This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Other talk page banners
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 7, 2023.
Gaza genocide in the first paragraph
Per MOS:OPEN, which states that the first paragraph should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it, shouldn't Gaza genocide be mentioned and linked in the first paragraph? إيان (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per due context for establishing notability. This is one of the most notable/read child articles of this topic, alongside the invasion article and casualties of the war that are both in the opening paragraph, thus it can easily be inserted into the sentence about Palestinian casualties. To clarify before it becomes a discussion, I don't see this as even an NPOV-related proposal. This is about providing navigation for the reader to the prominent subtopics of a higher-level summary article (as we've always done with this page); likewise it's about establishing the notability for the topic itself (which is largely based on the range of child articles and their popularity). To prove this, see the comparison views for equally prominently referenced child articles in past few months.[1] The genocide article is currently sought after more so than October 7 attacks and Casualties of the Gaza war, and based on past year (including previous October 7 title), it was in between Casualties and October 7 for views (~1.5m, ~2m, and ~2.3m).[2] Granted that's just one metric/consideration, but it's the one I'm bringing to the table. CNC (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per MOS:FIRST we shouldn't overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Let's keep the facts in the first sentence and the characterisations later in the lede. Alaexis¿question?20:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that the Gaza genocide is a highly notable aspect of the Gaza war & thus on significance alone, it would be more then reasonable for it to be mentioned earlier then the fourth paragraph. However, when considering the effect this would have on the lede's structure, I'm undecided on if this would be an improvement. More specifically, my concern is how existing content would be shifted to accommodate this change & if the lede would still read well overall. I'm open to supporting this proposal, but would first need to see how it'd be implemented. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently over 70,000 recorded direct deaths (basically from blunt force trauma) to say nothing of the substantial indirect deaths—what other feature of the war could possibly be more important? For comparison, the full second sentence, containing 34 words, is dedicated to the October 7 attacks, which resulted in 1200 deaths.
What is being proposed here is something as simple as, for example:
−
Since the start of the Israeli offensive that followed, over 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, almost half of them women and children, and more than 171,000 injured.
+
Since the start of the Israeli offensive that followed, over 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in the [[Gaza genocide]], almost half of them women and children, and more than 171,000 injured.
Support per CNC. The proposed text by إيان reads well, but the 70k figure should be updated to 71k in line with the latest RS, which are already reflected in the article. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
إيان, please note MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADCLUTTER, before overloading the first sentence. While I think mentioning the genocide in the first paragraph is probably DUE, please note that the first sentence should "should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where...should give a concise definition". In particular, please read "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." For reasons of flow, I would suggest that the note about genocide come at the end of the current lead paragraph. Finally, please ensure there is no duplication when making major changes; in this case, you need to assess what to do with the fourth lead paragraph. I have established the structure of the lead section on two or three occasions over the course of the war; please let me know if you would like my assistance again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the genocide of 70,000+ people did happen after the attack that killed ~1200. What is the purpose of the first paragraph? Is it a) to list events by their notoriety, highest to lowest, or is it b) to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article", in a way "accessible to as broad an audience as possible"? You will find it much easier to treat events with their full dignity if you make the article as accessible as possible: and the easiest way to make it accessible is to order things chronologically. