Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox

Number of militants killed

I view the figure of 17,000 militants killed as coming under WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It should be removed or directly attributed inline to the IDF and not using a note. If other figures from non-Israeli sources were added to form a range it would be okay to put it in a note I think like for other things. One can easily see it is a stupid figure. Assuming the Gaza figures for identified casualties are something like correct and that deaths are either random collateral or Hamas men with no mistakes then approx (11000-5320) = 5680 of the identified 28185 killed would be Hamas assuming the same number of civilian men are killed at random as women. plus we'll add a 1/50 from the random number as being Hamas anyway. This gives 5680 + (28185-5680)/50 = 6130 out of 28185, or if we count 10000 under the rubble (6130/28185)*(40861+10000) = 11061 Hamas killed as a first estimate. I'm sure there's lots of ways to get it up or down some amount but I think WP:EXTRAORDINARY covers the IDF claim of 17,000. NadVolum (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This is original research, and flawed. (For example, many of the militants killed are young, unmarried men, so the widow part is irrelevant.) The figure of 17,000 seems reasonable to me, and I'll provide sources later. I didn't find any reliable sources refuting it. Gabi S. (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mention widows above. Yes it is original research - showing the figure is extraordinary. That is why for instance the BBC and others talk about Israel providing no evidence for their figure. I mentioned them on your talk page. I said they would increase the number of men killed relative to others so they'd increase the number of possible militants, They help to put the figure up as far as I could. I wasn't trying to cut down the possible number of militants killed. Try and find a friend with a feel for statistics or maths if you don't have any. NadVolum (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The figure of 17,000 militants killed is not extraordinary. I'm sorry that it takes some time, but I'll provide sources that support the reliability of this data. Gabi S. (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I can wait. NadVolum (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The numbers provided by IDF are not arbitrary, but based on examination of each attack. The attacks are not random, but based on intelligence and directed at Hamas militants, mainly officials. They gather information on each official, which is identified by name. As part of the intelligence gathering process, information and name identification of their assistants is also completed. After each ground or aerial attack, IDF soldiers count the number of armed men killed, regardless of organization, they can be Hamas or Jihad or anyone carrying a weapon.

You can see this process in war reports, for example this one [1] says that military intelligence identified a building with hundreds of Hamas militants. At the start of the operation, residents were allowed to exit the building, while those identified as Hamas militants were arrested. Afterwards the building was struck. Another example is this report [2] where the target was a Hamas sniper, and after the attack 20 other armed militants were counted among the dead.

