Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox

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."[1] 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)

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 [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]]. 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)

Agreed on both counts. No need to force everything about this conflict into this article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:24, 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 [5].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. [6][7] 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)

Yes. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not just for action with the Houthis, but also for actions against the Iranians as well. See here [8]. 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)

No, I must not agree with the consensus. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We should note that the precise function of a combatant does not (in most cases) determine whether or not they are one. The US has armed individuals - in uniform - contributing to the conflict. Per the International Committee of the Red Cross:

Contemporary terminology however does not make any distinction according to the primary role of the members of the armed forces, and consequently virtually all members are combatants. Only military medical and religious personnel are members of armed forces but not combatants and they do not become prisoners-of-war if they fall into the power of the enemy.

(From here)

Because members of the armed forces of the United States are involved, as @Ïvana extensively explained, there is more than enough of a case to make that they are combatants. As @PhotogenicScientist notes, we might as well also include Australia, Canada, Bahrain, the UK and the Netherlands here, because they have members of their military involved in the conflict. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The portion of the Red Cross definition you cite is primarily focused on determining "combatant vs noncombatant" individuals in active war zones. More applicable to this case here, is whether an armed forces is a combatant party in the conflict. From that same site, "combatants are members of the armed forces of a party. The main feature of their status is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities." As I've said, defending an ally and shooting down incoming attacks doesn't strike me as a hostile action. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well:

Hostilities: The term refers the physical, armed clashes between conflict parties. A detailed set of rules regulates the way in which parties can use force against their enemies: the rules on the conduct of hostilities.

The US and etc are participating in physical, armed clashes between conflict parties. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Against the Houthis in the Red Sea crisis, sure.

In this war in Gaza? Haven't seen any examples yet. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Here as discussed elsewhere, plus this for the UK and UK/US. I would also argue that since the Houthis are listed as "allies in other theatres", that itself is more than enough justification for saying that the US and etc are participating. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You cannot submit "flying spy planes" as evidence of "physical, armed clashes between conflict parties."

And this isn't an article about every military action in the Middle east against any of the parties to this war in Gaza - if you're looking for that, we've got Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Ïvana @Genabab and others that at least the US, and also other Western nations that meet the requisite criteria should be listed as their allies. Their support extends from mere weapons supplies and funding to intelligence and active military engagements on their behalf. However to avoid ending up with too long a list, I think it is best to view it as a set of criteria that need to be met in conjunction with one another. So one factor by itself does not suffice. From what I can tell based on RS only the US and United Kingdom fully meet all the criteria, namely 1) Weapons supplies, 2) Funding, 3) Intelligence assistance, 4) Direct military involvement. If others meet the same criteria that can be established through RS and then they can be added too. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Weapons supplies, 2) Funding, 3) Intelligence assistance are all irrelevant to being called a "combatant" - there's been consensus found on this before, and plenty of others here have re-affirmed the sentiment of that consensus. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientistThe problem is America now, by its own admission, has boots on the ground in what reliable sources are calling a combat role. That is more than enough reason to merit their inclusion Genabab (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Which reliable sources would those be? Because from the ones Ivana linked above in support of "people and drones on the ground", I'm not seeing much mention of "engaging in combat" [9] [10] [11]

And we have plenty of editors here of the mind that the manning of the THAAD battery doesn't rise to the level of "combatant." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist

It's listed on the infobocs:

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

"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" Genabab (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, previous editors have listed cases of armed attacks in Yemen and Iraq by America. You have argued (I think?) that this isn't specifically against Hamas so it doesn't count.

I'll remind you however, this argument I made regarding that viewpoint:

"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) 22:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, a single RS using the word "combat" doesn't mean we must call the US a combatant in this conflict. Especially in light of the coverage from other RS that don't use such language [12] [13] [14].

Regarding Iran, they've launched 2 massive belligerent strikes on Israel, each consisting of hundreds of aerial munitions. So yeah, I'd consider them a combatant against Israel here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"1) Weapons supplies, 2) Funding, 3) Intelligence assistance are all irrelevant to being called a "combatant" - there's been consensus found on this before, and plenty of others here have re-affirmed the sentiment of that consensus."

I agree, which is why I stipulated the fourth condition, 4) Direct military involvement. The US and UK have been actively involved in combat on behalf of Israel, bombing targets in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and also participating in the shooting down of Iranian and other missiles.

This is again why all four conditions should be met, as any one by themselves leads to inclusion of actors that are not fitting. If you only have the fourth, then you can include Jordan and Saudi Arabia in it (although they only participated in the anti-missile actions). However, they don't meet the first, second or third condition, so that means they're out. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree [the first 3 criteria are are all irrelevant]

they don't meet the first, second or third condition, so that means they're out

Seriously? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I mean here.

Each of the four criteria are necessary, but not by themselves sufficient for inclusion of a particular actor as being counted as an ally, including per consensus as you noted (the fourth condition has to be met). You are solely interested in the fourth condition, which is fine and as I and others have noted that is also met for the US and UK, but I don't believe that that by itself is a good demarcation point, as it would mean that a case can be made for Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others to be included as well.