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:OPEN says nothing about using chronological order; instead, it says "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view." The genocide is the definitive aspect of Israel’s conduct with regard to the Gaza Strip. MOS:LEADREL says that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." إيان (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about WP:NPOV when Israel have not been found guilty of genocide by any relevant international body. What is the basis for including it in the lead in a matter-of-fact way as if it is a definitively settled fact? It is distinctly not neutral and not WP:DUE. We can move up the fourth paragraph on it into the back of the first but I don't see why it is particularly necessary. Davefelmer (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to include the genocide in the first sentence of your forthcoming article Israel's conduct with regard to the Gaza Strip. Now, may we discuss the first paragraph of the article Gaza war? Not sure what this is meant to achieve for you, but here's a reminder for all of us to maintain civility in this sensitive topic area. إيان (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder, but I have found this discussion quite civil. I am also a little unclear on what the highlighted sentences are meant to achieve for me; if you figure it out, please let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOTABLE with conditions. I think it should be in the first paragraph but just not very first sentence. It's significant enough to warrant easy access for the link in opening paragraph. After adding the link, I also believe it’s important to mention that casualties are estimated at about 15 out of every 16 being civilians, making Gaza one of the deadliest conflicts for civilians in recent decades.[3] I propose adding the link in the final word of this statement- Since the start of the Israeli offensive that followed, over 80,000100,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, with scholars estimating that approximately 27% of those killed are children under the age of 15 and 24% are women, a demographic distribution which the researchers note corresponds to patterns the United Nations has observed in past genocides, and a number of scholar and international organizations have increasingly described the situation as being a genocide.[4]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly total children (under 18) will be larger than 27%. But that Max Planck study doesn't explicitly mention a group under 18, but just under age 15. If you do the math - (male and females between the ages 15 to 18), plus the men over age 18 will make up that remaining 49 percent. Source doesn't specify how much of this 49 percent is fighters. But like every other country, the majority of men aren't soldiers. If you need a source to know how many dead are civilians - a different group - independent conflict tracker Acled that tracks civillian and Hamas deaths, estimates 15 of every 16 Palestinians killed are civilians.[5]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for chronological reasons and since it would make much more sense to put it in the third paragraph that details the humanitarian crisis and destruction. I have moved it back to the end of the first paragraph following you edit.
@Coining Due to the support an inclusion in the first paragraph has (6-2 when I wrote this comment, 6-3 now after you've voiced your opinion). Feel free to put it back where it was if you think the discussion is not ripe yet NorthernWinds (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow your reasoning. Why would someone arguing that it is or it is not binding on this article be pertinent to the question asked by إيان about this article? Your !vote seems to be based on the absence of something that isn't necessary to answer the question asked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No need for wikivoice when you can just give attribution. Due to the political nature, we can never expect 100 percent consensus as there will always be deniers. Tho we shouldn't do false balance. When majority of leading genocide experts [6], and top reputable human rights bodies conclude that it's a genocide.[7] Then trying to conflate that a fringe group of politically motivated/state-aligned denial as an equal equivalence - will be what's wrong. That is not neutrality but distortion per WP:UNDUE. On Wiki, one can write that; Most independent human-rights bodies, and many leading genocide and international law scholars allege that Israel's actions in Gaza plausibly constitute genocide, or at minimum meet multiple elements of the Genocide Convention.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, Davefelmerhas reverted the compromise you implemented. In the edit summary, Davefelmer noted Restore established wording. Genocide and war crimes discussion covered in paragraph 4, and there was no consensus on talk for what language to add, where, several editors opposed didn't officially note it as discussion broke down, issues with other project rules raised etc but did not note the consensus here for mention and link to Gaza genocide in the first paragraph. إيان (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see a rough consensus here (70% in favour) of adding mention of the genocide to the end of the first paragraph, so I did so by moving the current first sentence of the fourth paragraph to become the end sentence of the first. Thus there was no language added, in contrast to Davefelmer’s edit summary. I also cannot decipher ”several editors opposed didn't officially note it as discussion broke down, issues with other project rules raised etc”; if that could be spelt out for me, that would be great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see 6 officially in support and 3 opposed. I am also opposed since Israel have not actually been found guilty of genocide by any relevant international organization, and I haven't seen us start with the facts of a war and then mention what scholars think at the very top. Even Rwanda doesn't have that. So that's 4, and 6-4 is hardly consensus.
