Talk:Israeli attack on Doha

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2025

Add this to reactions /responses Iran: Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Israel's attack on Hamas officials in Qatar is 'dangerous' and a 'violation of international law', Iranian media reported.

source:https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/reaction-israels-attack-hamas-leaders-qatar-2025-09-09/

Add location of targeted building lat long 25.357212,51.509580 source BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c78m71vl91vt?post=asset%3A20251a2a-b848-4b8c-aa6c-9e357b6c066e#post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.230.90 (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

you can read other responses from this article. 2001:1A10:909C:DFBC:81E1:2D95:DFE1:46D9 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The Iranian government reaction is already included in the article. The BBC source you linked does not show the coordinates of the building. Day Creature (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 9 September 2025

Description of suggested change:

This line seems to be written in bad faith. It omits crucial details mentioned in the originally referenced article (link), that said $30 million were transferred with the explicit oversight and approval from both Israel and USA, and were not, as it is implied by omission, illicit terrorist funding. The same article also mentions Israel's commitment of $10 million a month to the Hamas administration in fuel.

Diff:

−

According to a Qatari official speaking to Der Spiegel in 2023, $30 million were transferred monthly to Hamas.

+

In 2023, with approval of both Israel and the USA, Qatar committed to donating $30 million a month to the Hamas administration of Gaza.

LatekVon (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm citing the exact sources used in the paragraph I'm referring to: link LatekVon (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done - oops, you're right. I glanced over the link, sorry, lol 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just to note, as soon as you corrected the bad-faith paragraph, it was removed by someone. I think it would be worth looking more into restricting this article above E+, if that's possible, since it seems to be attracting very biased people more than usual. I'll just mention, that the mention of Israel's approval was at one point removed from this article, if you look at the original draft, it was there, so this wasn't an accidental omission, but a deliberate bad-faith edit. LatekVon (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2025 (2)

Add the following category: Category:Airstrikes in Qatar 94.252.75.82 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Already done Day Creature (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Remove reference 33

in the new arab article, it clearly states "on sunday", today is tuesday, how come Hamas deny something 3 days in advance? Also, the only report of his death is from Channel 12, which later retracted it. Az-Zubaydi (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Already done Seems to have been removed already Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing to live blogs

Is sourcing to a live blog generally seen as a good practice?

Sometimes the Al Jazeera refs work, but others just redirect to the landing page for the blog.

Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It's always preferable to create a permalink for the referenced article. This way, the source will remain available indefinitely. LatekVon (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

After ~24 hours, there is a permanent link. ndiv editors will have to find it.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:740F:FB1E:B707:BC17 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 9 September 2025

Description of suggested change:

Change outcome back to unknown. The IDF wasn't used as a source for confirming assasination of Hamas leaders, I don't see why Hamas should be used as a reliable source for saying they're alive. Hamas has a long history of denying the deaths of their leaders and confirming them months later, like Muhammad Deif, Mohammed Sinwar, etc. Due to this, they should not be a reliable source for the outcome.

Diff:

−

According to Hamas its entire leadership survived the attack

+

Uknown

77.125.69.83 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hamas is not a reliable source, and that's why it's highlighted as the source of this data. If there is an Israeli stance on this subject, it's worth having both stances side-by-side. LatekVon (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: There's obviously nothing wrong with including Hamas's statement on the outcome of the attack as long as it's attributed to Hamas. Day Creature (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Flag clutter

Can we get a consensus on condensing the reactions section to "X, Y, Z approved of the attack" or "A, B,C condemned the attack"? There's no great value in the specific phrasing of press statements. Bremps... 19:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Why? This format is standard across all military operation articles, and including full statements provides necessary context. If it gets unwieldy, we can collapse the international reactions into a collapsible box as was done on United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites#Reactions. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This clutter should be exterminated and we should only keep the reactions of the involved parties: Israel, Hamas, and Qatar 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree, unless there is consensus to break PEIS by scraping the bottom of the countries barrel to include Sealand. Borgenland (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

oppose it eases reading or researchers.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:740F:FB1E:B707:BC17 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:740F:FB1E:B707:BC17 researchers can do their research 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Agree, this MOS:FLAGCRUFT should be pared down to the countries involved. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Disagree, "clutter"?  The above link to FLAGCRUFT is inappropriate as there is no "Inappropriate use" involved here.  Flags appear in many articles where several and more countries are listed. A flag appearing before the country listed, especially when there are many countries, is also a visual aid, allowing a reader to find a specific country at a glance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Split keeping would be a bad idea and deleting would lose sourced information. We could split out to "International reactions to the Israeli attack on Doha" 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 11:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not possible to split something out which is not a part of this article, and the unsummarized list of reactions is not a part of this article anymore, so it cannot be split out. It is possible to copy the list-form reactions from history into a separate article. That would not be a split. Prior consensus is not required to create a new article. I would nominate such an article for deletion citing WP:REDUNDANT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:QUOTEFARM, and WP:PAGEDECIDE. —Alalch E. 01:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Background section

I have added this in the background section, immediately following the content about Qatar's financial support to Hamas:

Israeli authorities authorized financial transfers from Qatar to Hamas and urged the Gulf state to provide the organization with aid throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the reason for allowing the aid was humanitarian.