So we need better, more accurate criteria, and that's where the first three are important. They too are necessary, but not by themselves sufficient conditions for inclusion. The US and UK meet all four for inclusion, and hence ought to be included. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of people that disagree the first 3 criteria make a country a combatant. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I also do not believe that the first 3 criteria are by themselves sufficient, but they are necessary. All four together meet the necessary and sufficient threshold, and the US and UK meet all four of them, whereas Jordan, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and others do not (as of yet).

The US meets the first three conditions for Ukraine as of now, but not the fourth, even though it comes very close, with RS reporting that US intelligence and military is actively involved guiding Ukrainian missiles and providing strike coordinates. But it's not yet over that line.

When US military personnel start shooting down Russian missiles, and then send air-defenses to Ukraine with US personnel with the explicit mission to shoot them down, will that pass the threshold for you and will you consider them to be a combatant in the war?

Would Israel or the United States consider that to be case if let's say Turkey started shooting down Israeli missiles over Lebanon, and then moved anti-air batteries to Lebanon with Turkish personnel with the mission of shooting them down while also providing military, funding and intelligence support to Hamas and Hezbollah?

I don't think it is at all controversial that Turkey would then be considered an active combatant in the war.

I don't see why the same standard should not also apply to the US and UK. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.RevDoes this mean consensus has been reached? Genabab (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hardly. Since the mention of the prior consensus not to include supporting countries as combatants, I haven't seen any serious challenges to it. And I've seen plenty of people affirming it.

There's been some discussion of the US' belligerent actions against the Houthis, but this is captured at the article for Red Sea crisis. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

> Since the mention of the prior consensus not to include supporting countries as combatants

Honestly? Kind of irrelevant. After all, America is now in combat in Israel. Has 100 soldiers there operating a THAAD system and has engaged in combat before in Yemen, and against Iranian missiles to defend Israel. This, objectively speaking, has long since passed the threshold of "support". Putting boots on the ground is the smoking gun here.

> I haven't seen any serious challenges to it.

Well, see above for one. And I know you listed some sources that don't use that phrasing, they never contradict it. They never go against the framing of American soldiers in combat.

Furthermore, I think @Ïvana's comment is quite a serious challenge, wouldn't you say? It provides many sources for the following issues:

1. America shot down Iranian missiles directly

2. Planned sinwar's assassination along with Israel

3. Have boots on the ground as well as drones operating *inside of Gaza*.

> And I've seen plenty of people affirming it.

This ignores the fact that there are more people doing the opposite... something like 8-9 to the 3-4 who disagree. That should count for something.

> There's been some discussion of the US' belligerent actions against the Houthis, but this is captured at the article for Red Sea crisis.

This argument fails as the same can be said for Iran being listed as an ally to the P-JOR. No one is suggesting Iran be removed. But, what did Iran do to be included? It launched missiles at Israel.

Why did it launch missiles at Israel? Because Israel bombed their embassy in Syria, and the because they invaded Lebanon. None of these have to do with gaza. None of these are related to Hamas. But Iran is still included.

Here is where the comparison kicks in. America has (for the most part, will touch on this in a second), not militarily interfered in Gaza. But it has done so in Yemen, in syria, in Iraq, and against Iran through shooting down its missiles. The deployment of 100 soldiers makes this even more the case. If Iran engaging in activities unrelated to Gaza is enough to warrant them being included in allies to Hamas. There is no consistennt reason why the events I just stated are not enough for America to be included. It's a double standard.

This is strengthened even more when you consider that American drones have been operating in Gaza too. At this point, America's role in Gaza (from the perspective of actions related specifically to Gaza) is more direct than Iran! so, I repeat, why not include America?

Apologies for writing something so long. But I just feel its important to make sure no argument goes forgotten, otherwise everyone's working with incomplete information. Genabab (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've said my piece about plenty of that stuff already - the arguments you raise have absolutely not been forgotten. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientistI don't believe you have? If you can I can't seem to find it.... Certainly nothing about sinwar or Iran or really even most of what I say here. You did respond to points about provisioning weaponry and stuff but... Genabab (talk) 22:20, 2 November 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)

Remove belligerents unrelated to the conflict between Israel and Hamas specifically

Allies from other theaters were added because contributors saw the conflict as interrelated with the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, the Red Sea crisis, and the 2024 Iran-Israel conflict. However, as an overarching page at Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) has now been created for this purpose, I would like to suggest that Israel's allies and Hamas's "Allies in other theaters" be removed from the infobox. I have added a footnote to Israel which has a link to a list of military support given to Israel against Hamas. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea. To try to make sure they're all captured somewhere...