Your revert had nothing to do with WIKIVOICE. As has been thoroughly established through multiple RfCs with consistent results, the legal proceedings are not the decisive factor. The scholarly consensus is crystal clear. إيان (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did you remember to count إيان and myself? I'm uncertain what "Israel have not actually been found guilty of genocide by any relevant international organization" or "Plus there isn't agreement on language, other issues have been noted ie with WP:WIKIVOICE" has to do with moving, not adding, a sentence. Is your argument that the relevant sentence should be removed from the lead? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and then Pachu Kannan & Butterscotch Beluga look like they lean no. One of the official yeses supported it on condition that a bunch of other stuff get added which didn't find support. It's a bit of a jumbled mess. And I'm not saying the sentence should be removed, I'm saying it's fine at the top of the paragraph where it is. That paragraph actually discusses the relevant content, and we don't list the facts of war followed by opinions of people and scholars at the top of war pages across the project. Even the Rwandan Civil War page doesn't mention genocide until deep into paragraph 3. Davefelmer (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this particular version. I would oppose mention in first sentence and agree with AirshipJungleman29's argument for maintaining chronology in the opening. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is now well-written and logical, with this info/claims appearing in the 4th paragraph. I do see another problem in the first paragraph. It says: Since the start of the Israeli offensive that followed, over 71,803 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and more than 171,500 injured.[13][28][29]. These numbers are highly imprecise at best, as would be in many other conflicts. We can not present them as a fact in WP voice. This is "according to ..." My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be real. This isn't a normal war. Some are already identifying it as a genocide. When you have 80% of casualties being civilians, and more kids dying in the first few months than in last four years of worldwide wars, and 90% of civilian infrastructure are destroyed. It is vital to add the significant relevant facts that demonstrates why this is particularly unusual. I suggest mentioning in intro that close to half of dead are women and children. It's barely a full sentence yet it's been removed twice despite it's well sourced, neutral and factual. For reasons explained above, I propose to add this to the intro; UN agencies have reported that Gaza has become home to the most child amputees per capita in the world, and that more children were killed in the opening months of the conflict than in all global conflicts combined over the previous four years.[8][9][10][11]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 3 already talks about the scale of the carnage, 80% of casualties being civilians (if so) is not that unusual and was at a similar level in the Iraq War, the article for which doesn't mention it, and a minority of the victims being women and children is not standalone notable nor do we assess it for other conflict pages across the project. Plus only 17% of casualties are reported as women, and children just means people 18 or younger, which implies that men of the ages just below can't be combatants which is historically untrue for the conflict. It's WP:UNDUE. Davefelmer (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus. 80% being civilians is huge number for modern warfare. What modern war kills that many civilians? Latest data shows about 15 of every 16 Palestinians killed are civilians.[12] Afghanistan and Ukraine only have 8 and 10 percent civilian ratio respectively. Even Sudan Civil war isn't that high as it has 49.5%.[13] It is definitely not WP:UNDUE to make a quick well sourced note that casualties are about 83% civilians, making Gaza one of the deadliest conflicts for civilians in recent decades.[14] Wikipedia isn't censored and these extra words gives heaps of value to the readers. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
80% is still a high number tho lower than Gaza's estimated 83%. That literally makes both Iraq and Gaza among the most deadliest wars for civilians globally in the 21st century and that info should had be noted for both for readers' benefit. Very few modern conflicts can come close to that (typically 20%). And btw Iraq war was over 8 years long with civilian deaths climbing in the final years and according to your source - 122,000 civilians were killed. By comparison, Gaza's much shorter conflict (just over 2 years) already has a similar proportion of civilian deaths with 58,000 but in fewer total years and its civilian death rate is increasing. Clearly we disagree so we let others decide on this - on whether to include the 80% civilian casualty figure also in the introduction which I believe is both compelling and highly relevant, because it immediately signals to readers just how devastating this conflict is for civilians.