Do other editors have any issue with this? Hu741f4 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I have removed your addition. It does not appear that the sources cover the background of this event, as they are from 2020 and 2023—dating years before this event would take place. —Alalch E. 19:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the section is titled "Background" and deals with Qatar's financing of Hamas, it is relevant. That is not a good reason to remove it. You should put it back so we can discuss this. Let the other editors have an opinion Hu741f4 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Your addition is contrary to policy, see WP:OR. You cannot claim what the background is because you believe it is the background. A source needs to present these statements as the background of the event that is the topic. And how can a source from 2020/2023 present any statements as a background of an event that took place 2025? This is a common error when writing about current topics. It is important that you understand this. —Alalch E. 20:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Background of articles where there are not a lot of scholarly sources, and here we don't have any, are usually done via editorial discretion. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

There was already content related to Qatar funding Hamas in the opening paragraph of the background section. I only added to it, or you could say, expanded on that pre-existing content. So why didn't you remove the preceding sentences? Hu741f4 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be in favor of restoring the content you propose.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, CNN says "in 2018, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from Qatar to Gaza" dated Sep 11, 2025. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with restoring based on the CNN ref, and I will now restore it, whereas before, without such deeper and more transformative secondary coverage existing (as is always the case immediately after an event) that connects the things without editors making the connections themselves I would be (and was) opposed. —Alalch E. 21:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Reorder State actors list

Description of suggested change:

It'd make the most sense to move all directly involved state actors (Israel, Qatar, USA) to the top of the State actors list. It'd also make sense to sort the remaining countries either by population, by proximity to the event, or by any other relevant way that's other than the current random assortment. Currently, all are scattered throughout it, making the entries less legible.

LatekVon (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The list is currently in alphabetical order, which makes the most sense to use so we're not forced into making value judgments about which countries are more prominent or important. Day Creature (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I would seek to have this reopened as currently going by alphabetical order, it lists the two countries most involved 12th and 26th on the reaction list. I do agree with leaving the remainder of the list in alphabetical order. But Qatar and Israel should be at the top. It is not a value judgement to have the two countries that the event is about at the top of the list. Basetornado (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, reopening. LatekVon (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why you reopened this? It looks like there is no longer a list of country reactions in the article and the "International reactions" section has instead been turned into prose, so I'm not sure why this is still an issue. Day Creature (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale request at this point. As Day Creature mentioned, the reactions are now written in prose rather than a list. Please provide X->Y if there is something you'd like changed at this point. Nubzor [T][C] 00:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Linking to individual updates in AJ's live blog

@David O. Johnson It's possible to link to individual entries in AJ's live blog in this way (?update=#######): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/9/9/live-israel-pounds-gaza-city-as-netanyahu-tells-residents-to-leave-now?update=3936585

But I don't think we should be creating multiple references to the same live blog by doing this. For example, it becomes difficult to specify the author because each entry might have a different author and they are all listed collectively at the top. Federica Marsi, Brian Osgood and Ali Harb did not all create the "Hezbollah says Israel's Doha attack a 'new level of criminality'" update, it was either Marsi, Osgood, or Harb, and we don't know who it is. What do you think? —Alalch E. 22:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's avoid live blogs, if we can. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. —Alalch E. 22:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

First known Israeli attack on Qatar

Al-Jazeera says this is the first known Israeli attack on Qatar. It looks to be true. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed title change "2025 Israeli strike on Doha"

I propose a more neutral title for the article "2025 Israeli strike on Doha". This is the approach used for other similar situations (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran). Targets are usually not specified in article titles. It is more factually correct. While it may be that Israel was targeting Hamas leadership, the airstrike was not solely against these targets and included at least one non-Hamas death and civilian injuries. Dhawk790 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree the current title is WP:OVERPRECISE. I prefer "2025 Israeli attack on Doha", that way we don't have to worry about which munition was used, whether this was an air strike, a missile strike, or a drone strike, or perhaps there were even some Mossad agents on the ground.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

"September 2025 Israeli strike on Hamas in Qatar". Hamas was the target, the location, unfortunate. kencf0618 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

These types of article titles usually specify the geographic location, not the political target. See a few examples below.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Israeli_operation_in_the_northern_Gaza_Strip

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israeli_invasion_of_Lebanon

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2024_Israeli_attacks_against_Lebanon

Months are usually only specified if there was another similar attack that year.

