Israel intitle:Hamas intitle:war -wikipedia, and the results were very similar to the first test. Britannica at result #26 was the first to use any type of date, and uses Israel-Hamas War of 2023 (even though it was updated on 18 Jan. 2024). The only other results for test 2 that included any type of year, included it only as part of a full date, such as CNN's "January 17, 2024 Israel-Hamas war" at result #4, and result #55: 'Daily Recap: Hamas - Israel War November 1st, 2023'.

These two tests do *not* address whether "Israel–Hamas War" is a more common title in reliable sources than "Israel–Gaza War", or any other wording. Both tests are aimed strictly at the move question, i.e., in test 1, whether titles in reliable sources that contain the expression "Israel–Hamas War" do or don't also contain other terms like a year or range of years; and in test 2, whether they contain those words in any order, along with year or other terms. Neither test is designed to answer a question about the most common name; a separate investigation would be needed for that. But within that caveat, they appear to demonstrate support for the Move question. Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 19 January 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.

Why isn´t the name changed to 2023-2024 (or even 2023-present) Israel-Hamas war

SEE CURRENT REQUESTED MOVE
Please refer to the existing requested move instead of starting a new conversation. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.


Let´s face it´s going to go on for a while, we don´t have the crystal ball to know when it will come to an end. StrongALPHA (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Being dealt with above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@StrongALPHA
Because we cannot agree on who or what Israel is at war with. Irtapil (talk) 06:49, 17 January 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.

Is Middle East Eye reliable?

Is Middle East Eye a reliable source? I wanted to include this article as an example of Israeli war crimes. JDiala (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala
I read it quite a lot. Fairly reliable. It's cherry picked but it's factual. In my personal experience the stories it tells line up well with other reliable sources.
It won't give the whole story, but nothing will. It gives a selection of bits of the story that tend to have a pro middle east slant, but each story it does give is factual, as in the details match other reliable sources. We couldn't base a whole article on it, but we shouldn't do that with any source, it's useful as one of the sources to include.
In terms of how much I personally trust it, compared to others with a similar stance, I'd rank it as less reliable than Al Jazeera (one of the world's most reliable news outlets on any topic other than the Qatari government) but more reliable than TRT or Electronic Intafada (I'm unsure how much to trust TRT).
According to it's own Wikipedia page it's a UK based spin off of Al Jazeera, I'm not sure if that's official or just some staff who left and did their own thing.
Irtapil (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@JDiala
For that particular story I would give it a brief mention prefaced "Eyewitnesses told Middle East Eye…" (exactly as they have) it's important to include as a thing that was observed / reported / claimed, but we can't say it's a thing that definitely happened. Irtapil (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
That is not the only consideration. Is the source reliable enough that we can say in wikivoice that eyewitness told them something? Either way, is it significant enough for this page, or is it WP:UNDUE? JM (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

An anonymously written article from "occupied Palestine" quoting people whose names were changed, produced by a news source believed to have ties to the Qatari government. No, I think that for a contentious subject we need much better sourcing than that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple I think it would be appropriate to include as "witnesses reported that". This same story is also appearing in other sources.
And "occupied Palestine" is a fairly common term for Gaza and West Bank, the particularly slanted sources use that to refer to Israel, but I think MEE just calls it Israel.
Irtapil (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
It will be appropriate once the sourcing meets the requirements of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." One anonymous report in a biased publication citing anonymous people doesn't even come close. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Coretheapple "Northern Gaza, occupied-Palestine" I think most of the world would think it was a stretch to say that Northern Gaza is not currently "occupied", it's full of IDF soldiers. Irtapil (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Is the source listed under any pages listing levels of source credibility ? If so, what is its stated level of reliability? (Can't remember what the page that lists sources and their reliability is called). JM (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a newsorg and presumed reliable (even if biased). Also not too difficult to find other sources reporting the same thing Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I rather sadly did not find it an extraordinary story though it was shocking but yes I'd have agreed it should not go in without more support as there's a lot of propaganda about. However the above does seem to be an actual independent reliable source corroberating it rather than just duplicating the source and it looks due to me. NadVolum (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
This other source is hardly better than Middle East Eye. The chairman of Euro-med Monitor was the assistant director of Council for European Palestinian Relations, an organisation tied to Hamas [2]. More recently he was positively ecstatic about the October 7 attack, calling the attackers "elite young men" and "heroic knights". Alaexis¿question? 21:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Wow. That's a horrific statement, especially from someone claiming to represent human rights. Definitely a partisan organization, so hopefully not reliable even when their claims are reported by RS. I wonder if there's some way to blacklist the organization's claims, not familiar with those aspects of Wikipedia. JM (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Just saw that someone has already started a discussion at WP:RSN which is the appropriate venue for that, feel free to chip in. Alaexis¿question? 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with Middle East Eye, either. Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yep. Some people don't have that comfort of sitting safely in a comfy armchair thousands of miles away and analysing dispassionately kill numbers on another continent. Clearly, the guy is involved in the Middle Eastern conflict, and likely not by own choice. I agree that we should not source anything to his opinions (we shouldn't use opinion pieces anyway). But we have no evidence that the organisations' reporting is unreliable. Does the fact that Boris Johnson lied to the UK parliament make all UK government documents unreliable? — kashmīrī TALK 17:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