• Lebanon: Hezbollah, Islamic Group, Amal Movement, Syrian Social Nationalist Party in Lebanon, Islamic Azz Brigades (move all to Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present))
• Yemen: Houthi movement (move to Red Sea crisis)
• Iraq: Islamic Resistance in Iraq (move to Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)
  • Cited to a single drone attack in the Mediterranean
• Iran: Iran (keep at this article, considering their two direct assaults on Israel in April and October)
• Jordan: Muslim Brotherhood (keep at this article, since the attack was at the Israeli border, and done "in solidarity with Gaza and in support of the resistance")

Thoughts? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Iran's direct assaults are covered under 2024 Israel-Iran conflict, no need to include in the infobox of this article. As for the rest, they are already covered in the infobox of Middle Eastern crisis (2023-present) (albeit without location to avoid cluttering up the infobox too much) and the other articles you linked, so they are already covered elsewhere. As for the Muslim Brotherhood case, I feel like that is better covered in the Middle Eastern crisis article, as while it is in support of the Israel-Hamas war, I wouldn't consider part of the war, only the broader crisis. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering Iran launched their October strike at Israeli territory and explicitly "in retaliation for Israel's assasination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh...", I think it's safe to say they're a belligerent ally of Hamas in this war. In any case, the "Israel-Hamas war" is plainly the foundation of the Middle East crisis, so I don't see too much harm in having belligerent nations listed as combatants at this article in addition to others, especially if they've participated directly in this theater.

The same goes for the Jordanian allies. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Israel's allies and Hamas's "Allies in other theaters" should be removed from the infobox at least to some extent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2024

• What I think should be changed:

Remove 5 Merkavas destroyed and 50 Merkavas damaged by December 2023.

−

5 Merkavas destroyed by December 2023 50 Merkavas damaged by December 2023

+

• Why it should be changed:

These are incorrect numbers. The numbers are for 2006 Lebanon War (Per Israel) and not for this war.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The reference itself (currently number 118) - Business Insider Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yemen and Iran casualties

Should we add casualties of the Yemen and Iran attacks on Israel and vice versa.

19 Iranian dead, 73 Yemen dead and 2 Israel soldiers and 1 Israeli civilian Mercenary2k (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should the US and UK be added as allies to Israel in the infobox?

Should the US and UK be added as allies in other theaters to Israel in the infobox?

1. Yes for US
2. Yes for US and UK
3. No for both

RFCBefore

Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Option 1 Given the United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war, RS such as this and US blocking of UN ceasefire resolutions, the US is proactively helping its ally to pursue the war, its assistance to Israel is considerably more valuable than Iranian assistance to Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 for the reasons I list in the Discussion section below. I would also be okay with Option 1. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2; as I and others documented, there are numerous examples of US and UK military involvement in several theaters of the war. Both countries self-identify as the ally of Israel. Israel's major arms suppliers, I have in mind Germany here, should be included somehow as well. While I suppose the previous RFC on the inclusion of supporting belligerents in infoboxes in general says we shouldn't, there is a clear majority in the RFCBefore in favor of including supporting belligerents on this page in particular. Unbandito (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 The US support has been pretty definite without letup in every way ever since Biden gave his speech after October 7. The UK support has been far less outspoken and diffident and it hasn't given its usual full support to the US. NadVolum (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Removing my !vote. I don't think much of the allies in other theatres section. A list of associated theatres would be as much as I'd want. NadVolum (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 but okay with Option 2. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 Yes for America. Alongside their activity in the Red sea and iraq, their shooting down of missiles from iran, their usage of drones in Gaza, what really brings them up is that 100 American soldiers have been sent to Israel in what rs' are calling combat roles. They are 100% combatants at this point and it makes complete sense to list them as such. Genabab (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 per United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war and United Kingdom support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. Skitash (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 There have been numerous sub-threads above probing various reasons to include the US as a combatant in the infobox which have ended without compelling reasons to do so. To summarize a few, for anyone new to this talk page:

• There is prior consensus to deprecate the inclusion of ‘Supporting’ countries as allies in this infobox, where the nature of the support is things like supplying weapons or providing intel.

• One definition of “combatant” considered, per the Red Cross, is that combatants are “members of the armed forces of a party. The main feature of their status is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities.”

• The US has initiated combat action only against the Houthis in Yemen, which is covered at our article for the Red Sea crisis, where the US is appropriately listed as an ally

• The US’ defense of Israel in relation to the Gaza theater, including the manning of a THAAD battery, and the shooting down of missiles from Iran, isn’t what I would consider being combative or "belligerent," which is the heading under which this proposal would add these 2 countries.
  • This is backed up in RS, who cover the deployment of the THAAD without mention of combat: [15] [16] [17]

Why we're putting this up to a vote after already hearing the opinions of 15 or so editors above, I'm not quite sure. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This neglects to mention:

1. The nature of support goes deeper than "supplying weapons" and "providing intel" into combat operations

2. America has also imitated combat against Islamic Militias in Iraq and against Iran.

3. None of the listed sources contradict the view of the 100 deployed soldiers being in combat, and other sources like this do say that America is in combat: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/ Genabab (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

combat operations in Gaza? Please provide a source.