The strikes also hit non-Hamas targets, so it is misleading to only focus on the Hamas aspect of the attacks. Dhawk790 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hamas was the target, but the Zionist strike did not succeed in murdering any of their members. Rather among the casualties we know so far we know that only civilians and a Qatari security officer have fallen. It does not make much sense to include the political and diplomatic justification in the title when their actual actions resulted in a much different outcome. It's like renaming the Iraq War page to the "2003 American military disarmament of Iraqi WMDs" Miyika .₊̣̇.ಇ/ᐠ｡ᆽ｡ᐟ \ 01:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The most important thing for me is not including the year. I will !vote against any proposal that includes the year. —Alalch E. 01:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify why? It seems like this is the norm (see examples above). I understand at this point there is not another attack from another year where that it might be confused with, so I get the logic, but including the year seems to be standard. Dhawk790 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It isn't standard for an event which is the first time that type of event has happened. This is the first Israeli bombing of a location in Doha (and Qatar in general), and so there shouldn't be a year, per WP:NOYEAR (The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur, such as Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena, or murder or death articles that can only happen once (such was Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan or Assassination of Boris Nemtsov)). If there's a second Israeli attack in Qatar, we will add the date/year to both articles. —Alalch E. 02:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this justification. I think I agree. I would like to update the proposal to be: "Israeli strike on Doha" or "Israeli attack on Doha". Dhawk790 (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, either of those titles sound infinitely better than the current title, and I'm fine with either. However, I don't fully agree that adding the date is redundant, but I'm not hung up on that point. My preferred title would be "2025 Israeli strike on Doha", but "Israeli strike on Doha" or something similar would work. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I personally prefer "2025 Israeli strike on Doha" but omitting the year would still be better than the current title as it is overly specific. If we were to do that then there's so many other pages that must also specifically mention the targeted individuals/groups in the title. EmpAhmadK (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Only time that a change would potentially be needed is if Israel was to attack Doha again at some point in the future, in to which then the article's name could be further amended to First Israeli airstrike on Doha. Bigmanethan (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree WP:OVERPRECISE as User:Dhawk790 said, and as it currently stands, the most definitively notable part of the attack was the location. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Support for the given editorial reasons. Not worth debating who or what exactly the israelis were targeting for the title; that is what the body of the article is for. TheMiddleWest (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Location

Is it allowed for someone to add a geolocation? . Location is based on these sources 25°21'26.59"N 51°30'34.28"E. SheefDoolA (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Berbock

Analena Berbock is no longer the German foreign minister 2.243.179.162 (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So what? Raihanur (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Already done We have now the correct name, Johann Wadephul.

This segment can be archived. --87.170.204.185 (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 10 September 2025

Description of suggested change: Add the Malaysian response.

Diff:

−

* <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Libya.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Libya|Libya]]: Libyan Prime Minister [[Abdul Hamid Dbeibah]] called the strike a "cowardly aggression" and called on the international community to stop these "violations". * <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Maldives.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Maldives|Maldives]]: The Maldives condemned the "cowardly" Israeli attack, calling it "a serious violation of international law and a blatant infringement on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a sovereign nation."

+

* <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Libya.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Libya|Libya]]: Libyan Prime Minister [[Abdul Hamid Dbeibah]] called the strike a "cowardly aggression" and called on the international community to stop these "violations". * <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Malaysia.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Malaysia|Malaysia]]: Malaysia condemns "in the strongest possible terms the Israeli airstrikes on Doha." Prime Minister [[Anwar Ibrahim]] said that "by targeting Qatar—a nation central to mediation and dialogue in the Middle East —Israel has shown utter contempt for peace and diplomacy." * <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Maldives.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Maldives|Maldives]]: The Maldives condemned the "cowardly" Israeli attack, calling it "a serious violation of international law and a blatant infringement on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a sovereign nation."

EmpAhmadK (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Done, thanks @EmpAhmadK! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Please also add Indonesia's reaction:

Indonesia urges UNSC to halt Israeli aggression after strike in Doha.

source: https://en.antaranews.com/news/379025/indonesia-urges-unsc-to-halt-israeli-aggression-after-strike-in-doha A tumiwa (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for helping @A tumiwa! Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Edit request 10 September 2025

Description of suggested change: The reaction of the state actor Germany is incorrectly attributed: Annalena Baerbock is no longer the foreign minister, but Johann Wadephul (https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/newsroom/2734254-2734254).

Diff:

−

* <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Germany.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Germany|Germany]]: German Foreign Minister [[Annalena Baerbock]] called the attack "unacceptable" as it not only violates Qatar's territorial sovereignty but also threatens collective efforts to [[Gaza war hostage crisis|release the hostages]].

+

* <span class="flagicon nowrap">[[File:Flag of Germany.svg|23x15px|border |alt=|link=]] </span>[[Germany|Germany]]: German Foreign Minister [[Johann Wadephul]] called the attack "unacceptable" as it not only violates Qatar's territorial sovereignty but also threatens collective efforts to [[Gaza war hostage crisis|release the hostages]].

Julian Beier (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Already done --87.170.204.185 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reactions section

I've copied two relevant comments from WP:ITNC below. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment on quality There is zero need for a massive reaction section that basically just has most of the comments finger-wagging at the attack without any actual call to action or the like. That's article bloat that doesn't need to be there. Some reactions, like those actually involved here and the attempted ceasefire (Israel, Qatar, the US etc) make sense. At least some of the others, like with France, Germany and Spain, could be combined without using quotes to say other nations comdemned the attack without bullet-pointing each one. Masem (t) 05:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it'd be better to split that into a Reactions to article, where more countries like Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Maldives, etc., could be listed, keeping only the more pertinent ones in the parent article; or, not do that and just trim. I personally am not as hostile to the 'bullet point list with flag icons' approach as some, but indeed, it's like half the length of the article now. El_C 05:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the deletion here! --87.170.204.185 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree(though IPs cannot comment in this topic area). At a bare minimum the reaction of the US- Israel's main backer- is relevant. It may very well be that some of those reactions should be condensed, but let's figure out which ones and how.331dot (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree that all other than the direct participants should be removed. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2025