{{#invoke:cite news}} vs simply {{cite news}}?

Should be a fairly simple question, but I was curious why the former is used instead of the latter for a good 90% of citations in the article. Do the two not accomplish the same thing? If they do and nobody is opposed, I'd like to remove the #invoke part of the code to help further cut down on the massive page size. Cheers! Johnson524 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this Abo Yemen✉ 13:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
According to Template:Invoke it's used for debugging, so there may be a reason for it. Alaexis¿question? 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Alaexis: By any chance, do you know if it's still needed? Johnson524 19:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The reason to use the #invoke version is to avoid having the article exceed template limits. Specifically, using the template doubles the amount of transcluded text which can cause the page to show errors instead of expanding templates. Previewing an edit of the current article shows "Post-expand include size" is 1,346,349 bytes out of the 2,097,152 maximum. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede addition suggestion, 20-30% of all Hamas fighters killed so far

WSJ reports that around 20% to 30% of all Hamas fighters in Gaza Strip have been killed, which is significant when compared to the overall death toll in Gaza, over 32,000 (counting the missing 7,000 who are presumed dead under rubble). The article further states that by Israeli estimates, around 9,000 Hamas fighters have been killed, which means that around 2/3rds of all deaths have been civilians. Ecrusized (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: I agree this could be a very important bit of information to add to the lede, but I'm a little concerned about the last part: "which means that around 2/3rds of all deaths have been civilians", does the 'which means' violate WP:NOR? If not, I feel all of this should be added. Cheers! Johnson524 17:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes indeed, the 2/3rd parts is synthesis. That does not need to be added specifically. Ecrusized (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Don't see a need to get that granular in the lede. PrimaPrime (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It's complete baloney as a cursory inspection of the death toll will tell. But if the WSJ wants to write stupid things like that I suppose we have to copy it - it is a very reliable source. I'd attribute it to their sources. Verifiability not truth. NadVolum (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
There are countless sources reporting that according to the health ministry in Gaza, around two-thirds of all those killed are women and minors. Example from ABC News, today:
Since the war started, 25,105 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, while another 62,681 have been wounded, the Health Ministry said. The toll included the 178 bodies brought to Gaza’s hospitals since Saturday, Health Ministry spokesperson Ashraf al-Qidra said. The overall toll is thought to be higher because many casualties remain buried under rubble or in areas that medics cannot reach, Al-Qidra said. The Health Ministry does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its figures but says about two-thirds of the people killed in Gaza were women and minors. The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government, but its casualty figures from previous wars were largely consistent with those of U.N. agencies and even the Israeli military. The Israeli military says it has killed around 9,000 militants, without providing evidence, and blames the high civilian death toll on Hamas because it positions fighters, tunnels and other militant infrastructure in dense neighborhoods, often near homes, schools or mosques.
Given that the ministry does not differentiate between civlians and combatants, and that the "women and minors" figure is most commonly quoted and easily sourced, I would suggest going with that. Andreas JN466 18:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with addition of this information, especially since we are using Gaza ministry numbers that do not differentiate between civilian and military casualties, as the WSJ coverage notes. It should be in the infobox and I see it is not. Coretheapple (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that how that would make any difference under the assumption that at least as many civilian men are killed as women. NadVolum (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
If we have any numbers on non-Hamas civilian mens were killed, we can put them in. Right now we do have a number in the WSJ on military casualties, and obviously in a war article we need that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy saying editors must put in stupid things if they're reliably sourced. In fact no one has to put anything in. NadVolum (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been trying to see if there's any way I can make the US figures sensible if they really are experts at estimating it. I think one would have to assume that the number of dead under rubble or deaths otherwise not registered is far far higher than the Gaza Health Mnistry says, perhaps as much as the total number of deaths they've already registered. The estimate for the number of resdidential units which have been destroyed or made uninhabitable is 65000. plus 290,000 which are damaged. An extra 25000 under the rubble fom 65000 badly damaged or destroyed buildings doesn't sound unreasonable to me especially with snipers around the place though I'd have thought the ministy would be better at this by now. NadVolum (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas statement released today