Additional sources point toward reliability of IDF figures. I’ve not seen any research disputing these figures, and they are quoted in reports of reliable organizations, such as the Institute for National Security Studies. Hamas attacks on Israel during the last months are sporadic, as they lost many commanders and large numbers of armed fighters. According to a report from June 2024 [3], Hamas has seen about half its forces wiped out. It says that Hamas forces were reduced to between 9,000 and 12,000 fighters, down from estimates of 20,000-25,000 before the conflict. According to Israel, Hamas forces were estimated to be 30,000 before the conflict, and by September 2024 more than half its forces were killed, thus the 17,000 figure makes sense and is not exaggerated. Gabi S. (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those references talk about the number of militants killed, only about estimating the number of militants left in Gaza. Israel has detained a huge number of people. Read the ynet reference and see what it actually says. It is hard to know exactly how many Israel detains as it refuses to release details but it is at least 9,500 and I think it may be about 13,000 - and it assuumes most are militants. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The numbers make sense. Regarding the detainees, there are currently about 9,623 Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons, but there were already 5,088 detainees in September 2023 (before the war) and among those added are also Palestinians from the West Bank, not only from Gaza. Your estimate of 13,000 is original research, but even as such it seems not far from the IDF numbers, so I wouldn't classify it as extraordinary. Gabi S. (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You'd know the Israeli figures are just ridiculous if you were able to actually think with numbers. Didn't you read what the IDF said in ynet? And when they talk about their intelligence helping in killing commanders they very often mean dropping a big bomb on the apartment block where the family live. "Israel Gaza: Checking Israel's claim to have killed 10,000 Hamas fighters". BBC News. 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-09-20. is BBC assessment from the end of February of their claims from then. As opposed to those figures above they actually explain what they do. It is quit typical for people in a war to claim double the number of kills. NadVolum (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC article is flawed, but it has some important insights. First of all, the 8,000 IDF estimate from December 2023 is based on intelligence, interrogations and examination of satellite photographs. So claims like "Israel hasn't provided any evidence" are gone out the window. One Hamas official had admitted 6,000 fighters had been killed, but later denied it. And one of the main flaws is that all of these estimates ignore 1,600 additional armed militants that were killed inside Israel on the bloody October 7 massacre. Yes, I can think with numbers. They align. Gabi S. (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to think with numbers you would be able to point to some flaw in what I said at first - and you definitely would never have tried pushed Abraham Wyner's rubbish. Unless there's some other reason you pushed that. NadVolum (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I showed consistency and reliability in IDF reports of numbers of Hamas militants killed. There is no source that claims otherwise. I also quoted a source that refutes the claim "they are providing no evidence for their figure." I don't see any reason to go further than that. Gabi S. (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is the IDF, no evidence is given! Reliable sources all say the figure is given without evidence and even the Jewish papers just attribute it to the IDF. Just saying you showed consistency and reliability in the IDF figures is not the same as actually doing it. Going back to when they were claiming 14000 militants and 16000 civilians that goes badly against the numbers identified so far - one would need to say practically every man and thousands of women and children were Hamas to get that ratio. That is why the figure is extraordinary. NadVolum (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the source quoted above, the number is based on intelligence, interrogations and examination of satellite photographs. What evidence do you need more than that? Do you expect IDF to show you the intelligence reports, interrogation transcripts and military satellite photographs? The current estimated number of militants killed is 17,000, which makes sense and is close to other estimates. Gabi S. (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I expect a reliable source or some checking rather than the source for the confirmation of an extraordinary 'fact' to be the crowd who said it and have no independent evidence. And even what they say is not exactly believable. From interrogations where torture is alleged? From bomb craters where they hope to kill people in a group in a tunnel beneath? From knocking down whole buildings with 2000lb bombs? Their precise strike in Beirut they just did where they had a visible target killed 12 Hezbullah - but the total including women and children was 37. That is not some 'Gold standard' even when conditions were best. I might accept all that with a shrug if they came up with some halfway credible figure but they did not. NadVolum (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Gaza Health Ministry

(Moved from User talk:Gabi S.)

Please do not stick in something saying well suppoprted figures are extraordinary. That is disruptive. I believe you put that in because I put in that the IDF figures for militants killed was extraordinary. If you think the figures from the IDF are not extraordinary explain why in the talk page or provide an independent source that confirms they are a reliable source for that figure. Even better try and find other sources for estimates of militants killed. NadVolum (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The numbers provided by Hamas were assessed as reasonable by reliable independent sources in the early stages of the war, when they were far lower. The current numbers are not verified by any other agency and might be, well, extraordinary. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Some sources with similar claims: [4], [5], [6]. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

They have been discussed on the talk page for the Gaza Health Ministry and on the reliable sources noticeboard and are rubbish. The Abraham Wyner one is partcularly bad as he is a professor of statistics. I supported including him as he is academically qualified for the task, plus also rebuttals by four academicss includng two statisticians. However an RfC removed him as his stuff was not peer reviewed but an opinion piece and contradicted reliable sources. One of the statistics professors Joshua Loftus said it was one of the worst abuses of statistics he had ever seen. NadVolum (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also 'might be extraordinary' is not the same as patently extraordinary. I was being conservative and tried to push the figure up as far as I could from the numbers. The number of men identified may actually be on the high side compared to women and children because identification helps with getting state aid for widows. Also I don't really suppose Israel is actually that good at identifying militants as I assumed there. And I got the figure out of 50,000 not 40,000. Israel may be just quietly burying militants without telling anyone but the widows do not have to actually show a body, just get their claim checked as reasonable by a court. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your claims. Gabi S. (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest discussion was at Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#RfC - criticism of Abraham Wyner's article. The others don't affect much but are also discussed in the various discussions. What have you got to show the Israeli figures have any connection to reality? You do know the IDF themselves have used the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry [7]? NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