America has also initiated(?) combat against Islamic Militias in Iraq and against Iran Yes, they've been doing that since about 2002. Do you have a source that links the relevance of any combat action to this war against Hamas? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, not in Gaza, as I make clear in the sentence right after.

> Yes, they've been doing that since about 2002.

Attacks on Israel in support of Palestine by Iraqi militants have been well-documented as being part of the wider spill over of the Israel-Hamas War. Fundamentally connecting the two.

Doubly so for Iran. Genabab (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And for the spillover of the war, we have Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present).

But you and I have already hashed this out above, haven't we? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, as I don't think any valid argument has been raised in response to those points @PhotogenicScientist Genabab (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about the US attacking Iran, or militias in Iraq, I don't think any RS have been provided to support inclusion. Nor do I find any mention of such attacks at Israel–Hamas_war#Iraq or Israel–Hamas_war#Iran. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist

Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria during the Israel–Hamas war: Are you seriously asserting that America never responded to these attacks, and that these attacks never happened

And America did shoot down Iranian missiles. You know that too... Genabab (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey look, an article entirely about those attacks on the US, and their responses to those attacks. Thanks for providing a source here to discuss. And would you look at that, the US is appropriately listed as a belligerent in that conflict, at that article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel makes it clear that The IDF reported intercepting "a large number" of missiles, while Pentagon spokesperson Patrick S. Ryder confirmed that United States Navy destroyers launched about a dozen interceptors against Iranian missiles. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan mentioned that other U.S. "partners" also helped thwart the attack, but did not specify who they were. Jordan stated that its air defenses intercepted missiles and drones over Jordanian airspace during the incident. It cites this article (though there's plentyof other examples). If we're happy to describe the US as a belligerent in the other article, shall I add an option 4 here to likewise describe the US as a belligerent in this infobox? (Like the infobox does, sort of, for Iran?) Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't see the use of defensive missile systems in defense of an ally as "belligerent" combat action. In the other article, the belligerence in question is things like "attacking weapon stored used by Iran-backed militias" or "attacking the Islamic Resistance group pre-emptively as they plan an attack." Rather different actions than defensively shooting down incoming missiles. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

defensively shooting down incoming missiles some soldiers do nothing else during a war. Does that make them irrelevant? M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not irrelevant. But not belligerents. Besides, there's a distinction between a "combatant" nation and individuals considered "combatants." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course they are belligerents. What's that got to do with this situation? M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know - you're the one who asked. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't play silly games. M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether you personally see the use of defensive missile systems in defense of an ally as "belligerent" combat action. We're on wikipedia, not PhotogenicScientst's blog. WP:NPOV is not just a WP:BLUDGEON some editors get to use to enforce a particular position. It means the reverse, which is that we try to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In this case there is more than ample evidence, backed up by RS, that the US is participating in the conflict using lethal weaponry on behalf of an ally, making them at the very least eligible to be described as an ally in this infobox. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

lethal weaponry "Lethal" to missiles?

Or, where is the evidence that the belligerence in the Red Sea crisis is "on behalf of an ally?" As opposed to, you know, in response to the shooting of missiles at international shipping vessels? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The moment you take a side and start using lethal weapons, you are a belligerent. End of. M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The only place lethal weaponry has been used is in the Red Sea crisis. Part of the overall Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). Not really part of this war between Israel and Hamas. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What did they use to shoot down the missiles? M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I've made perfectly clear that I believe the use of defensive missiles is not a belligerent action - an opinion that is not unique to myself, by the way. Why you feel the need to continue to WP:BADGER me with a semantical argument is beyond me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Your position is clear, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense (even if repeated ad nauseam).

the use of defensive missiles is not a belligerent action it most certainly is (especially when used to defend a friend on the side of the planet, against a common enemy to boot). M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A state engaging in either self- or collective-defensive has a legal right to this use of force under International Humanitarian Law. [18] Also under IHL, individuals engaging in self-defense are not considered to be "participating in hostilities." [19] So this feeling that parties engaging in defense aren't considered "combatants" is not unique to myself. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Palestinians? M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The article you cite here is very clear in its abstract that it's referring to whether individuals and populations are considered legitimate military targets under IHL. It's making a legal rather than an empirical distinction and does not support the exclusion of the US or UK as belligerents. Unbandito (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't say combatant, says ally. Seems pretty clear that US is Israel's ally, right? Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You and I have hashed this out above. You don't get to append all of that with a truncated reply at an RFC. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Where? Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies - I was confusing this multi-thread discussion with another multi-thread you and I have had over war casualty statistics.