I have added a paragraph on this: [3]. A copy of the original statement can be viewed here, hosted by lbcgroup.tv. None of the Western media reports I have seen so far provide a copy of the statement or link to it. Andreas JN466 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Haaretz now Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jayen466 what did it say? Irtapil (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a post fact elaboration of their reasons for the incursion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Since Haaretz and Times of Israel have reported on it I believe this is notable enough to include in the article. I will be doing this. JDiala (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done JDiala (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
We ended up having material about the document in two different places. I have now consolidated it. [4]
Note that yesterday, User:Coretheapple removed all refs linking to the Hamas document itself, citing WP:PRIMARY; I have just now re-added such a link as part of my edits. I think Core's edit was based on a misunderstanding or cursory read of WP:PRIMARY. WP:PRIMARY tells us:
  1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
  2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
  3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
  4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
Now, I think it would be wrong if we started citing passages from the document that no reliable source has cited, and even more wrong if we started writing our own interpretations into the article. But in a situation where multiple sources are quoting selected passages from a document, it is good practice to add a link to the primary source as an ancillary reference so the interested reader can read the original document the media have quoted from. Any scholarly article, for example, would provide such a link, and that is the standard we here should be aspiring to as well. Andreas JN466 20:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

International isolation

"Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire"l; this sentence is supported by the four in-line citations, and in a previous talk page discussion, many more sources saying the exact same thing were provided. The continuous removal of half of this sentence is unacceptable. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Throughout the war, there have been widespread global protests that have primarily called for a ceasefire or the release of the hostages. Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire..." is simply redundant and bad writing. The previous sentence already mentions the global calls for a ceasefire. PrimaPrime (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
They are actually two separate things. One about protests, and the other about positions of states in the international community. It is not redundant. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss, PrimaPrime: Yeah, they are two different things, but it's true that the writing could be improved. Maybe:
Throughout the war, there have been popular protests around the world that have primarily called for a ceasefire or the release of the hostages. Israel and the United States were increasingly isolated amid calls from the international community for a ceasefire ...
That would make it clearer that in the first sentence, we are talking about street demos and in the second about things like the UN General Assembly. Andreas JN466 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. But I am skeptical to put pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli protests in the same weight, that they both have been "popular". What do the sources say on that? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

War map source ?

User @Ecrusized thankfully made the war progress map. But can you provide the source where you get the land control and war progress from ? Stephan rostie (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

ISW, as stated on the file details. Ecrusized (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

TNYT article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Violation of WP:NOTFORUM by user:Drsruli. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html Drsruli (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

What is your point? Besides, this NYT report has been accused of potential testimony manipulation.[5] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.hamas-massacre.net/categories/mass-rapes Drsruli (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Another pointless edit. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 29 January 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.

Reasons for attack in the lede

Currently the lede only mentions the stated reasons for the attack. The experts acknowledge some overlap between the stated and actual reasons (e.g., freeing Palestinian prisoners), however they also believe that there were other reasons, such as resisting the normalisation trend, re-established ties with Iran and burnishing resistance credentials. These are some of the sources which discuss the reasons CBS, Al Jazeera, NYT.

This should be reflected in the lede per WP:DUE as otherwise only Hamas's stated reasons are mentioned. Also, WP:LEDE should summarise the article and now this part of article is not reflected in the lede.