IDF used to do it in January. The current reported numbers are not verified by any other agency and might be actually lower. Again you resort to original research to prove yor point, because there are no sources that can back your claims. Gabi S. (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what claims you're talking about or what type of evidence you would take any notice of but here's a Sky source [8], and an expert source [9] assess the Gaza Health Ministry figures as quite reliable. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability aside, I think that the numbers provided by Hamas should be attributed to the Gaza Health Ministry since they are the sole source for these figures. Gabi S. (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is the point. See "Harrowing 649-page document names every Palestinian killed by Israel in Gaza amid 'genocide denial'". The New Arab. 16 September 2024. Retrieved 17 September 2024.. Israel has those id's, if a lot of them are still alive and the Israelis though the figures were made up I'm sure they'd have tracked some down by now. NadVolum (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've seen the reports, and understand their meaning. Still, the Gaza Health Ministry is the one and only source for numbers of victims in Gaza, so it would be better to attribute the infobox numbers to the source. Gabi S. (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:INTEXT. The note attributes the data. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

These are interesting guidelines. Check this example:

Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

Y The sun sets in the west each evening.

Accordingly, since the Gaza Health Ministry is the one and only source for numbers of victims in Gaza, it must be clearly attributed as such. Taking the figure at face value is misleading. Gabi S. (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not the only thing there and what you say is a fallacy of reasoning. A implies B does not lead to not A implies not B. NadVolum (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

Change title “Israel Hamas war” to “Operation swords of iron” 2600:1011:B134:D62D:6950:E0EC:6052:7E57 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To include the battle in the north, this article should really have a title change “The swords of iron war” 2600:1011:B134:D62D:6950:E0EC:6052:7E57 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia names are based on reliable sources rather than the names used by parties to the conflict. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the name given by reliable sources to this war? Is there really a need to separate between Israel–Hamas war that started on October 7, and the Israel–Hezbollah conflict that started on October 8? Gabi S. (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

A suggestion was made here to change inline text phrasing from A to B. To change any article titles themselves, an RfC for a move discussion would need to be made by an editor with WP:ECP. Relevant policies are mentioned in WP:Article title and for this context/area, WP:COMMON, WP:CONCISE and WP:NEUTRAL have been frequently used. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should just wait for a change in the main article name this template is used in before thinking about a change here. NadVolum (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

17,000 militants killed (figure given by IDF)

Why is this specific information from the footnotes exclusively highlighted in the main infobox, while other relevant details, such as the casualties of women and children, are omitted? Additionally, why hasn't the editor included the varying estimates of militant fatalities provided by US intelligence and Euromed, which differ from the IDF's claims?

Also the claim of 17,000 figure is not supported by evidence according to mainstream news reports, so this should be mentioned along this figure.

Other editors have also raised concern over this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israel–Hamas_war_infobox#Number_of_militants_killed

Hu741f4 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is part of Wikipedia's policy of inline attribution of anything that can't be said in Wikipedia's voice. The other numbers in the template have enough evidence that though they may not be very accurate they are fairly good and reliable. As you say those sources you gave all attribute it inline and say no evidence is given, Wikipedia is just basically doing the same thing. If you can get something halfway reasonable including the Euro-Med and US intelligence and put them in as a range I guess that could go in with the attributions just in the footnote. People are very interested in the figure. However I haven't seen any recent figures from those other sources. NadVolum (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hu741f4, a note has to be added wherever the 17,000 figure is cited to say that no evidence for it has been provided per RS:

The 17,000 figure is entirely fabricated by Israel. This has nothing to do with "fog of war" and "bias", the number is randomly made up and no evidence at all has been provided for it (unlike for the Ministry of Health figures).

Many RS have reported this, and it should be reflected whenever the figure is cited by for example adding "media have reported that no evidence has been provided for this figure".