The proposal as actioned would put the US and UK under the heading "Belligerents", in the parameter "combatant2." It's not a simple question of "are these 2 countries allies of Israel?" PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The belligerents are Hamas and Israel, the lists say allies, no matter what the parameter is called. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The subheading of "ally" under the heading of "belligerents" is very obviously meant to be read as "belligerent allies." The listing of supporting countries with which combatants have military alliances is, as I've said, deprecated. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that as very obvious at all. And the lists are already there but only on one side. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

+Option 3 per PhotogenicScientist. And could discussion go under "Discussion". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

"Allies in other theaters" is not included in the Template:Infobox military conflict parameters and I consider adding it to any article a bad idea, more likely to confuse a casual reader (remember them) than enlighten. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Should I add an Option 4: Remove the "Allies in other theaters" box from Hamas instead? My personal opinion is I disagree with the consensus that the US is not a combatant and does not belong in that section (which is in the parameters), but I think the "allies in..." box is a decent compromise. If we do not make any other changes and leave the infobox as is, then it's a clear NPOV violation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is already happening elsewhere on the page and is leaning towards removing the "Allies in other theaters" box from the Hamas side (again its an oxymoron crafted by someone who lacked the competence to do so, it doesn't make sense).

Option 1 or 2 - Neither the US nor UK have engaged in combat in the Israel–Hamas war. All combat operations so far have been part of the other conflicts in the region, most notably the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to list the US and maybe the UK as "Allies in other theaters:" similar to Iran. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that is what is being proposed? Isn't it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The RfC wording is added as allies to Israel, which is not the same as "allies in other theaters". If that's what is being proposed, then it should be made more clear. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, @Smallangryplanet: Like Iran, right? Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@ZLEA @Selfstudier yes, that was always the intent, my apologies, I've updated the RfC text. If I update the title of the RFC will that break listing elsewhere on the site? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's OK as long as the text is clear, then it should be fine. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Righto. Thanks! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bad RfC, nobody actually seems to know what "allies in other theaters" means (and it was changed to that from just "allies" half way through thr proscess)... Probably because the term is an oxymoron... It genuinly doesn't make sense and is not a term that I can find used in this context anywhere in military history or international relations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 or 2 As I have explained in detail in the discussion preceding the RfC, both the US and UK meet the four criteria for being counted among the allies of Israel in the infobox, namely 1) Weapons supplies, 2) Funding, 3) Intelligence assistance, 4) Direct military involvement.

The US and UK have been actively involved in combat on behalf of Israel, bombing targets in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and also participating in the shooting down of Iranian and other missiles.

I asked these questions to PhotogenicScientist and they did not answer, but I will pose them again so others can see that it is patently obvious that the US and UK ought to be considered as allies of Israel:

The US meets the first three conditions for Ukraine as of now, but not the fourth, even though it comes very close, with RS reporting that US intelligence and military is actively involved guiding Ukrainian missiles and providing strike coordinates. But it's not yet over that line.

When US military personnel start shooting down Russian missiles, and then send air-defenses to Ukraine with US personnel with the explicit mission to shoot them down, will that pass the threshold for you and will you consider them to be a combatant in the war?

Would Israel or the United States consider that to be case if let's say Turkey started shooting down Israeli missiles over Lebanon, and then moved anti-air batteries to Lebanon with Turkish personnel with the mission of shooting them down while also providing military, funding and intelligence support to Hamas and Hezbollah?

I don't think it is at all controversial that Turkey would then be considered an active combatant in the war.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Mention the US Its personnel officially engaged in combat. Whether this role remains as support or beyond that can be discussed further. Senorangel (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What combat are you referring to? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 Which theaters are there besides the Middle East? Alliances are often tricky. The term is also used informally, but it also refers to a relationship determined by a contractral agreement. For example, every NATO member is a US ally, but not every NATO member is an ally of the US in a specific conflict. The main thing here is that ally can be confused with co-belligerent. Is the US a belligerent in the Israel-Hamas war? Not is the US allied with Israel and engage in other conflicts in the region. "Allies in other theatres" is confusing. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 per Unbandito and others, as well as the previous discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 Question: has this been discussed anywhere? M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

At length with no conclusion, so I figured it was time to throw this open to an RfC. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: As many of us have pointed out - the US is actively involved in combat operations, it has materiel, naval assets nearby and troops on the ground. The UK has intelligence assets regularly patrolling the skies and flying defensive missions over the country. As @Unbandito, @XavierGreen and others have pointed out, we already consider countries that are far less materially involved to be allies of/members of the Axis of Resistance. It would be WP:UNDUE to not also include the US and UK as allies of Israel here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The UK level of assistance is pretty small beer, minimal arms supply, some intel overflights, bit of diplo support behind the US but not really anything to write home about. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