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. This seems like a matter of editorial judgement, and the new name was favored 2:1. Some editors favored the version without the year. Most supporters didn't say, so I'm going with the default version with the year. Despite the sticky semantic objections about who is being attacked, please don't read this outcome as a political statement; this is just people deciding to describe an event in fewer words. -- Beland (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Israeli airstrike on Hamas leadership in Qatar → 2025 Israeli attack on Doha2025 Israeli attack on Doha – The current title is WP:OVERPRECISE; given there's no other articles on the topic of an Israeli attack on Qatar, we really don't need to disambiguate by target. 2025 Israeli attack on Doha follows our event naming convention when, what, where (WP:NCWWW). Given this is the first known attack, Israeli attack on Doha would be acceptable too, per WP:NOYEAR. "attack" is also preferable, as it is munition agnostic and we don't have to worry about whether this was a "missile strike" (like the Guardian calls it) or a "missile attack" (per DW) or an "airstrike" (per WaPo) or a "bombing" (per CBC News and Daily Telegraph).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Pings to users from the above discussion: @Alalch E. @Dhawk790 @Elspamo4 @EmpAhmadK @Kencf0618 @Miyika.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Question: Why not Israeli attack on Qatar? Nimon (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that is a good question and I would be okay with that tile too. It does seem like other article refer to the country. Dhawk790 (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Against Israel reportedly targeted Hamas specifically, not Doha or Qatar per se. Yes, it happened on Qatari soil, but the alleged intent was to attack Hamas leadership/interests. "Israeli attack on Qatar" is not accurate enough, in my humble opinion. 2601:18E:D183:2D70:6544:F815:9851:613C (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Support Sgroey (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Too vague and it only happened in one area. Also, see 2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base as reference. If there's an event where Israel strikes Qatar outside Doha, they I'll support this instead. RPC7778 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per conversation above and seeming emerging consensus. Either "Israeli strike on Doha" or "Israeli attack on Doha".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk790 (talk • contribs)

Support per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:NCWW Miyika .₊̣̇.ಇ/ᐠ｡ᆽ｡ᐟ \ 11:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per above R3YBOl (🌲) 12:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Support WP:NCWWW QalasQalas (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Against The current title is as precise as it needs to be. The strike was not on Qatar per se, much less Doha. kencf0618 (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Buildings in Doha were hit by munitions of a foreign country. A violation of Qatar's airspace and territorial sovereignty. An attack on Doha/Qatar. If a Russian bomb landed in New York, it would be an attack. commemorative (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Not strictly true. Israel has carried out plenty of strikes against targets in Lebanon and Yemen, but they are not characterised as attacks against the countries in question. There should be room for nuance. Obviously Israel violated Qatar’s sovereignty, but that does not necessarily mean they were attacking Qatar as a state. They were attacking non-state targets inside Qatar. When France bombed the Rainbow Warrior in 1985, it was not characterised as an attack on New Zealand, but as an attack that took place within New Zealand. StellaAquila (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Israeli airstrikes in Yemen and in Lebanon are characterized as against the Houthis and Hezbollah because these non international-recognized factions hold territory that does not fall under the control of the Lebanese or Yemeni states. In Qatar, this is not the case. In Indian strikes against terrorist groups in Pakistan, those are still characterized as violation of sovereignty and has lead to wars because Pakistan and India have control of all their sovereign territory. Grimforge (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Against too. The title needs to be precise, and Israel reportedly targeted Hamas specifically, not Doha or Qatar per se. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand what WP:OVERPRECISE is about – it's about disambiguation. The critical question is whether en.wikipedia.org has another article on an Israeli attack on Qatar? If not, then there is no need to disambiguate this with "Hamas leadership".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" The critical question is whom Israel struck. The answer is the Hamas leadership. In Qatar. This article has nothing to do with disambiguation and everything to do with this airstrike being sui generis. kencf0618 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom commemorative (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Skitash (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Attack on Qatar ≠ attack in Qatar. The target should be emphasized in the title. Compare with 2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, which also occurred in Qatar, but the title emphasizes the target. "Israeli attack on Doha" isn't precise enough and potentially deceptive/misleading (someone looking at that title could interpret it as an attack against Qatar, which is certainly controversial). 9ninety (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Al Udeid Air Base is a location, just as Doha is a location, which is what WP:NCWWW recommends. "Hamas leadership" is not a location. "Israeli attack on Doha" is precise enough because there exists no other article on en.wiki about another "Israeli attack on Doha". Please see WP:OVERPRECISE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hamas is exigently, depostively topical, being the target. Lots of targets in the Middle East; the polity of the target is in this case definitive. Qatar just happens to be the Switzerland of the Middle East. If a delegation in Geneva were attacked, would that be "Attack on Switzerland"? kencf0618 (talk)