The fighting has also killed 329 Israeli soldiers. The Israeli military claims that over 17,000 Hamas fighters are among those killed in Gaza but has not provided evidence.[13]

Wikipedia is not doing the same thing by citing it inline as those outlets, because they explicitly say no evidence for it has been provided, while right now on here the figure is cited with the "per Israel" attribution and the Times of Israel as the source for it that also does not mention the lack of evidence for it, and there is no mention at all of the figure having no evidence behind it on the page itself.

That should be changed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum Do you have anything to say? What do you think about either keeping this 17,000 figure in the footnotes along with other estimates and removing it from main infobox or mentioning "claimed by Israel without evidence" if it has to stay in the main infobox. Hu741f4 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Another user insists the figure has to go in to the main part. My preferred choice would be to have a range from a few estimates then the attribution to the various sources could be put in the note attached. But we haven't had anybody else giving a figure in the last few months that I know of. I thought just specifically attributing it inline was about the minimum needed and any more would be excessive. Perhaps it would be better to change the source to one that says that no evidence has been given. I'm unhappy even attributing it to the IDF but that's what the source says - it is almost certainly a Netanyahu invention and the IDF aren't that stupid. All that lot like Trump Bolsinaro Putin etc do that these days I'm afraid. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Coming from Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#17,000_militants_killed: Here's a source that provides more context on Israel's estimations for combatants killed than a brief mention of "no evidence."[10] According to Reuters, Israel bases its estimates on a combination of counting bodies on the battlefield, intercepts of Hamas communications and intelligence assessments of personnel in targets that were destroyed. Now, Israel has not provided these assessments to new outlets, so they haven't independently verified the results, which is why many of them say "no evidence has been provided." I don't see a need for independent verification of these numbers, however, as long as this figure is called an estimate, is attributed to the IDF, and we cite RS reporting it.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If you check it is in the infobox. The only difference is that is attributed inline to the IDF rather than the attribution being in a note. That is because it is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. NadVolum (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Civilian_to_military_ratio has just had a table added to the top with estimates. I think this gives a reasonable basis for putting in a range of estimates into the main infobox display. The 17,000 figure is pretty thoroughly debunked there. NadVolum (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Indirect deaths

It seems the indiret deaths in Gaza are estimated to be not much higher according to Palesine Number of Natural Deaths in Gaza Increased by More Than Six times Due to Israeli Aggression. That comes to about 51,000 seemingly. The average age is quite low which would reduce the natural death rate substantially. I believe the expected natural deaths would be about 8,000 per year and its about a year so that would mean about 43,000 extra deaths not directly due to bombs or shooting. NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Strip status

I remember adding "Israeli-occupied" to before Gaza Strip in the location in the infobox maybe a year back and it was reverted based on the argument that the Gaza Strip is not occupied since Israel had withdrawn from it in 2005. This argument has been recently debunked by the July ruling of the International Court of Justice, which clarified that the existence of a military occupation does not depend on the presence of military forces within a territory, but rather on the "whether its authority has been established and can be exercised." [11] Can we now restore this important piece of information to the infobox? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Does that really add anything useful to the infobox? That is a jargon meaning rather than something that would appear in a newspaper in a sense a reader understands. It could go into an article about the war and about Gaza itself with a description of what it means. NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does, it shows that Israel was already occupying the Gaza Strip, when it invaded again in the past year. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean by jargon. You'll get people saying it didn't have Israeli troops in it and have to stick in explanations about it that they won't look at before they complain. Can't you put it in simple straightforward term? An infobox espaecially should not be for jargonistas. NadVolum (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Occupation is not jargon, it is a commonly known word. We can add ICJ’s elaboration in a footnote. This would be a perfect middle ground solution. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A jargon word having common uses makes it even worse. It's like a mathematician using the word group about a Rubik's cube without explaining what it means. NadVolum (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents on behalf of Israel