They're doing a lot of covert stuff as well as participating in Operation Prosperity Guardian and they seem to be providing air defence for Israel as well, so I think there's a enough there to classify them as participating even if they aren't as vocal about it as the US. If that's not sufficient for inclusion then I'm fine with Option 1 as well. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like that you've gone from talking about them being allies to them being participants... Can you confirm that you aren't trying to backdoor them in as combatants when we have consensus against that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back "Allies in other theaters" (subject to change as RS warrant), but, yes, can confirm Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Under this analysis are you considering Operation Prosperity Guardian etc as fronts of the Israel–Hamas war? If not what does theater mean here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, similar to how in the current version of the box Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Jordan are all listed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are not fronts or theaters of the Israel–Hamas war. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Where are you seeing consensus against? The majority of editors supported inclusion in the RFCBefore. Unbandito (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they're referring to consensus that these countries aren't combatants - I disagree, but I will bow to consensus and mirror the existing "Allies in other theaters" section here as well. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Are the US and UK the only countries this applies to? Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator Not necessarily. There has been some discussion of other countries' involvement and, to be frank, I do think we should include them as well, but then I suspect the RFC will get bogged down in the weeds forever and ever so I wanted to stick to the main couple of countries. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I dearly hope the closer of this RFC considers not only the votes in this discussion, but also the weight of arguments presented at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Should_the_U.S._be_considered_a_combatant_in_the_Israel-Hamas_war,_in_the_infobox?, Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Add_America_to_Israeli_Allies, and the various other threads at this talk page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are RFCbefore, can add them up top if desired. Combatant != Ally. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And the parameter in the infobox says "combatant". And listing military "allies" providing support only is deprecated. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We can do the proposed here if there is consensus in formal discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And if the people who've already opined on the issue don't come back to restate their opinion in this "formal discussion", then what? We discard their input, and look only at the majority of votes in this one thread? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an RFC and a higher level of consensus than informal discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

So then yes, discard previously-offered opinions if they're not presented as votes here? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an RFC, anyone can participate. Please stop clogging up the discussion with irrelevancies. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet people may not participate again, for a variety of reasons - they don't log on to see the new discussion, they don't watch this page or miss the notification on other pages, they don't want to spend their time re-iterating themselves... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Cool. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• What would this addition look like? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  AFAIK mostly the same as the Allies in other theaters: collapsable section currently under Hamas in the "Belligerents" portion of the box, just with the US or US and UK instead of Lebanon, Yemen, etc. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see only weak support for having that section be there, it doesn't actually appear to have consenus. It also doesn't make sense, thats not what theater means... Those are not theaters of the Israel–Hamas war. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's why it would be "allies in other theaters", surely? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Allies in what other theaters of the Israel–Hamas war? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yemen, at the very least. (The IDF has participated in attacks on Yemen as well.) But also the...main Israel/Hamas one because the US has been very vocal about participating in combat operations - knocking down rockets etc. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  What is this main/other theater distinction then? If those are theaters of this war then those aren't allies those are combatants. The whole concept of "allies in other theaters" is an oxymoron as presented. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  For some reason we have consensus in RFCBefore that they are not combatants, so we end up in this bizarre situation where the only way we can talk about the US/UK/etc being present at all is by calling them "Allies in other theaters." I am merely the messenger here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  For me, however it ends up being done, US is an ally of Israel, like Iran is an ally of Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I literally asked you "Can you confirm that you aren't trying to backdoor them in as combatants when we have consensus against that?" and you confirmed that you were not (at I least I though you did)... You now appear to be saying that you are using the bespoke phrase as a backdoor to circumvent consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, I am very clearly saying that because we have decided to not call them combatants, we settled on a term that was acceptable to most editors. I am not really sure how I could use the term we have consensus on to subvert consensus, but I would be fascinated to find out! The point of the RfC is to come to some kind of a conclusion about the best way to move forward with the infobox. If you would like nothing to change, please vote Option 3. Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's not really about finding a different term, an ally is not a combatant, could be but it is two different things. I have no problem with describing the US as an Israeli ally any more than Iran as a Hamas ally. Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  We do not have have consensus to use that term, these fibs need to stop... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I read this discussion as deciding that "combatants" is unacceptable to the consensus, but allies/allies in other theaters could be acceptable and therefore made this to discuss it. Hence, this RfC. Iran is not physically on the ground in Gaza or directly in-theater (unless you count the missile strikes, in which case the US/UK forces that responded to them are also in-theater) but listed as an ally. I think that we should therefore list at least the US if not also the UK as allies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Selfstudier @Unbandito @NadVolum @Bitspectator @Genabab @Skitash @PhotogenicScientist @Gog the Mild sorry for the ping but as people who have selected options just wanted to let you know that I've updated the wording of the RFC to read "Should the US and UK be added as allies in other theaters to Israel in the infobox?", similar to what was discussed up-page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ideally, I think they should simply be added as allies as they were previously. I suppose allies in other theaters is fine, though I find this somewhat misleading. The US and UK have taken the most clearly belligerent actions in other theaters, but they have acted as allies in a more comprehensive manner by assisting Israel with intelligence and reconnaissance and most importantly, projecting power through aircraft carrier and troop deployments. When the US deploys an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean and threatens to strike back at any outside parties who involve themselves in the war in Gaza, I think that should be interpreted as a belligerent action even if the deterrence is successful and a shot is never fired. Unbandito (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree mostly with what Unabndito says. Genabab (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, per conversation here I have gone ahead and removed all "allies" and "allies in other theaters" from the infobox. It is now strictly scoped to Israel and Hamas, and in-line with the infobox spec. (There may be other variances but I leave fixing those to the knowledgeable folks in this conversation.) I assume that will be okay with everyone in this thread. If it is, I think we can go ahead and close this RfC as complete. @Selfstudier @Unbandito @NadVolum @Bitspectator @Genabab @Skitash @PhotogenicScientist @Gog the Mild @Horse Eye's Back @M.Bitton Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't agree. At least "Palestinian allies" should be there, if they are directly involved in fighting in Gaza, which I think they are. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been told extensively that there is no space for "allies" in the infobox spec and so they should not be included. Do we have RS that these groups are combatants, or just defending areas of the Gaza Strip at the same time as the Israel-Hamas conflict? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