+1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

“Attack on Doha” is far too broad to accurately describe the nature or extent of the Israeli strikes. A reader who doesn’t know anything about them could easily misinterpret the title as an attack on the residents of Doha, or an attack against the Qatari government itself. I agree that the current title is a bit unwieldy, but let’s not replace it with something worse. StellaAquila (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary: “Attack on Doha” describes the undisputed fact that this was a clear-cut violation of a nation's sovereignty. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be WP:OR for us to say that it wasn't an attack on the residents of Doha, given that there were residents of Doha in the building at the time, and it was a military strike on the territory of another country. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom and because the current title, while trying to be specific, is ambiguous: was it an attack on Qatari Hamas leaders, or an attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar? I'm sympathetic to the comment above mine but I think the proposed change actually makes it less likely to be interpreted as an attack against Qatar, since it neutrally describes the location that was struck. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Would also be fine with "...attack in Doha." Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral on including the year, but support change as the current title is overly specific and focuses on the intended target rather than the location. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support current title is too clunky. Borgenland (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per all the above. The proposed title accurately describes the situation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. There is no similar attack which needs to be disambiguated from, so the precision of the current title is unnecessary. 296cherry (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is as precise as it needs to be. The suggested title is so broad that it misleads the reader into thinking that Israel targeted the Qatari government. There is also no need for "2025" as this is the first time such an attack occurred. And there isn't any reason to change "airstrike" into "attack", as the former word requires a very basic understanding of military conflicts. Also opppose, per arguments given by 9ninety. Ecrusized (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title is too generalized and would be misleading, as the attack was to a foreign (Non-Qatari) element inside Doha, not to Doha (or Qatar) itself. The current title is as precise as it needs to be. There is also currently no need for "2025" as this is the only time such an attack occurred, if another attack will occur in e.g. 2026 or later then a discussion about adding 2025 to the title should be reopened, until then its just pseudo-disambiguation. The "airstrike" also seems to be more precise than "attack", as the latter could implicate ground based operations. RScheiber (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose -- The current title isn't great, but the suggested title implies that Israel went to war with Qatar, which is inaccurate. 9ninety's idea is interesting and merits further discussion. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom, and re:Qatar not being the target -- sovereignty is of consideration as well.

chickenpox4dinner (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom, and I additionally agree with chickenpox4dinner's comments on sovereignty. Myconix (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support - there's two state actors, one of which attacked the territory of the other regardless of the reason. Theres hostility involved and there is a clear breach of sovereignty. While the events might not constitute a war, it still is one state's aggression on another's city, particularly to a civilian neighborhood. Grimforge (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support because the attack was not only on Qatari territory (and a Qatari citizen was killed) but also on its sovereignty: Qatar has been hosting the negotiating delegation and talks to end the war. Both of those have been blown up by this attack. Note that the language "attack on Qatar" has been adopted by politicians and countries operating from many diverse perspectives, for instance,
  • "Today’s Israeli strikes on Qatar are unacceptable..." according to French President Emmanuel Macron The Hill,
  • Betty McCollum, US House Appropriations Committee on Defense, explained, "This unprovoked attack on the nation of Qatar is a flagrant violation of international law that harms prospects for peace between Israel and Hamas." The Hill
  • According to France24, UK Prime Minister's Office has said that the PM "plans to raise with Herzog the Israeli airstrike on Qatar as well as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza," France24
  • CNN also describes the attack as "On Qatar" CNN, and possibly even by Israeli officials themselves, and/or CNN CNN
  • This language is used by Canada's foreign minister BBC
  • And there are many other sources. -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support for a couple reasons. First, the current title goes against WP:OVERPRECISE and our naming convention for the vast majority of our military conflict articles. And secondly, this is first and foremost an attack on a residential compound in a sovereign nation that resulted in a civilian of that country being murdered. It just isn't accurate to label it as an "attack on Hamas" rather than an "attack on Doha". As for whether the year should or shouldn't be included, I do think that it should, but, even "Israeli attack on Doha" would be acceptable imo. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – it was not an attack on Doha, nor on Qatar. Such a name would confuse readers, and be encyclopedically incorrect. It was a specific attack on a compound/locations where Hamas had its facilities in Qatar. The attack was clearly on Hamas leadership, as many sources report, and is becoming WP:COMMONNAME. Political statements made by political entities and political actors in early days are just that: political, and contain a POV, so are not the major contributors to common name. N2e (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - While I largely agree with the original proposal's rationale, I feel like the title will incite yet another brigade from off of Wikipedia (like what happened with Zionism). I'd recommend "Israeli attack on Hamas leadership in Doha" to avoid potential confusion from other editors/users (i.e "They didn't attack the State of Qatar"). However I'm not neccesarily opposed to the name change. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 18:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. the attacks were 1- against Hamas, not Qatar. 2-if the title were attacks on Qatar, it would put into Wiki's voice that Israel attacked Qatar, not Hamas and 3-This current title shows that Hamas is HQ'ed in Qatar and gives something to the reader to read up on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  Further, for the record Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden doesn't mention in the title that it was an attack in Pakistan. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The attack was in Doha, similarly the attack on Pearl Harbor was in Pearl Harbor. It doesn't state it was against the US Navy in the article title so comparing other article titles is pointless and this title is against WP:NCWWW. Should've Hayya been assassinated, you could make an argument of calling this Killing of Khalil Hayya but this is not the case. Grimforge (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. In the case of Pearl Harbor, the target and the sovereign of the territory matched. Sir Joseph's point that you responded to is that, in this case, they don't match. So mentioning the location without mentioning the target would be misleading. Dotyoyo (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