Why is it that Israel don't have any of their Western supporters listed here? Most Western countries have been providing funding and supplies to Israel such as the EU, USA and the UK. These goverments are simply party to the conflict and therefore should be listed as so. Why are they not listed? Lf8u2 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of Israel’s western allies in the infobox is important, especially because the US, UK and France have engaged in belligerent actions by shooting down Iranian missiles and (in the case of the US and UK,) bombing Yemen. The US has also flown UAVs and reconnaissance planes over Gaza and advised Israel’s hostage rescue operations, and has skirmished with the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Without the inclusion of these nations, the infobox gives the misleading impression that Israel is fighting entirely by itself when in reality, at least three of Israel’s most prominent arms suppliers have taken belligerent actions and Gallant and others in the IDF command have said that Israel could not carry out the war without western arms and assistance. When I first added Israel’s suppliers to the infobox, my edit was reverted because apparently the inclusion of “supported by” in the belligerent parameter was deprecated in a 2023 discussion. I wasn’t part of the discussion and I don’t agree with that result (at least as it applies to this page; I understand that certain infoboxes about historical conflicts were getting cluttered due to conflicting and confusing accounts of supporting powers). I later added the US, UK and France as belligerents in an attempt to compromise with that consensus while keeping the infobox accurate but frankly I think that the infobox as it currently stands with the US, UK, France and Germany listed as allies, supporters or suppliers makes more sense since the bulk of their influence on the war has been through military aid rather than belligerent actions. Unbandito (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lack of clarity on source for Lebanon and Syria’s total killed and missing figure

The figure of 67,528+ doesn’t seem to have a source. Looking at the related sources there is nothing that would add up to this figure. When searching Google for “israel 67528”, “lebanon 67528”, and “syria 67528”, this page is the only one that cites this figure. Where did this number come from? 159.196.170.113 (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I added that in the battlebox. Its basically a total of the current numbers:

Total is derived from taking

The current number of killed in Gaza

The current number of missing in Gaza

The current number of killed in West Bank

The current number of militants killed inside Israel

The current number of killed in Lebanon

The current number of killed in Syria Mercenary2k (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Request For Comments regarding an addition of deaths due to starvation and diseases

Hello.

I had the impression that the following edit had previously been accepted in the main talk page section for this issue, but BilledMammal reverted it with a comment regarding that I need an accepted RFC first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIsrael%E2%80%93Hamas_war_infobox&diff=1251653365&oldid=1251632589

As I stated elsewhere:

"According to a letter sent to President Joseph R. Biden, Vice President Kamala D. Harris, and others on October 2, 2024 by 99 American healthcare workers who have served in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, and cited in a study from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, based on starvation standards by the United States-funded Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, according to the most conservative estimate that they could calculate based on the available data, at least 62,413 people in Gaza have thus far died from starvation, most of them young children, as well as at least 5,000 estimated deaths from lack of access to care for chronic diseases."

So I request for comments regarding if this information is:

• A: Acceptable to add.

• B: Acceptable to add with modifications. (Please clarify what should be modified.)

• C: Not acceptable to add.

David A (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally obviously support Option A. David A (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to follow the instructions at WP:RFC, especially WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

As for the question itself, it’s WP:UNDUE emphasis. This isn’t a figure deemed significant by reliable sources, with almost no coverage of it, and it would be an NPOV violation for us to deem it so significant as to include it in the lede or infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have to explain the context for my question somehow, and this was the best summary of the content of the references that I could come up with earlier.

What should I say instead more specifically? David A (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's okay to mention somewhere with attribution, but we should wait for more secondary analysis (by experts looking at the methodology, not casual mentions by journalists) before considering inclusion in the lede or infobox.

Probably a bit early for an RFC as well, since this is a recent development which will more sources will add color to in the coming weeks. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Add America as an Israeli ally, like Iran is for Hamas

Copying the following from the Israel-hamas War talk page

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) 10:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I still think that your reasoning seems to make sense here. David A (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to add it here as technically this proposal will only apply here on the infoboks Genabab (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. David A (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand from reading the sources, the US troop deployment has little, if anything, to do with Hamas. Instead, it was a response to a possible Iranian strike as part of the broader 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. Unless reliable sources explicitly state that the US is a belligerent in the Israel–Hamas war, adding the US to the list would be like adding Japan to the infobox at Western Front (World War II). - ZLEA _T\^C 16:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually it would be like adding Iran to "Allies in other theatres" for Hamas.