Plus we already mention this in the body so it's not exactly a huge step to mention in intro which itself should summarise the most important gist of the war.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to decide by vote as reliable sources by and large don't corroborate the 83% figure. Various others are noted. And all those comparative points with Iraq are semantics, the fact is that wars do have death rates that high. Iraq did, and what about Rwanda? Davefelmer (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are cherry picking the very worst extreme cases. Notorious Rwandan genocide 1994 is among the very few conflicts tracked since 1989 that actually surpass.[15] In the 21st century, there's hardly any conflicts that surpassed Gaza in proportion of civillian to combatant ratio. Regardless I don't want to be accused of Bludgeoning that this war is very hard on civilians so will leave it here for now. @Alaexis @Davefelmer But I do hope that eventually we can at least specify the total number of Palestinian civilians that died in the infobox and add in the stats of civilian death rate in the intro for most readers to quickly grasp to reflect that this is factually one of the deadliest conflicts for civilians in modern history. Currently, these important statistics aren't shown. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rush with adding comparisons. First, they tend to become obsolete over time (unfortunately it's quite likely that the events in Sudan have broken some of those records).
Second, they are often not DUE. It's always possible to find the right combination of metric and time period to make any conflict the worst. I'm not saying that you've done that, but rather that we need to make sure than any such statement is backed by multiple non-transitory RS.
Finally, the 83% figure is quite doubtful. They took the nominator from one source (confirmed kills per the Israeli intelligence) and the denominator (total dead) from Hamas Health Ministry Data. If we had done it would've been improper sync. They never explain why the Israeli intelligence list must be exhaustive. Alaexis¿question?19:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If a war had 20 or 10 percent civillian rate, it's not that bad. But saying "80% of casualties are civilians" is a number that jumps out. Even people unfamiliar with war can tell this is an alarming unacceptable high number. Readers also instantly understand the war's impact on ordinary people, not just armed forces. We already mention in infobox that many Israeli civilians were killed. We do this to humanize and elicit empathy for Israelis. Yet the same infobox makes zero mention on civillans killed in Palestine as if all of them are Hamas. This is not okay. We be treating as if Palestinian civillian deaths are too insignificant to even mention at all in infobox and intro. 80 or 83 percent came from RS. Nobody expects perfection but it's a close enough estimate. We can attribute where the figures come from. But if we can mention how many Israeli civilians died in infobox. We surely should also do the same for Palestineans and mark the date of percentage.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pachu Kannan The 83% is specifically for civilians. Nobody here said it's just for women and children. 83 additionally includes civilian men and elderly. A November 2025 study from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR) and the Centre for Demographic Studies estimated total violent deaths in Gaza between 100,000 and 126,000, with 27% being children under 15 and 24% women. According to the Max Planck researchers, the estimated distribution of deaths by age and gender corresponds to what the United Nations has observed in past genocides - [16] The other 33% are for the civilian + elderly men.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JaredMcKenzie, the primary reason that the infobox reports total casualties is that the main source for them - the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry - reports the casualties data this way.
So we have various estimates for the civilian ratio and it's better to discuss this in the relevant section rather than in the infobox.