An attack for any reason in another sovereign country is by definition a violation of that country's sovereignty. If you want another example see 2019 Balakot airstrike which doesn't state in the title that this is an Indian attack on terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed in Pakistan and not on Pakistani sovereignty. Grimforge (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Osama bin laden wasn’t residing in Pakistan because the USA and Israel specifically requested him to and neither was he bombed in the middle of negotiations in a perfidious operation to derail them after being asked to review a us offer The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I think this could need a bit more time, the title could depend on Qatars response. Should they retaliate the argument of it implying an confrontation between the two countries would cease to apply anyways. Squawk7700 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per RScheiber, Sir Joseph. I think the discussion itself is biased. It's clear to everyone that Israel didn't attack Qatar. It attacked Hamas leaders who happened to be in Qatar... Eliezer1987 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support Everyone should recognise bias in their position, people cannot escape bias. It was an attack on Hamas but it was in Qatar and a violation of Qatari sovereignty. Chwyatt (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. إيان (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Israel targeted Hamas’ leaders, so the proposal for a new title isn’t precise enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom, the fact the attack was Qatar is important here—blindlynx 00:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Darouet and Commemorative1. Daask (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• "in Doha" sounds better than "on Doha", since Doha itself wasn't the intended target. There's PIA precedent in 1973 Israeli raid in Lebanon as well. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 05:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment (I've already voted) The current title is neutral and gives an adequate and appropriate description of the event — It was an airstrike, on Hamas leadership, in Qatar; none of that's disputable. The proposed title is not neutral, as it puts the clearly controversial stance that Israel attacked Qatar (attack ≠ violation of sovereignty) in Wikipedia's voice. It is also ambiguous, as it omits important information about the target and does not adequately describe the event (reiterating from my previous comment, attack on isn't the same as attack in). The current title isn't overprecise; it's unambiguous, as precise as it needs to be, and encyclopedic. 9ninety (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. “Attack on Doha” is far too broad, and could imply that Israel was targeting Qatari authorities or civilians. StellaAquila (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Per Nom, The target was Doha with 10 bombs, violation is violation, when India strikes to Pakistan, India always says that it attacked Terrorist based in Pak, but the fact is that they attacked Pakistani soil. GrabUp - Talk 08:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed title is very misleading. it makes it sound like Doha was targeted (this is not the Bombing of Dresden). If the goal is to make the title shorter or more precise, that's fine, but not when the "shortened" version ends up changing the meaning completely and suggesting something entirely different from what actually happened. Rafi Chazon (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. As others have noted, “attack on Doha” wrongly suggests a strike against the city itself when in fact this was a targeted strike on Hamas officials. Wikipedia article titles must be accurate and unambiguous (WP:TITLECRITERIA), and precision is especially important on sensitive topics. The current title identifies both the actor and the target, while the proposed move strips away that context and risks misleading readers about what actually happened. Reliable sources describe the event as an airstrike or missile strike so the current title is more faithful to coverage. HHRIA123 (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. As others have stated, the suggested title implies that Israel attacked the entire city, which it didn't. The current title is more precise. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The title Israeli attacks on Yemen (May 2025–present) doesn't mean the "entire" country of Yemen was attacked. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Opposeneutral adding this to my comment: current one seems WP:PRECISE and we can change the title the situation changes significantlySquawk7700 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment For those who are concerned that the proposed title implies that the attack was on Qatar keep in mind that the most popular proposed title refers to the City "Doha" not the country, which does not suggest that the government of Qatar was the target of the strikes, but instead correctly states that that the attack took place in the city of Doha. Second, emphasizing that members of Hamas are the alleged targets takes away from the fact that the strike killed at least one person who was not in Hamas and injured many others. The building was also not a Hamas building. Dhawk790 (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support for renaming. More neutral. Preferably using "Doha". Possibly using "in" rather than "on", as in this article in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/10/the-guardian-view-on-israels-attack-in-doha-western-passivity-is-allowing-netanyahu-to-cross-every-red-line --- E.—UX 12:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I could get along with "attack in doha" as it would disambiguate enough for me, changed my vote to neutral. Squawk7700 (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