Which is currently the case.

Because Iran bombed Israel in reaction to:

1. Israel attacking Hezbollah

2. Israel bombing their embassy in syria.

so neither of these involve Hamas. But its still there. If so, why not America? Genabab (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps the US should be included in an "Allies in other theaters" section like Iran rather than just "Allies". - ZLEA _T\^C 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That might be a better idea then, yes. David A (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the US has taken belligerent and support actions in multiple theaters. In addition to shooting down Iranian missiles, it has flown reconnaissance drones over Gaza, provided intelligence support to Israeli's hostage rescue operation in Nuseirat, and bombed Yemen. The UK has also flown over Gaza and participated in Operation Prosperity Guardian. This is not to mention that, as @Lf8u2 and I discussed in a previous topic, the military aid provided to Israel by its Western allies has been essential to the continuation of the war. The simplest and most accurate way to put it is that the countries currently in the infobox are Israel's allies. They've been described as such throughout the literature on the war. Unbandito (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then, I stand corrected. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for the editors involved in the other discussion that haven't participated here: (@Hu741f4 and PhotogenicScientist:)... let's try to keep it in one place.

The US is actively giving intel to Israel (xxxxxxxxxxx), was involved in shooting down Iran missiles (xxxxxxxx) and planning Sinwar's assassination (xxx) and are bombing countries on behalf of Israel like Yemen (xxxxxxx) and Syria (xxxx). They also have people and drones on the ground (xxxxxxx). And adding on what Genabab mentioned, Iran's retaliation was in response to the bombing of the embassy complex and the assassination of Nasrallah (xxx). Iran was also considered an ally long before they sent those missiles because they support Hamas financially and logistically. Is that not the case for the US and Israel? On top of everything else, the well documented provision of weapons and billion of dollars from the US that make it possible for Israel to keep doing what they do don't count? At this point it is ridiculous to not consider the US an active participant. What else do we need? - Ïvana (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

These references are more than enough to prove why the US should be listed as an active participant in the infobox. Iran's retaliation is unrelated to the "active part" of the war between Israel and Hamas or war between Israel and Hezbollah. The retaliation wasn't done to directly support any Hamas combat, assault, operation, or defense against Israel. They were fighting their own war. In the case of the US, you can clearly see that all these are being done to directly support the offensive of Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah. Hu741f4 (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. David A (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is one large interrelated conflict with the Axis of Resisting (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Iran, Syria and others) on one side and Israel on the other. The "conflicts" are all one and the same, the Houthis and Hezobllah attacked Israel to open up other fronts in the conflict and take pressure off Gaza. They have admitted this themselves. Iran attacked Israel as part of the same conflict. There are a host of reliable sources which confirm same. See [[12]], [[13]] and [[14]]. Given its participation in combat in both Israel and the Red Sea, America is certainly a belligerent in said conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not mistake the way we have broken down this conflict on Wikipedia (largely for pragmatic reasons) for a sort of empirical truth about it. Sources are increasingly acknowledging the multi-front conflict as a singular war (see: CNN's liveblog, titled Live updates on the war in the Middle East, Times of Israel's "Israel at War" banner, Al Jazeera's liveblog, which has long included reports from Lebanon, Yemen and Iran if they are related to the war in Gaza, and Foreign Affairs.) and unless it ends very soon, I find it highly likely that future historians will increasingly view this as a singular conflict with multiple theaters. Earlier in the thread, someone said that including Israel's allies in other theaters would be like including Japan as a belligerent on the Western Front, and I think this exemplifies the problem with the way these pages are arranged. This page is the closest thing we have for this conflict to an overarching World War 2 page, but editors can't agree as to whether it should serve as the parent page for all articles about the rest of the theaters in the war or as just another one of them. Imo, the decentralized nature of the pages about this conflict can't end soon enough. We should centralize information about the entire multi-front war on this page (and by extension, in this infobox) as soon as the sources permit us to do so. Unbandito (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it highly likely that future historians will increasingly view this as a singular conflict with multiple theaters. WP:CRYSTALBALL. For now, what we have to work with here is an article about "an armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups." And we have other articles, like Red Sea crisis, which cover other aspects of this Middle east conflict (wouldn't you know it - the US is already listed as a Belligerent in the infobox at that article, presumably for their actions in Yemen linked above.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to content in articles. It's perfectly reasonable to take note of trends and anticipate their future trajectories in talk page discussions. Given the trend I have noted and the many historical examples of conflicts being grouped together in hindsight, we should monitor developments around the categorization of the war(s) and, keeping WP:CRYSTALBALL in mind, We should centralize information about the entire multi-front war on this page (and by extension, in this infobox) as soon as the sources permit us to do so. Unbandito (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