My attempt to improve the lede has been reverted, so I'd like to understand which policies it was based on. Alaexis¿question? 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The experts can be left to give their opinions later. The stated reasons by Hamas were attributed to them and definitely are of lead type interest. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I would say that the opinion of neutral geopolitical experts is at least as relevant as the stated reasons from Hamas: the average reader will want to know why experts believe Hamas started the war, and not only why Hamas says it started the war. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Chessrat - absolutely support this. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
There was an 11 minute speech by Mohamad Deif which Al-Qassam Brigades shared to announce the attacks, it's probably the closest thing to the definitive "why they said they did it".
Al Jazerra and France 24 dubbed into English overlapping 1 minute grabs.
There must be a full transcript and translation SOMEWHERE but I've not had much luck.
It even probably sort of covers what the actual plan was, in that it was somewhat calling for support from some of the groups they are in less cost contract with, like in the West Bank region.
07:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add that stated reasons are often bollocks meant for non-expert domestic audience (i.e., the electorate). We don't write, for example, that Russia attacked Ukraine "in order to save its population from neo-Nazis", or that the US invaded Iraqi or Libyan oil fields "to combat terror". Hamas's statements (of revenge, etc.) are also destined for its domestic audience. IMO, wider geopolitics should be given a prominent place in such articles, even if it means relying on sources not consumed en masse by the electorate. — kashmīrī TALK 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that expert opinion should be emphasized over Hamas' view, I'm not sure your Russia comparison is quite accurate. Russia's justifications were simply lies ("Donbas genocide"). This is why we did not take them seriously. However, Hamas' justifications regarding settlements, West Bank flare-ups, and Palestinian prisoners are true and independently attested to. JDiala (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, although I simply wanted to underscore that there are war rationales, and there are rationales for the masses, and both usually deserve to be mentioned. I didn't intend to compare the veracity of individual claims. — kashmīrī TALK 09:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I said 'The stated reasons by Hamas were attributed to them'. The attributing is important. The attributed reason is more encyclopaediac than some american expert sitting halfway across the word spouting his expert opinion on what are the 'real' reasons are - which most definitely should also be attributed properly wherever it is stuck in. NadVolum (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree with this comment. In the version I suggested both sets of reasons are attributed. Alaexis¿question? 08:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The reverted bit removed some important bits of what Hamas said. Its quite likely the leaders did have the concerns the experts said but I hardly think that was primary or that three thousand militants went into what was essentially a possible suicide mission because of that! Russians and Americans didn't think of the Ukraine or Iraq as possible suicide missions. NadVolum (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I tried to keep the lede concise and so mentioned the key issues ("desecration" and settlements) while labelling everything else as "other actions in the West Bank and Gaza." If that was the issue, we can mention more of them. I'll give it a try shortly.
You're making a good point when you say that the geopolitical reasons are unlikely to have motivated ordinary Hamas fighters. The motivations of the Hamas leadership are not necessarily the same as those of Hamas fighters and ideally the article should discuss both of them. Unfortunately, our sources do not allow us to make this distinction for now. Alaexis¿question? 11:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Alaexis: reverted, most immediately because of the weasel wording. Being the lead in a contentious area in which you've made similar bold edits twice, I think a full-text draft of the proposed change and then getting clear consensus is the best path forward. To be clear I agree in spirit with what you're trying to do it just needs more polish before it goes live. I do want to not per the exchange immediately above - I don't think motivations of the individual combatants is of encyclopedic interest to the lead in an article about the war. We care about the strategic reasonings, not the individual motivations of the people involved (which will vary by individual with a near-infinite number of permutations). Also, we generally should focus on the reasons for the war as evaluated by third-party sources, not the stated purposes by the parties (even if attributed) to the conflict (which will be heavily politicized at best). VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so here's the change.
−
Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]] the latter of whom it sought to free by taking an estimated [[2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis|253 Israeli and foreign captives]] into Gaza as leverage.
+
Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]]. According to experts Hamas wanted to disrupt the [[Arab–Israeli normalization]], assert its presence as a significant security and political force, and resolve internal debates over its primary focus between governance and confrontation.
The main goal of the change is to give equal weight to stated reasons and to reasons reported in secondary sources (although you're right that the latter should eventually have greater weight). The clause I've removed in order not to inflate the lede isn't crucial for the lede in my opinion. If the problem is with "according to experts," then could you suggest another way of introducing this (the CBS article does include several experts' opinions)? Alaexis¿question? 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The experts added renormalization as a reason rather than saying it was the reason. As far as I can see not all mentioned wanting to resolve internal tension or wanting to reassert themselves as a reason. NadVolum (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead summarizes the body. Where in the body do we talk about the expert opinions on the cause of the 10/7 attack? (I didn't immediately see it but the article is rather long and I may have just missed it). VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Very good point, @VQuakr, I have, likewise, struggled to see it clearly in the main body of the article. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
These opinions are discussed in the 3rd and 4th paragraph of the Hamas motivations section. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The text I'm proposing also doesn't say that preventing the normalisation was *the* reason. It's listed as one of the reasons.
