Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism. Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Current requests for increase in protection level

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level

Request protection

Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States and related articles

• List of antisemitic incidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Intermittent vandalism and aggressive participation (e.g. repeated personal attacks) by an non-EC user, who has refused to stop after being politely told several times that they were violating the WP:ARBECR by involving themselves in Israeli-Palestinian conflict-associated editing.

Examples of the said user’s ECR violations: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII.

Also this by another non-EC user.

P.S. In the content of the article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times while “Gaza” 3 times. It has basically intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Steven1991 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To provide more context, within the past several days this user has made multiple attempts at trying to prevent other users from engaging with the page: 1, 2 , this just appears to be a latest attempt.

They were told by an admin, Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where WP:ONUS applies, especially given that there are WP:BLP concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history ... On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit

They were also told, In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (three in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to ... show more good faith at the talkpage, and make sure you understand WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME; your hands are far from clean here

On the article's talk page they began spamming (1, 2, 3, 4) me with alerts regarding ECR, when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR applying to the article, and were told (1, 2), You know they're already aware of ECR, they were aware before you started alerting them.They're allowed to edit this article, just not be involved in WP:PIA. Now stop harassing them by spamming alerts at them. You've been told before not to do this with other users ... I already pointed out that they are allowed to edit this page as antisemitism as a whole is unrelated to WP:PIA & just because some aspects under ECR are included in the article, does not mean the entire article is under ECR.     Now please, leave them alone, stop aggressively trying to kick them off the page, & focus on content Wikipedious1 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of your last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which you’re not supposed to have got involved in the first place.

III.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries you didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address your “concerns” so as to de-escalate for any disputes the sake of de-escalation.

IV.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from you/other users concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.

V.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by you at any point of time. You do not appear to have shown any signs of improving your manner in your correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.

IV.) It is not “spamming” when you appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. They are reminders – gentle reminders. I advise you to follow the WP:AGF and avoid mischaracterising my actions as anything “malicious” unfriendly when what I desire is respect.
You were asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in your replies to my polite and humble messages. You don’t appear to have apologised to me either despite your claim of having “reformed”.
Rather than listen, you appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process. Steven1991 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your first point is the only one that seems reasonable to me, I did make edits and discussion regarding protests related to WP:PIA, which may be incorrect, however I have refrained from discussing the conflict, or taking a side, other than describing what I perceived to be Biden's side in the conflict (this was relevant to a disputed incident in the article). In other words I made edits and discussions about protests, and a public figure's opinions (Biden's), only when it was relevant to specific incidents on the list that were in contention. I do not believe the entire article is related to WP:PIA, however, and I would dispute that, and I would guess that that is not the consensus among the editors. I want to point out that I have refrained from editing the page until a consensus to the current impasse is reached. I also think it's strange that I was blocked for making improper edit summaries (including what you're referring to, I don't understand why you're still bringing that up or presenting it as an ongoing issue when it has been settled), which means an admin or admins saw my edits, and decided that I hadn't broken any rules other than making improper edit summaries and not properly discussing my edits. It just seems strange that only within the past <24 hours it appears to have become a problem, when I was blocked on the 12th of October. For any admins my question would be why no one seemed to have caught this additional, earlier breach.

You don’t appear to have apologised to me either. I referred to you as the "Steven Entity" several times in 2 separate occasions, once on your talk page and once on the article's talk page, separated by the IIRC 48 hours of my block period. I thought it was all in good humor especially as a newer Wikipedia user who has not really engaged in discussion on an article talk page before, but since engaging with other editors I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor and not to seriously hurt other's feelings -- is an impediment to civility and consensus, and I have shed the earlier immaturity. I also noticed that you did not tell me to not refer to you in this way, so I thought it was okay to do so. In day to day civil discussion, as an example, I would expect someone to correct me immediately if I were to misgender them or mispronounce their name - in this situation I was only told by other members not to refer to you in this way, and you did not remark on it until after I already agreed to stop referring to you in this way. While it seems that this has been a major slight to you -- which is fine, you are of course allowed to feel that way -- I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me, in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute rather than something you believe at a genuine level would allow for more meaningful contribution to the article. Though these points do not take away from the fact that my nickname for you was wrong. I do want to apologize to you for referring to you in this way on 2 separate occasions, and I do want to point out that I did agree to not refer to you in this way, and I have not done so since, I also want to thank you for improving my netiquette and my ability to use Wikipedia through engaging in our dispute. I'll repost this to your talk page as well, though I do question why you're bringing it up on this page and what relevance it has here, as well as what relevance some of these matters that appear to be settled have to this request for protection. Wikipedious1 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor

It is not just a nickname. Calling a living person an “entity” is a form of dehumanisation. It’s not an isolated incident. It happened repeatedly. My perception of it being in violation of the WP:NPA is thus legitimate.