For some, yes. Look at the ToI link that was the ref for PIJ. There's no question that they are combatants in the current war in Gaza. Look at the first footnote in Israel-Hamas war. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways: either we list all the allies (with no cherry picking) or we list none. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

When did I say to have it both ways? I want any group directly involved in the Israel-Hamas war to be in the infobox. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

When you suggested that [at] least "Palestinian allies" should be there. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Because no "Israeli allies" were removed by Smallangryplanet's edit. Did you want me in my response to Smallangryplanet to advocate for the retention of content they didn't remove? Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So what is it exactly that you don't agree with? M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I want any group directly involved in the Israel-Hamas war to be in the infobox.

Smallangryplanet removed groups directly involved in the Israel-Hamas war from the infobox. I disagree with that. These groups should be in the infobox. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you want to see the US and the UK added to the infobox. Is that correct? M.Bitton (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with with the consensus that allies should not be in the infobox. So I would support that, which is why I said as much on November 4th.

But since I acknowledge the consensus against listing allies, I want at least groups directly involved in the Israel-Hamas war to be in the infobox. I don't think that's the case for the US or UK, but if you find RS saying that they are, sure. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case for the US or UK therein lies the issue that is has been discussed and is now the subject of a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the issue emerges if you ask me about the US and UK, obviously. Until you asked me about that I was talking about groups the Israel-Hamas war article itself describes in the first sentence as being involved in the war. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That article does not refer to them as combatants, unlike this infobox. It also does not cite the information in the first sentence. So I think you could probably remove it, if you'd like. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Overnight, Israel's Security Cabinet voted to act to bring about the "destruction of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad".

Within a few days Ayser Mohammad Al-Amer, a senior commander of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad was killed during a clash with IDF in the Jenin refugee camp.

What are you talking about? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read the RfC and the discussion prior to the RfC. Israel describing them that way and someone having been killed in a separate incident does not qualify them as co-combatants, apparently. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you link to what part says that? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Amongst other places, here and here and even here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Second comment:

To attribute Jordan or Iraq as Hamas allies on an inference from two episodes where people from Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel is ridiculous

Do you sincerely believe that reasoning applies to PIJ? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What I sincerely believe is immaterial (WP:TALKPOV). I am trying to close this RfC lest it go on forever, and it seemed as though we had agreed that the narrowest possible scoping of 'combatant' was the way to go. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that reasoning applies to PIJ? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that the PIJ is fighting literally alongside Hamas, rather than fighting at the same time and in the same region and against the same enemy? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

First, please give an answer to my question. Do you think that reasoning applies to PIJ? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It applies to everyone who isn't the main belligerent (Israel or Hamas). As for the above question: we have evidence that the US is fighting alongside Israel. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Original comment:

To attribute Jordan or Iraq as Hamas allies on an inference from two episodes where people from Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel is ridiculous

The reasoning is that a single individual who happens to be from Jordan performing an attack doesn't mean that Jordan is a Hamas ally. In what way does that apply to PIJ? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it applies to all of the groups involved. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry. Original comment:

To attribute Jordan or Iraq as Hamas allies on an inference from two episodes where people from Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel is ridiculous

The reasoning that a single individual who happens to be from Jordan performing an attack doesn't mean that Jordan is a Hamas ally... "applies to all of the groups involved"?

Please explain how this applies to PIJ. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what this has to do with this RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume that will be okay with everyone in this thread. If it is, I think we can go ahead and close this RfC as complete.

It's not. So I'm saying as much. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, so the RFC can continue, I'm fine with that as well, arguments about reverts can take place in a separate section. Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

They did answer, it seemed as though we had agreed that the narrowest possible scoping of 'combatant' was the way to go.

Not sure we have agreed that, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The RFC can go on for quite a while yet if desired, it is not possible to close it unless the participants that already !voted are in agreement. It is possible to open a different RFC if it can be separated entirely from this one (meaning that there cannot be contradictory results). Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem essentially, an ally and a belligerent are not the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep. If we have consensus against listing allies, fine. We should put all belligerent Palestinian groups in the infobox with no tab. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Define "belligerent Palestinian group" by some method. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not inventing some new criteria. Groups fighting in the current war in Gaza. Like any other Wikipedia infobox about a war with more than one faction on one side. Like the first footnote of the Israel-Hamas war article. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There are three groups mentioned there (unsourced), is it in the article body somewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

PIJ is, multiple times. Other two, no. But they are in the body of 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, which is part of the Israel-Hamas war. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The conversation up thread in the RfC shows that we are abiding by a higher standard of proof for a particular group being a combatant vs simply using weapons in the same geographical region and calling themselves "allies" etc. The infobox only has sections for combatants, so we need RS that shows fighters from these groups fighting side by side with Hamas' military wing, and it can't be defensive. (Which IMO by the standard we've decided here precludes any group from being listed as a co-combatant, since they are fighting defensively against an invading force.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's another way of dealing with the issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk about overcorrecting. At the very least keep all the Palestinian allies.