The 83% figure has been challenged. The original source for that figure acknowledged that the number of killed fighters "could be an undercount". Other sources noted the issues with the number [17]
“
The intelligence sources explained that the total number of militants killed is likely higher than the number recorded in the internal database, since it does not include Hamas or PIJ operatives who were killed but could not be identified by name, Gazans who took part in fighting but were not officially members of Hamas or PIJ
”
To be fair, it's also possible that the true ratio is higher, if the denominator is much higher, but that's exactly why we shouldn't use this number without context. Alaexis¿question?18:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis The original source is the IDF who if they admit their private report is close to accurate, it would prove they have been heavily exaggerating the number of terrorists killed by a significant margin. Your first source also says the IDF has an alarming culture of fake counting. When someone who is not fighting or a terrorist gets killed, they tend to get "upgraded" to being an armed "terrorist". "For example, +972 and Local Call recently revealed a case in which a battalion stationed in Rafah killed around 100 Palestinians and recorded them all as “terrorists,” yet an officer in the battalion testified that in all but two cases the victims had been unarmed. An investigation by Haaretz last year similarly found that only 10 out of 200 “terrorists” the IDF Spokesperson stated that the 252nd Division had killed in the Netzarim Corridor could be verified as Hamas operatives. Also your second source is not RS. It's a heavily AI powered substack from anonymous users who you don't know their creds or their name. Anyone can publish a blog and have no reputation. Why should I even trust anything an anonymous blogger says? Literally their entire argument is based on the assumption that the IDF is to be taken at face value and doesn't lie. It fully assumes IDF statements are baseline truth. Only reputable organisations and established scholars can be relied on to make such judgement and not some hardcore Zionist fan blogger.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF can check their figures by using the list of names from the Gaza Health Ministry and checking against all the identified ones. Given the number of journalists who they say were militants but left years ago how accurate the IDF lists are is debatable. As a percentage of the GHM numbers I think the figures are in a reasonale range and about as good as we'll get for the moment though. NadVolum (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source that questions this figure making the same argument [18]. The list contains confirmed militant casualties. The militants who were killed but were not identified would not be marked as killed. The fighters who didn't belong to Hamas or PIJ wouldn't be on the original list at all. Alaexis¿question?08:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis You really ought to stop giving extremely bad sources. Your author is like US gov today where they make agended remarks. I had stopped reading as soon as he also said the "Hamas" /Palestinian authority count is "notoriously" unreliable. A lot of RS consistently said differently that their count is considered reliable and unlike IDF, they tend to undercountnot inflate figures as they are rather conservative. The only people who says differently are those with major agendas towards Israel. And looked up your author and the guy is not a scholar in this field but someone with big business interests in Israel including Israeli Playboy magazine. [19] Unsurprisingly, there's no shortage of pro-Israel networks who would represent those opinions as their mission isn't neutral reporting but advocacy, and not a factual authority.[20]The Algemeiner should be critically scrutinized and considered for blacklisting as an entity that spreads misleading or false information to protect Israeli interests despite ongoing human rights abuses in Palestinian territories. It functions as a pro-Israel lobbying tool disguised as a news outlet, engaging in active lobbying and advocacy that shields Israel from accountability.[21] The Algemeiner also demonstrates lack of editorial oversight as they have a history of unprofessionally or willfully spreading politically charged deepfake advocates content as reported by Reuters.[22]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jared. Alaexis is relying on very weak and dubious sources, including anonymous blogs, opinion pieces from pro-Israel advocacy outlets, and self-promoting authors with clear agendas, while presenting them as authoritative. The Algemeiner is not a RS and has well-documented issues, as Jared outlined. The author of the piece in question, Daniel Pomerantz, is the CEO of RealityCheck and a former CEO of HonestReporting. These are not reputable sources under Wikipedia standards, and as a veteran editor Alaexis should be aware of that. Relying on them distorts the discussion. And as a side note, using "Hamas-run" and "Hamas Health Ministry" in the big year of 2026 is certainly a choice.
As for Jared's proposal, I support expanding coverage of civilian casualties in the lead. But I could not find support in the article body for the assertion that more children were killed in the opening months of the conflict than in all global conflicts combined over the previous four years. If that material is not already included, it should be added before being summarized on the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexisone of your links cites the dubious Henry Jackson Societyreport, which includes unsourced statements like “The IDF has carefully reported these [militant death] numbers over time based on field reports and various sources of intelligence. 10,000 of the 17,000 have been identified by name, which is a large number in the midst of war.” Aged like fine wine.
@JaredMcKenzie The text you quoted is hyperlinked to the supposed report of the incident, which doesn't mention these numbers. I doubt its authenticity.