A draft page at Draft:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) is being made to replace the Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war page, and should be able to serve this function once it enters mainspace. I do believe there is merit in having a separate page for the Israel–Hamas theater of the war. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This parameter of the infobox is for "combatants", and I don't see the US' participation rising to the level of being listed as a combatant. The only combat action referred to above that they've initiated is bombing of Houthi rebels in Yemen - which was done because they keep shooting missiles at international shipping lanes. Setting up troops in defensive positions and shooting down incoming missiles (especially in the context of Israel, which sees missiles being fired into its territory from various directions quite regularly) is not what I would call engaging in combat.

As to the support they provide to Israel, there's been consensus to generally leave out "Supporters of combatants" from conflict infoboxes, when the support in question are things like supplying weapons or providing intel. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Engaging in warfare with missiles and drones is combat. The US Navy has in fact issued combat action ribbons to sailors who participated in combat operations where said drones and missiles were shot down. See here [15].XavierGreen (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, ribbons for "sailors who have battled Iran-backed Houthi rebels off Yemen since the fall", intercepting "attack drones and rockets fired at military and commercial vessels in the region." The very conflict I addressed above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Attacks on the Houthis in Yemen have involved Australia, Canada, Bahrain, the UK and the Netherlands. [16][17] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Guess we should add those 5 countries as Allies with Israel as well, eh? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not just for action with the Houthis, but also for actions against the Iranians as well. See here [18]. All said actions are part of the same conflict. As the US is engaged in combat operations as part of the war, it is a belligerent and not a mere "supporter".XavierGreen (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You mean "helping to shoot down Iran's April 14 attack on Israel." I addressed that already as well. Do you have anything new to ask me? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As much as I love the use of an info-box I have to agree with the consensus. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

What's with the X? Never seen it on any war before this normally it's a cross 217.8.6.133 (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

X is for an assassination while the cross is for killed in action. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

• What I think should be changed:

Note [s], removing "202 Syrian refugees killed by Israeli Armed Forces":

−

(per [[Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]]) ... * 202 Syrian refugees killed by Israeli Armed Forces

+

(per [[Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]]) ...

• Why it should be changed:

The "202 Syrian refugees killed by Israeli Armed Forces" were killed in Lebanon, not in Syria (the subject of this note).

• References supporting the possible change:

The currently used reference - SOHR

References

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: that's not a simple edit request. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis in aggregation

The infobox reads Total killed and missing: 67,674. @Mercenary2k: The note you added does help clarify the intent, but this aggregation still seems problematic for a few reasons:

• Estimates of missing are all over the place. Our own missing number mentions three estimates: 6.4k, 10k and 20k. What basis do we have for picking one over others?
• The 20k estimate seems to include children "separated from family members", which isn't what is normally meant by "missing".
• An estimate of 20k has a single significant digit; reporting the total as 67,674 implies precision that isn't in the underlying estimate.
• It's not obvious that this is the proper way to aggregate without double counting. Missing people can be confirmed dead or presumed dead later. Maybe it's right, but it's too messy to fall under WP:CALC so it seems like synthesis.

I see a few alternative options - we could remove the aggregation altogether or change it to a "total killed" figure, with or without changing the Israel side to match. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Jordan should be removed from Allies infobox, and Iraq as well

To attribute Jordan or Iraq as Hamas allies on an inference from two episodes where people from Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel is ridiculous Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable sentiment. David A (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)