And yes there are sources that confirm they are in combat. Institute for the study of war in all their Iran statements have mentioned attacks by PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, PRC and others Genabab (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Then you (or whoever) can add them as combatants and justify it with RS. But there seems to be consensus that being an "ally" or fighting in the same geographical region is not enough for inclusion in this infobox, so just because these groups are launching attacks is not enough to list as combatants. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@SmallangryplanetI have done as you suggested and added the Palestinian Joint operations room into the page Genabab (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian Joint Operations Room* Genabab (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton This is getting frustrating. How is there no consensus for including the Joint Operations Room? Genabab (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of finding sources: there are plenty that support the addition of the US and the UK (none of which has been added without consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't answer the question.

This is about the Palestinian Joint Operations Room!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know, people on the ground fighting with Hamas and who fought in October 7 as well too boot!! There is 100000% consensus for the addition of the Joint Operations Room? Can you really not see what an overcorrection this is?? Genabab (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As opposed to the ones who are fighting with missiles? I don't see the difference. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We have consensus on this infobox for the inclusion of combatants only. Being an ally and fighting in the same geographic region has been ruled out. If we add the JOR, we should add the US and UK on the opposite side. I think we should do that! But I am adhering to the RfC process and the consensus we've developed, no matter how I personally feel. If you have RS that suggest those groups are fighting side by side with Hamas, on the ground, then by all means add them to the infobox as combatants per the spec. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you share the sources you think best make this claim? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

there are sources that confirm they are in combat there are sources that confirm that the US and the UK were involved in combat. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

They said "are in combat", you are saying "involved in combat". Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect: what Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

One shouldn't have to change the wording if the point is true. If that nuance is insignificant to you, then you don't have to be a part of this conversation. If you think the US and UK "are in combat", like PIJ, then just say that. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been fairly extensively, all up and down the talk page, but I will respect the consensus. We can argue about terms (in combat vs involved in combat) forever or we can respect the consensus and move forward. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for what? Removal of allies? I'm saying PIJ is a belligerent. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then add them as a combatant per the infobox spec presuming you have RS that show they're fighting directly alongside Hamas. Otherwise they are "allies" and must not be included. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying PIJ is a belligerent. I'm saying that the US is a belligerent. M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Then add it. I already said I would be okay with that. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not in the middle of a RfC that is supposed to sort out the issue of who is and who isn't a belligerent, ally or whatever else editors want to call them. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe the removal shouldn't have happened either. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I was - possibly foolishly - attempting to close the RfC as it seemed that we had a consensus that the definition of 'combatant' had to be as narrowly scoped as possible, thereby sorting out who is and who isn't a belligerent, ally or whatever else editors want to call them. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't foolish at all. Removing all those that fall into the grey area (with no cherry picking) and leaving the "main belligerents" is one way to sort out the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the removal was accompanied with a suggestion to close the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not what I had in mind. The US and UK fit as either belligerents or allies. They are both. I vote that we add them in and add the Palestinian allies back. Unbandito (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

At the least, the groups fighting alongside Hamas in Gaza deserve to be listed in the infobox. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you support the addition of the countries fighting alongside Israel? If not, why? M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You've already WP:BADGERED me enough about this exact point in the survey section above. You should know exactly my answer by now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The only consistent point that you have is your inconsistent approach to the subject (cherry picking which side belongs in the infobox based on some random criteria, that moves with the wind). M.Bitton (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... if I must respond to the personal attack: Belligerents are groups who go around attacking people in the theater. Not exactly inconsistent with everything I've said above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Casting aspersions doesn't add any weight to your comments (just so you know). The rest of your comments cements what I said about the cherry picking (as if we don't have access to dictionaries). M.Bitton (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can find an example of such "cherry picking" in my statements above, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, rack up another aspersion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Using some random websites to "create" a definition of a common word that is found in all dictionaries is not just plain cherry picking, it's a special kind of cherry picking that I haven't seen before. M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What common word would that be? "Belligerent?" The word that "no longer has a precise legal definition?" PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course you do. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The real question is, when will the vote be counted? It appears the majority of people approve of Option 1 or Option 2. With only 2-3 people saying otherwise. I know wikipedia is not a vote-based website BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! since this is a RfC vote, that takes precedence.

This would all be over if we can just agree to add America to Israel's side, and add everyone else to Hamas' side, wouldn't it? Genabab (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

RFCs run for 30 days. So far, pretty much all we've seen is people who were already at this talk page restating their opinion. The longer duration allows for more outside input to come in. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References