I would still not treat the 83% figure as a fact, since it was said by the source leaking the numbers that they likely undercounted the militants. NorthernWinds (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthernWinds Which quote? I made a few and all my info is able to be backed directly. If you mean this one - [23], source is Max Planck researchers whose methodology is peer-reviewed independently by recognized experts and they wrote, "approximately 27 percent of war dead are likely children under 15, and about 24 percent are women. According to the Max Planck researchers, the estimated distribution of deaths by age and gender corresponds to what the United Nations has observed in past genocides"." And the issue isyou as researchers explained, that you can never get exact figures but you can estimate as close as possible or what a realistic order of magnitude might be. As a compromise, I think it's safe to say the Max Planck researchers (not your average layman) says likely a significant portion of the casualties, or estimated to be around half, are women and children under 15. And this is due weight as this rate corresponds with past genocidesJaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JaredMcKenzie This one: For example, +972 and Local Call recently revealed a case in which a battalion stationed in Rafah killed around 100 Palestinians and recorded them all as “terrorists,” yet an officer in the battalion testified that in all but two cases the victims had been unarmed. It's hyperlinked from the original article to this article. Any kind of hundred mentioned in that article is “hundreds” of meters and “100 days.” The hyperlink in reality included similar incidents but on a much smaller scale (on the scale of individuals). It also didn’t date the incidents. NorthernWinds (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They faithfully directed to a report that talked about Israeli military drone killing civilians who weren't a direct threat and had called them as all terrorists, and one soldier testified against it. They probably didn't explicitly mention every detail, like specifically how many (given it's an estimate) but it doesn't mean they lied. They merely didn't mention it before but they are mentioning it now in more detail and included quotes of the testimonial. “They lie non-stop — both the military echelon and the political echelon,” Brik added. “In every raid, the IDF Spokesperson’s announcements said: ‘Hundreds of terrorists were killed,’” he continued. “It’s true that hundreds were killed, but they weren’t terrorists. There is absolutely no connection between the numbers they announce and what is actually happening."[24]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JaredMcKenzie If 100 died, they’d mention it in the article (it is great clickbait, after all).
About this testimony, it is talking about public statements, not about the leaked data. I still believe that the 17% of militants are undercounted NorthernWinds (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Clickbait? That's your speculation and this is absolutely pedantic. A source didn't contradict itself at all. Not in the slightest. It's not like it said one thing and then something entirely different. They indeed directed to a case briefly about a soldier testifying that most of who they killed were civilians. The first report wrote the soldier stated “It was clear that they were trying to return to their homes — there’s no question,” he explained. “None of them were armed, and nothing was ever found near their bodies. We never fired warning shots. Not at any point. Their newer report added more quotes detailing the numbers estimated to be killed. If your argument is to nitpick they didn't mention that quote in first report despite they later did in their newer report, and hence that proves them as lying - that's a weak fallacious argument. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that it would be a great title for the hyperlinked article. I do not say they lied, I just said that the absence of the number raises questions. Note that this has no impact on my assessment of the 17% figure NorthernWinds (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you were implying they were lying. Otherwise what's the issue? To me, I think you misunderstood them. They are the same source of that report they referred to. They were clearly summarising the case as they know the details and received the soldier's testimonials. And they further supported their statement that this case is as they said it is, with more quotes to back it up. There's no dishonesty in their reporting. Note; the event is still developing with casualties rising weekly, so figures today can become obsolete not long adter. Hence I can at least agree with Alaexis that for now; there's no rush and will wait for a more high quality peer-reviewed study (after things settle) for the final tally to put in the lede. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the latter part of this comment and see no use in discussing the former, as it was only a side note to the discussion on the 17% figure.
I oppose putting the 80% or 83% figures in the lead, if that’s what’s under discussion. It’s a dubious figure. I’m sure with time more solid analysis will give us a figure we can use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Brussels Times article doesn't say who violated the ceasefire more
“
In the meantime, the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues to be fragile and is violated by both sides. On Wednesday, Israel carried out strikes against Hamas militants after an incident where they had opened fire, which wounded an Israeli soldier.