As to your second comment, it's true that only one source supports each claim ("reasserting its power" and "resolving internal tension"). Let's look at the reasons mentioned in the 3 articles I've listed above (Al-Jazeera, CBS and the NYT). Please feel free to add more sources dealing with this.
  1. Derailing the normalisation: 3/3
  2. Mending fences with Iran: 3/3
  3. Palestinian desperation: 2/3 (AJ, NYT)
  4. Reasserting power: 1/3 (CBS)
  5. Resolving internal tension: 1/3 (NYT)
  6. Drawing Israel into a quagmire 1/3 (CBS)
So it looks like the reasserting power and resolving internal tensions should be removed and instead we should mention the ties with Iran. Here's a new version. Per u:VQuakr's comment I'm starting with the reasons from secondary sources and then mention the stated reasons.
−
Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]] the latter of whom it sought to free by taking an estimated [[2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis|253 Israeli and foreign captives]] into Gaza as leverage.
+
The reasons for the attack included the desire on part of Hamas to disrupt the [[Arab–Israeli normalization]], Palestinian frustration with settler violence and deepening ties between Iran and Hamas. Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued [[Israeli occupied territories|Israeli occupation]] of the [[Palestinian territories]], the [[blockade of the Gaza Strip]], the expansion of [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal Israeli settlements]], and the plight of [[Palestinian refugees]] and [[Palestinian prisoners in Israel|prisoners]].
Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd support something like this but the sources clearly also focus on Al-Aqsa among Hamas's stated reasons, so that warrants inclusion. Perhaps:
Analysts suggested that Palestinian frustration at Arab–Israeli normalization despite the ongoing blockade of Gaza and rising settler violence in the occupied West Bank—combined with deepening ties between Iran and Hamas—contributed to the attack.
Hamas said it was responding to the blockade, occupation and settlements, as well as the "Judaization" of the Al-Aqsa Mosque[16] and the plight of Palestinian refugees and prisoners, who it sought to free by taking an estimated 253...
PrimaPrime (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) PrimaPrime (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Also see #Hamas statement released today for elaboration on Hamas reasons. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting background, but we can't use the statement from a primary source to inform or shape encyclopaedic content. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure we can, if that statement is covered by secondary sources. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
That is true. And I'm not against using primary sources at points. But has to be led by the secondary sources. To my mind, the common theme is that Hamas has always wanted to "obliterate" Israel. Has very little to do with responding to anything, as discussed in this short summary report from CBS News. I would expect the wiki article to make that clear. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
For sure, but good luck getting editors here to agree to that. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that the lede reflects body. And the lede's sentence in question is related to Hamas' initial justifications. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Given that we prefer secondary sources over primary sources, once we decided to include some aspect of the motives for the attack we shouldn't even be questioning whether we should include what analysts assess their motives to be - if we want to question some aspect of these, we should be questioning whether their own claims of their motives are WP:DUE for the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: The lede's purpose is to summarize the body. What you have inserted is not a summary of the body. Furthermore the context in question is Hamas' initial justification for the attack, and not analyses. There are many different analyses, including that Israel wants to make Gaza uninhabitable, reoccupy it and build settlements there. Should we also include that in the lede, or are we going to cherrypick what analyses we like? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I also support having Hamas reasons first and analysis afterwards. What's the point of analysing something without some basic facts first? And can I also say it just gives me a wrong feeling considering that America is such a strong supporter of Israel to see the analysis cited to two american newspapers and Al Jazeera - with an analysis from America, to see those views on why Hamas did it given prominence compared to Hamas itself. An anyway the reasons are in addition to what Hamas said so putting them there without the other reasons gives secondary reasons undue prominence. NadVolum (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference aj7oct-invasion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d McKernan, Bethan; Michaelson, Ruth; Graham-Harrison, Emma; Kierszenbaum, Quique; Balousha, Hazem; Taha, Sufian; Sherwood, Harriet; Beaumont, Peter (14 October 2023). "Seven days of terror that shook the world and changed the Middle East". The Observer. Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  3. ^ a b c d Pacchiani, Luca (7 October 2023). "Hamas deputy chief anticipates hostages will be swapped for Palestinian prisoners". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 25 October 2023.
  4. ^ "Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Crescent International. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
  5. ^ "Hamas says it has enough Israeli captives to free all Palestinian prisoners". Al-Jazeera. 7 October 2023.
  6. ^ Mills, Andrew; Hassan, Ahmed Mohamed (15 November 2023). "Exclusive: Qatar seeking Israel-Hamas deal to free 50 hostages and 3-day truce". Reuters.
  7. ^ "What we know about the captives taken by Hamas". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  8. ^ "Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Crescent International. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
  9. ^ "Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Crescent International. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
  10. ^ a b "Why did Hamas attack Israel, and why now?". CBS News. 25 October 2023. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
  11. ^ "Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Crescent International. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
  12. ^ "Hamas says it has enough Israeli captives to free all Palestinian prisoners". Al-Jazeera. 7 October 2023.
  13. ^ Mills, Andrew; Hassan, Ahmed Mohamed (15 November 2023). "Exclusive: Qatar seeking Israel-Hamas deal to free 50 hostages and 3-day truce". Reuters.
  14. ^ "What we know about the captives taken by Hamas". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  15. ^ "Text of the speech by Ismail Haniyeh, on the first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Crescent International. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
  16. ^ Khoury, Jack (21 January 2024). "Hamas Releases Memo Explaining Why It Waged War on Israel; Gazans Question Timing, Cite Criticism of Hamas". Haaretz. Retrieved 22 January 2024.