While it seems that this has been a major slight to you

Still, you do not appear to be acknowledging that it is inherently wrong. It is not my subjective perception but an objective fact that it is under no circumstances acceptable to be doing what you seem to have ultimately shown the slightest bit of willingness to somehow feel apologetic for.

I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me

Still, you are casting aspersions on me. I am sorry to say that you haven’t appeared to show the willingness to acknowledge that what has been done is inherently wrong under literally all circumstances in daily life.

in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute

Because the issue has continued. I have been pretty patient, polite and humble throughout the process, but what did I get in return? It is hard to describe, isn’t it? Steven1991 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

V.) Your quoted user has apparently NEVER never been involved in the editing of that article at any point of time, not least the period 1 September~19 October 2024. The user is a disinterested party who made a highly subjective judgment based on very limited information and he has no administrative powers on the site and who’s supposed not to get involved either.

VI.)

when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR

It does not require any participant’s “agreement”. It is a site-wide rule applicable to every individual participating in Wikipedia’s editing activities. You were reminded by other users of such requirements in some of the entries pertaining to the discussion as well, which you don’t appear to have followed.Steven1991 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking to see if protection is necessary. I could see protecting at EC level as related content for a limited time, like a year or so. But there needs to be diffs showing that more than a couple non-WP:XC users are engaging the topic area on that page. Sorry, the above is just too lengthy and disorganized for me to easily parse, so I suggest compiling the evidence concisely, with diffs alongside names and dates. Thank you. El_C 18:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regarding non-WP:XC user participation, this and this user were also participating substantially in the article concerned and had made been making a significant input touching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are not supposed to have engaged in the first place until they have acquired an XR status, but such a site-wide rule has seemed to be ignored by them since they started their participation in the article concerned. The former non-XC user even posted about the matter associated with the article concerned on different Talk pages, which is not supposed to have been done, despite being reminded by an uninvolved admin to stay away from the topic area.Steven1991 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, if it's just a couple of users, then it's more of an WP:AE/WP:ANI matter, but otherwise falling short of applying ARBECR (it'd be different if it was a primary article, but not for related content). Anyway, if those two users repeat the violations, they should be dealt with by warnings/blocking rather than protecting the page for everyone else. I'll leave this open for a while more, in case you have more evidence to submit that shows there being more than two non-XC users violating the remedy. Also, no links to talk pages or contribs, WP:DIFFs only, please. El_C 19:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your clarification. Steven1991 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@El C hello I'm finding this user is using this event to harass me at this point by repeatedly linking events in unrelated discussions with admins such as this. I didn't want to make this post a mess but it seems it's beyond that point, the user Steven1991 has been engaging in mass edits on this page as detailed heavily here by SerialNumber54129, a large part of the editing included the continuous addition of articles related to Israeli-Palestinian which many of us have been arguing aren't related to the topic of the page. Regardless of the relevance it's hard to argue to the page being locked down and several contributing members being locked out if a single user is the one pushing for entries that force it to be locked down.

Sorry for the long posting I don't want to drag out this request any further but feel input is only fair if I'm being dragged into the comments. Galdrack (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of any of that and even now still largely am, Galdrack, but as mentioned this board is for brief requests that are live usually for a day at most (you need only look at any other request to see that). So this would be a matter better suited for WP:ANI, but I'll still ping the blocking and unblocking admins @Cullen328 and Zzuuzz: here. But this request will likely be archived by the end of day, probably without additional (protection) action. If you do submit such a report to ANI, you can cite the following permalink for this request up to this point. Sorry, I'm writing in haste right now, but I hope the matter gets resolved soon. Feel free to WP:PING me to any further submissions regarding this, but I'm not sure I'm be able to commit to a deep dive here, if that is what's warranted (which looks like it may well). Thanks you. El_C 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to stress that the user apparently engaged in forum shopping by posting about this matter on different Talk pages, which is not supposed to have been done, as it’d draw disinterested parties (those never having edited the article concerned) into the dispute who may make uninformed comments due to lack of perfect information (already happening), which would have a significant impact on my engagement and the process’ fairness. It’s rather me who feel harassed by what the user above is doing, not mentioning that the user had been advised repeatedly by another admin to stay away from this topic area, which the user doesn’t appear to have followed. Steven1991 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

mass edits

I was correcting grammatical mistakes. Words that got removed were largely presented with strikethrough. Would you please assume good faith avoid mischaracterising legitimate acts to try to get someone sanctioned over any disagreements? Steven1991 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not done. This is better suited for a report to WP:ANI. I am moving this discussion momentarily. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen

• List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Anon IP edits, using WP:SPS like X, Ex-Twitter as source. Also unsourced material. Recomend to restore to mid protection. 30days accounts Mr.User200 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended protection due to Arab conflict 2600:100C:B0A1:195:54A8:F1E5:B5B6:EF15 (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Last occurence of "X, Ex-Twitter" sourcing was on September 30, and "restore to mid protection" seems odd as the article has never been protected. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Lviv

• Lviv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term IP disruption. May fall under WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: 92.253.236.0/22 (talk · contribs). One-month partial block from the article in question. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sinai rosefinch

• Sinai rosefinch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Continued changing of cited information. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: Ineam (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Chen Kugel

• Chen Kugel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary Semi-protection: Since he conducted an autopsy on Sinwar's Body, I suggest that he is temporarily semi-protected as he is now known well. Freedoxm (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. As WP:PIA, WP:ECR. El_C 20:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Renato Moicano

• Renato Moicano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated addition of unsourced info. Nswix (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

• Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent troll edits. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Be'eri

• Be'eri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Permanent Extended-Protection: Should be Extended-Protected per WP:PIA. Freedoxm (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Walking with Dinosaurs (film)

• Walking with Dinosaurs (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent IP vandal. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Chromakopia

• Chromakopia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Unsourced track lists keep getting added, and "7th studio album" keeps getting changed to "8th studio album", even though Bastard is a mixtape. 77551enpassant (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level

Request unprotection

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

• To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
• Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
• Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
• If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here

Request edit

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

• Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
• Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
• Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
• If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
• This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests

Gaza genocide

• Gaza genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:

"She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"

1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.

Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[1] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.

2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[2][3][4].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[5]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[6] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[7] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[8]][[9]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Gaza genocide 2

• Gaza genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.

My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).

If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[10][11] and a form of Holocaust erasure[12], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[13][14][15][16]".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Israel–Hamas war infobox

• Template:Israel–Hamas war infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inform readers of the distinction between the dagger symbol and the cross symbol in the infobox.

Under "Commanders and leaders" in the infobox Yahya Sinwar has a dagger next to his name, but others such as Marwan Issa have a cross next to their name. The distinction between these symbols is not immediately clear to someone reading the article, I feel that this should be explicitly noted on the page. The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheElysianVectorFields: That isn't the article page, that's the infobox template. I changed the target for you above. It seems the dagger means "killed in action" (KIA) and the cross means "assassinated". I honestly don't know how I'd add a note to that effect. Maybe someone smarter than me can figure it out. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Gaza genocide

• Gaza genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The last few sentences of the second lead paragraph regarding assassinated Hamas leaders are too detailed for the lead. I don't believe including all of their names without reason is appropriate when the Infobox can convey a simpler understanding of their demise and state. Instead, figures of utmost relevance should be accounted for with reasons outside of their killings.

My suggestion is to change this:

In January 2024, Saleh al-Arouri, the deputy political chief of Hamas, was assassinated in Beirut, Lebanon. In July, Israel claimed to have killed military leader Mohammed Deif in an airstrike in al-Mawasi. In August, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas was assassinated in Tehran, Iran. In October, Yahya Sinwar, the chief and preceding political leader of Hamas, was killed in a shootout in Rafah.

To this:

Throughout 2024, Israel has killed many of Hamas' political and military officials. Prominent figures killed by Israel include Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, who have collectively served as political leaders for Hamas since 2007, and supposedly[citation for clarity] Mohammed Deif, who led Hamas' military branch, the Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, since 2002.

This connects to Israel's goals described prior to this section, while establishing the impact of those killings pertaining to Hamas and Palestine as a whole. The readability of this is a bit wonky though, so if you have any better ideas, please let me know! Ecco2kstan (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

OOPS! I made a mistake in the title. This DOES NOT pertain to the Gaza Genocide article! This is about the Israel-Hamas War. Ecco2kstan (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Israel–Hamas war

• Israel–Hamas war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Move Saleh al-Arouri from military to political due to him being the Deputy Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau before his death ElementalKnight987654321 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Handled requests

A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.