”
The previously used New Arab article quoted numbers released by a Gaza-based organisation which is likely to be biased. It would be better NPOV-wise to use a more neutral source, and then perhaps add the viewpoints of the sources associated with the two sides of the conflict. Alaexis¿question?07:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That slanted quote that you used is not neutral when it omits most of the story and implies Hamas is the sole aggressor. Both sides have accused one another. Both sides definitely violates the ceasefire. When it's heavily contested, you can't imply one side did it first unless there's a clear consensus. What can definitely be said tho is the ceasefire is constantly broken and that Israeli violations were more frequent and far more deadly.[25] You can only list how many times each side violated the ceasefire and how many casualties occured. What you shouldn't do is take one side of the story on who done it first when it's not clear, or no current independent, universally accepted determination of who had violated the ceasefire first. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not sure why you say that I "shouldn't ... take one side of the story on who done it first when it's not clear, or no current independent, universally accepted determination of who had violated the ceasefire first". I never added anything like that to the article. I only said that the ceasefire has been broken by both sides which is obviously true. Responsible Statecraft is a think-tank and has its biases - they don't even attempt to count the ceasefire violations by Hamas. Here another think-tank described multiple violations by Hamas [26] and ignores the Israeli violations. Alaexis¿question?21:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The ceasefire has been violated by both sides" is unacceptable: it implies that ceasefire-violations have been equal. Let's see: how many Palestinians of Gaza have been killed/wounded since the "ceasefire", and how many Israelis?Huldra (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a RS that uses this language. What are your (preferably independent) sources that say that Israel violated the ceasefire more? The number of casualties is irrelevant. A violation by Hamas can cause more Palestinian then Israeli casualties. Alaexis¿question?11:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for Gaza ceasefire violations, there is no lack of sources saying that the overwhelming number of people killed, are Palestinians, with more than 500 Palestinians killed, and 4 Israeli soldiers, [27], [28].
"The number of casualties is irrelevant"; would you have said the same if the number of casualties were opposite? More than 500 dead Israelis and 4 dead Palestinians? I think not.
Not every casualty is a result of or constitutes a violation of ceasefire. If you're saying that since more Palestinians have died it must mean that Israel has violated the ceasefire more it's an improper synthesis. The AP article you linked does not say that more violations were committed by Israel and instead only gives attributed statements Hamas, which accuses Israel of hundreds of violations... Israel says it is responding to daily violations committed by Hamas and acting to protect its troops.
One more source Israel has continued to carry out strikes in response to what it says are violations of the truce. Palestinian militants have also attacked Israeli forces.[29]. Alaexis¿question?20:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually one of the sources I quoted, says explicitly that "Of the 556 Palestinians killed, 288 were children, women, and elderly people", (while the 4 Israelis killed were all soldiers). And typically, Israel alway say that any attack from them is a "retaliation". (They did that in the 1948 war, too). Just search for number of violations of Gaza ceasefire or violations of Gaza ceasefire and you will see what is reported: You are WP:CHERRYPICKING to make it seem like IDF and Hamas violations are similar in scope. Huldra (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we're talking past each other. There are sources that document Israeli violations and there are sources that document Hamas violations (see above). I've provided two RS that clearly say that both sides keep attacking each other. The casualty numbers are already mentioned in the article. Alaexis¿question?21:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And the number of sources citing IDF violations outnumber the number of sources citing Hamas violations, by at least an order of magnitude. You making them appear "equal" is cherrypicking, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Map
@Ecrusized Hello, I would highly recommend the updating of the map with the elimination of the light blue, and the division of Gaza into red (Hamas control) and blue (Israeli + anti-Hamas militias control) along the Yellow Line.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect Hamas war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 7 § Hamas war until a consensus is reached. LIrala (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)