Call me pedantic, but...

The lede states that the Yom Kippur War began exactly fifty years prior to 7 October 2023. Nearly all sources agree that the Yom Kippur War began on 6 October 1973, a date which most would not consider to be exactly fifty years prior to 7 October 2023. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It was 50 years nearly to the day. In contrast, approximately 50 years ago would be anything between 49 and 51 years ago. So, I'm fine with the current wording. — kashmīrī TALK 14:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a good catch, but I also agree that the wording should stay the same as it is now as per Kashmiri's comment. Cheers! Johnson524 17:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the word "exactly" should be removed. It conveys the same point without the to-the-date precision implied by the word "exactly." JDiala (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree and made the edit just now. Jikybebna (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I wonder whether focusing on the (numeric) date instead of the (named) day could be something of a cultural bias. Both happened on the first Saturday of October. If your cultural frame is weeks, it's the same; if it's months, it's off by one day.
However, an online date converter tells me that the dates are 10 Tishrei 5734 and 22 Tishrei 5784 in the Hebrew calendar and 22 Rabi Al Awwal 1445 and 10 Ramadan 1393 in the Islamic calendar, so I prefer not saying "exactly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@PrimaPrime: There are no sources saying that this war in Gaza is part of a proxy conflict.

You also claimed that your edit is reflecting the sources here [6], which is false since the source explicitly says that these killings have occurred since the start of the operation.

Waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Most sources have not found an Iranian connection to the October 7 attacks. This connection has been explicitly denied by Israel itself[7]. Also, not sure why the one-state solution part was removed. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Nonsense, even if you take Iran's statements about revenge for Soleimani as BS. Arkon (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
As editors we don't take anything, we reflect RS, and zero RS have made that claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
One state solution part isn't included in the initial declaration of war by Israel and to be honest sounds like original research as this isn't explicitly mentioned in the source. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It's common knowledge, well attested to by reliable sources, that these events are linked to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, see for example: [8] [9] [10][11][12]
The number of Palestinian deaths is since the start of the war on October 7, as the source makes clear. If they're since the start of anyone's "operation", it's Hamas's. PrimaPrime (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the RS. They do not support the claim that the Israel-Hamas war is part of the Israel-Iran proxy war, but they make claims that these groups are proxies. That's not the same claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
You have an interesting definition of "do not support".
  • Foreign Affairs: "Already, Hamas has succeeded in bringing the proxy war between Iran and Israel—typically fought in Lebanon and Syria—to Israeli soil."
  • Bloomberg: "The shape-shifting conflict in the Middle East saw Iran openly go on the offensive for the first time since the war in Gaza began, as Tehran’s latest round of existential brinkmanship with Israel spread further from the tiny Mediterranean enclave."
PrimaPrime (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Neither say that the war is part of the proxy conflict, but that the war brought the proxy conflict to Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The Palestinian death toll is due to the Israeli operation, just as much as the Israeli death toll is due to the Hamas operation. Please do not revert again reliably sourced material. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Likewise. "Neither say that the war is part of the proxy conflict, but that the war brought the proxy conflict to Israel" is a non-sentence. If the "war brought the proxy conflict to Israel" then by definition the war is or has become part of the proxy conflict. PrimaPrime (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hamas incursion is verified as having nothing to do with Iran (that's in the Foreign Policy article above - "U.S. and Israeli officials have stated there is no evidence directly linking Iran to the attack, and some U.S. intelligence sources have suggested that Iranian leaders were caught off-guard.") then to argue that the subsequent incursion by Israel is part of a proxy war with Iran is ludicrous. The logic that Iran supports Hamas so it is part of proxy war is faulty, it requires at least active participation, that's why the situation is not part of an Iran US proxy war, at least not atm. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Also the article clearly mentions that spillover fighting with supposed Iranian proxies is spillover fighting, and not the war in itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The claims of unnamed US and Israeli officials now count as "verified" to you? We also have claims in the WSJ to the contrary. [13][14]
And of course, saying this war forms part of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict is not the same thing as saying Hamas started it on direct orders from Iran. The bar certainly cannot be the "active participation" of Iranian armed forces, it's a proxy conflict.
The fact is we have multiple reliable sources contextualizing the war within the context of the proxy conflict. This is not mere "logic that Iran supports Hamas so it is part of proxy war" (i.e. SYNTH). This is literally what sources say:
Hamas brought the proxy war to Israeli soil. Tehran's brinkmanship with Israel spread from Gaza.
In response to this, all I see are frivolous attempts at hair-splitting. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Iran asked Hamas to start or continue the conflict, therefore no evidence of their being a proxy for Iran. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
That is neither the issue at hand, the definition of a proxy, or an argument grounded in any kind of Wikipedia policy. Sources say Hamas brought the proxy conflict to Israeli soil, and it spread beyond Gaza. Your reason for excluding this information? PrimaPrime (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
"Hamas brought the proxy war to Israeli soil. Tehran's brinkmanship with Israel spread from Gaza." does not signify a proxy war in Gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The proxy war could not have been "brought" by Hamas "to Israeli soil" or "spread further from the tiny Mediterranean enclave" if it was not in Gaza to begin with. This is approaching "didn't hear that" territory. Words in the English language do not cease to mean what they mean just because we may want them to. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
We can say that this is part of Iran proxy war with US per NYT Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
...and with Israel.
  • "For all the fears of an outbreak of fighting in the Middle East that could draw the United States, Israel and Iran into direct combat"
  • "The whole purpose of the Iranian proxies, they argue, is to find a way to punch at Israel and the United States without setting off the kind of war Tehran wants to avoid"
  • "Iran has pushed its proxies to make trouble for the American military and to pressure Israel and the West"
PrimaPrime (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The proxy argument refers to Iran's making use of proxies to stir the pot, but Hamas is not a proxy for Iran in this war. Houthis, Hezbollah, yes. So it is not applicable here. The material can be added to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict article and the Iran-US proxy conflict except the latter doesn't exist, so Iran US relations or some other relevant place. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you know of any sources which state that Hamas is not acting as a proxy for Iran in this war, in any way, contrary to the sources that do state that?
Again, this is a different issue from direct responsibility for ordering October 7, although even then there is disagreement. Either way Hamas can act - and according to sources is acting - as a proxy for Iran in the grand scheme of this war, which is what this article is about. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I just pointed to foreign policy article, it says quite explicitly that Iran had nothing to do with starting this war and were even surprised by it. There are other sources saying the same. Iran then supporting Hamas afterwards does not suddenly turn Hamas into a proxy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Or the Guardian "No evidence yet of Iran link to Hamas attack, says Israeli military" Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually looking more closely at the article, it is all over the place on this issue, needs sorting out in general. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Iran supporting Hamas afterwards by definition turns it into a proxy...and of course it was supporting Hamas before. So for the umpteenth time, it's irrelevant whether Iran directly ordered Hamas to start the war. The most immediate cause of the Indochinese wars was French occupation but they were still a US-USSR proxy conflict. Drop the red herring. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Iran supporting Hamas afterwards by definition turns it into a proxy Nope, otherwise every time anyone supported anyone they are automatically prodiucing a proxy, which is nonsense. The ordinary meaning of proxy is the giving of authority to someone to act on their behalf, which Iran has plainly not done with Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
A proxy war is defined as an armed conflict between two belligerents in which at least one party is a non-state actor, supported by an external power.
"Iran has pushed its proxies to make trouble for the American military and to pressure Israel and the West" sounds like giving them authority to me in any case. In fact you have conceded that direct responsibility for ordering October 7 is a red herring, what matters is the overall relationship between the two actors. And of course, what can be verified in reliable sources irrespective of what any one of us considers the ultimate "truth".
You simply have zero arguments against inclusion. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, consensus is against you right now, so suggest you open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Now why would I waste any more of my time on that? Enjoy your "consensus" that sources don't say what they say in plain English. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I second @Selfstudier, also because of this or this. — kashmīrī TALK 17:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Honestly at this point this is definitely original research by citing the definition of proxy war, rather than just giving one RS that says explicitly that the war with Hamas in part of of the proxy conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Your response to being given multiple RS that explicitly link this war to the proxy conflict was to engage in incomprehensible hair-splitting and goalpost-shifting. Here are some more for you to ignore:

  • "Both Hamas and Iran have publicly acknowledged a strategic partnership. They hold separate goals in the decades-long conflict with Jerusalem, but those aims appear to have aligned during the early Saturday attack, which has left hundreds dead in Israel and fighting still flaring up in the south near Gaza. Iran has for years been fighting a shadow war against Israel through proxy groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and others." [15]
  • "Hamas's surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7 has sparked numerous questions...But the latest war should not have been entirely unexpected. For years, Hamas has been one of the primary vehicles supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its strategy of confronting Israel on multiple fronts, with at least three fronts established since the 1980s." [16]
  • "Hamas, which controls the strip and is a rare Sunni Muslim organization among mostly Shiite militants, catapulted Iran and its allies back onto the global radar on Oct. 7 with a brutal cross-border attack on Israel." [17]
  • "Many observers, however, see Iran's primary goal more as waging a proxy war from afar by supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad, thereby forcing Israel into a de facto two-front war." [18]
  • "The various militias and terrorist groups that Tehran nurtures have allowed it to indirectly evict America from Iraq, sustain the Assad family in Syria and, on Oct. 7, help inflict a deeply traumatizing attack on the Jewish state." [19]
PrimaPrime (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
These are all sentences which you are using to synthesize that they mean that the war is a proxy war. There is no explicit mention anywhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Some explicit mentions in bold for your convenience:

  • "Many observers, however, see Iran's primary goal more as waging a 'proxy war from afar by supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad, thereby forcing Israel into a de facto two-front war."
  • "Already, Hamas has succeeded in bringing the proxy war between Iran and Israel—typically fought in Lebanon and Syria—to Israeli soil."
Your removals are borderline vandalism. PrimaPrime (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I thought you weren't going to waste more time on this? Kindly start a RFC if you wish to argue against consensus at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I've read the entire thread, and am content to accept that the Reliable Sources are clear the conflict is a Proxy War.
@Selfstudier, @Kashmiri and @Makeandtoss you have not achieved any kind of consensus here. At all. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, there may well be no consensus, in which it case it stays out. I still fail to see how one can reconcile proxy war for this conflict with top drawer sourcing confirming that Iran had no knowledge (or was even surprised) by the Hamas attack. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
On 25 June 1950, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel. Doesn't matter whether Beijing was across the details of that particular operation or not, let alone whether they ordered it. That is almost irrelevant. The Korean war was still a proxy war between the Communist bloc and the West. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Victims of oppression and apartheid dared to lift a hand against the oppressor... It's totally unfathomable, sure there must be an evil actor behind it.[sarcasm]
BTW, WP:ONUS is on the editor(s) wishing to add stuff. — kashmīrī TALK 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Not really moving the conversation along is it, randomly quoting articles, which I can do as well as any editor, WP:NOTARG comes to mind, but not sure it really adds a whole lot. Let's go back to actual content. That's our job. Improving this patchy article. The place we're up to is this. There are many excellent reliable sources who have described the conflict as being a Proxy War. They are all listed above. I, and other editors above, can see that, without this dimension being sketched out, the article will be the poorer for it. I believe it's time that we simply crack on and include the relevant content. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection to saying that Iran is in a proxy war with the US. And the sources do not describe this conflict as a proxy war. How could they if Iran had no idea about the attack to begin with? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Except they do. Your novel personal opinion to the contrary is irrelevant. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The RFC option continues to be available, The one you said you did not want to waste time on, but you seem quite content to continue wasting time bludgeoning this discussion, where the consensus continues to be against. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
You're mistaken to say the consensus is against anyone. There is no consensus here. Not yet. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Try to remain civil. XeCyranium (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_37&oldid=1205933957"