RS use both "in Doha"() and "on Doha"() and I'm fine with either.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Per nominator. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The attack was on Doha (the violation of a nation's sovereignty is a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - as others have stated, "attack on Doha" carries an implication that the entire city of Doha was targeted. That was not the case here, and there is no need to introduce ambiguity when none exists with the current title. WMSR (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Titles never carry the implication of "entirety". For example, Israeli attacks on Yemen (May 2025–present) doesn't imply Israel attacked entirety of Yemen. Likewise 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks doesn't mean Israel attacked every single electronic device in Lebanon. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - My feelings are already described by many others. The implication is very different if this is described as an "attack on Doha." - אקעגן (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Support as per Eva UX's suggestion with "in Doha" rather than "on Doha". Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 01:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per arguments provided by Ecrusized, 9ninety, HHRIA123, and others. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 01:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support but with the title “in Doha” instead of “on Doha” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Per above. Nico (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per reasons given by Ecrusized, 9ninety, HHRIA123, WMSR, and others. -Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support the title with "in Doha" as per arguments above. SaadJatt (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Support The current title Israeli airstrike on Hamas leadership in Qatar is too narrow and non-neutral. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, article titles should reflect how reliable sources describe the event without implying motive or limiting scope. Major international outlets frame it as an Israeli attack on Doha, not just a “targeted airstrike.” Moving/renaming to 2025 Israeli attack on Doha or 2025 Israeli attack on Qatar ensures accuracy, neutrality, and consistency with WP:TITLE guidelines. - Anjana Larka^♥ 17:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per above and the additional evidence that this was "state-designated residential complex" and multiple Qatari Internal Security troops were injured or killed.--Carwil (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support as a less cumbersome title per WP:CONCISE. ~ HAL333 19:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support, in addition to concision, the title currently suggests that only Hamas leaders were harmed. However, as the article states itself, civilians too, were hurt. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 04:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The title doesn't suggest that only Hamas leaders were harmed. It only suggests that they were targeted. Unintended civilian casualties during conflict is called collateral damage, something that unfortunately occurs in pretty much every armed conflict. This is incident is part of the Gaza war, and it is relevant to include the target of the strikes in the title. The extent of collateral damage is appropriately detailed within the article content. 9ninety (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Netanyahu's intentions are during the Gaza war have been subject to debate a large number of scholars. We should not base our title based on Netanyahu's stated intentions, but the location of the event, which is an undisputed fact.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. - ✸Vidarstand✸ — Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support "Israeli airstrike in Doha". No year per WP:NOYEAR. "Airstrike" has the necessary precision whereas the suggested alternatives do not: "strike" doesn't say from which domain of warfare and "attack" is entirely abstract and imprecise. Only "airstrike" answers the "what" of WP:NCWWW. "In Doha" answers the "where". "On Doha" would also answer "where" but "in" feels better to me at this time.—Alalch E. 19:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  We actually don't know the exact munitions by which this attack was carried out. There's speculation it was: a cruise missile, a drone, air-launched ballistic missile, "one-tonne penetration bomb" etc. Unless there's another Israeli attack on Doha, specifying the exact method in the title is WP:OVERPRECISION and subject to change as new facts emerge. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  You're using superseded sourcing. We do know and it's in our article; it appears that you're unaware of those changes to the "Attack" section and the later WSJ article. You have listed four sources: three are days old and contain speculation; they are based on a lack of knowledge. The fourth one is new and comments on how we now know something we didn't know, referencing the WSJ article. The WSJ article explains that the attack was an airstrike, lists the planes used, the type of missile used (air-launched ballistic missile), has information on which of the two little-known exotic missiles these could have been, states where the planes flew, what the trajectory of the airplaine-launched missiles was... In short: ballistic missiles launched into space from planes. —Alalch E. 01:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  The WSJ is just one of many speculations, but even that WSJ article never uses the term "airstrike" or "air strike" to describe the event. Instead it repeatedly uses the word "attack" and "strike" to describe the event.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  The WSJ report is not speculation: "Israeli jet fighters, eight F-15s and four F-35s, flew to the Red Sea, on the opposite side of the Arabian Peninsula from Qatar. From there, some of the planes fired the air-launched ballistic missiles into space over Saudi Arabia at Doha, several U.S. officials said. This account of the attack is based on interviews with multiple senior U.S. officials briefed on the operation. ... By positioning its jet fighters in the Red Sea and firing missiles that went into space, Israel sought to avoid accusations that it had violated Saudi Arabia’s airspace in conducting the attack. Saudi officials have condemned the attack but haven’t referred publicly to Israel’s firing of missiles over their territory." Just a regular media report. The source not containing the word "airstrike" and using "strike" instead doesn't carry any meaning when it clearly discusses an airstrike. The Ynet article you linked above, about the WSJ article, does use the word airstrike. —Alalch E. 08:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  "when it clearly discusses an airstrike". Sure it has some similarities to what is called an "airstrike", but also some key differences. But it can also be described as a "missile attack" (similar to Iraqi ballistic missile attacks on Saudi Arabia and 1991 Iraqi missile attacks against Israel). It can also be described as a "bombing" (similar to Amiriyah shelter bombing), and the WSJ article does quote Trump using that term. So according to WSJ theory alone, this attack can be described in three different ways: airstrike, missile attack/strike, and bombing – to say nothing of other theories. The purpose of an article title is not to resolve this debate, which is why "attack" is preferable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't appropriate to compare these sources where some are early speculation based on a lack of information and another is a journalistic report (by WSJ) that came later and call all of them "theories". According to the only non-speculative RS account that we have, this was an airstrike using air-launched ballistic missiles, which is also a missile strike, and it is not a "bombing", except very colloquially/newsstyle. "Attack" can mean an airborne commando raid, a covert op, a military incursion etc., and is insufficiently precise. "Missile strike" is not concise and does not signify "airplanes". Airstrike does however allow for "bombing", i.e., use of bombs instead of missiles, and is not 100% precise, but it best balances WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISION. —Alalch E. 15:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Lets consider the RS that report on the Red Sea hypothesis.

  • WSJ (as mentioned above) – uses "attack" (multiple times), but never uses "airstrike".
  • Haaretz - calls it "attack" (3 times) but never calls it "airstrike"
  • Associated Press - calls it "attack" multiple times (the "Doha attack", "Sept. 9 attack" etc). It uses the word "airstrikes" once, but not directly in relation to the attack.

  VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agree wholly on the point that the topic is better described as both an "airstrike" and taking place "in Qatar" rather than "on Qatar". Disagree with the point on not mentioning the date, since that's an important point of context. It doesn't matter how many Israeli strikes on Doha exist, imo, a 2025 strike is a completely different story than a strike that took place before the Gaza War, as the relationship and diplomatic interactions were completely different between Israel and Qatar, moving from a "backer of Hamas" (in Western media) to the primary negotiator between the two parties. Elspamo4 (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support "Israeli aistrike on Doha" per WP:NOYEAR and WP:CONCISE. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Move to Operation Day of Judgement per Israeli sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftsang (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed moved is extremely misleading. The strake was intended exclusively on Hamas leaders who happened to be in Doha, not on Qatar. The fact that it happened to take place in Qatar was incidental. It was certainly not an attack "on Doha", which implies that they were attacking Doha/Qatar directly. Nehushtani (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It was an attack on Doha directly. If terrorists attacked the UN headquarters, but set the bomb off in the office of a particular country, it would still be an attack on New York City. Dhawk790 (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes exactly this is like saying that 9/11 wasn't an attack on NYC, that was just where the World Trade Centre happened to be. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 14:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The attack was on terrorists who happened to be in Doha. The target was the terrorists and terrorists alone, and not on any other target in Doha. Nehushtani (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The target was in Doha in an apparently residential building. At least one Qatari was killed and multiple were injured. It is true Israel says that the reason for the strike was targeting Hamas leaders, but in point of fact that attack was in Doha. Dhawk790 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The spooky “t word” isn’t relevant here. It was an attack that targeted a negotiations group that was there by the us’s request and to review a proposal that the US forwarded, which Israel bombed (a failed assassination I must say) that killed some low level bodyguards, one of the target’s sons, and a Qatari security forces official. So no, it wasn’t a “strike on scary t-words”, it was Israel backstabbing the negotiations in a cowardly move that failed anyways and killed other people The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic and be mindful of WP:NOTAFORUM. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I’m still a bit worked up about this because of how close the bombing was to me when it took place The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Support: I was looking for an article about this subject and took me a while. I tried few search terms, expecting it to be "Israeli attack on Qatar", "Israeli attack on Doha" or "Doha airstrikes " ..eventually went to the "Qatari-Israeli relations" page to find a link to it. Anectodical evidence or not, this title isn't intuitive, the purpose of a title is to make it easy to find, not to give all the details in the title. Tashmetu (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per AnonymousScholar49-AINH (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - now, if proposed title said "in Doha"... TuckerResearch (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per Paprikaiser and others as a read of most popular suggestion, that of no year and concise. Primarily Israeli airstrike on Doha, otherwise Israeli airstrike in Doha as secondary, and use of "Israeli attack on/in Doha" as last option. An attack on Qatari soil is inherently an attack both on Qatar, as well as in Qatar. When it happens in Doha, it becomes an attack on Doha as well as in Doha. The mental gymnastics to argue that this was not an attack in or on Qatar I strongly disagree with; it was both, regardless of motive or intent. It's not incidental either, instead from an encyclopedic perspective it's a means of disambiguating one airstrike from another per "[Nation] airstrike on [Location]". CNC (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as the article's title is a precise articulation of a commonly recognizable name found in the articles sources, which is one of the criteria for naming articles. Also, the Wikipedia essay about choosing article titles about violence and deaths suggests finding a common name found in sources be resorting to a more formulaically derived name as might be found by applying Wikipedia's naming conventions for events. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no commonnname here, hence we must resort to a descriptive title (WP:NDESC). But if you insist on citing WP:COMMONNAME then you should know that I was unable to find a single RS that uses the exact words "Israeli airstrike on Hamas leadership in Qatar". I was, however, able to find multiple sources that use the exact words "Israeli attack on Doha": Reuters, AP, CNN, The Hill, Guardian etc. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Support: The renaming makes the title more concise. Rager7 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It's been a week. It seems like there is a consensus to change. Can the change be made? @Vice_regent

Dhawk790 (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:NCWWW. Any claim that current title is WP:COMMONNAME is disproved by citations from Darouet showing multiple RS framing it as an attack on Qatar. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment While I voted in favour of keeping the current title, I find Israeli airstrike in Doha to be a reasonable alternative, per Alalch E. and others. 9ninety (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That does seem to be a good compromise, because there is no implication about the target being Qatar. Funny how one letter can have a big effect. Dhawk790 (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That is also a more concise and precise title, in my view. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Both Israeli attack on Doha and Israeli attack in Doha have the same number of letters. In seems like a euphemism in this case. Even if we use on, we aren't shifting blame onto Israel in any way. We aren't discounting the possibility that the attack justified because of the Hamas leaders there and the tunnels that they built there. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 13:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per above ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 00:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2025

Add picture of artermath

File:Doha airstrike 09092025.jpg

Doha airstrike

Foreignyakin (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: not a free image 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2025

Add:

• Brazil: The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly condemned the attack, stating that it "constitutes a flagrant violation of Qatar's sovereignty and of the most fundamental principles of international law". Berganus (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've added the requested content to the article. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

References

@Smallangryplanet: @Berganus: @Ivebeenhacked: It has been deleted – with no consensus.--91.54.20.237 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there is some discussion around this here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 11 September 2025

Description of suggested change: On the front page it says "Israel attacks the Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar."

A definite article is not usually attached to a proper noun, and as such the sentence reads quite unnaturally.

'Israel attacks Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar' or 'Israel attacks the leadership of Hamas in Doha, Qatar' sound much more natural.

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
24.161.52.200 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This should be discussed at Talk:Main Page. Day Creature (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Summary of the reaction

I reverted the recent attempt at summarising the reactions as I didn't think it was accurate. Grouping the reactions in terms of "Arabs" and "non-Arabs" is original research to begin with. Omitting the reaction of certain states (France, Canada, UK, Russia, Turkey, etc.) didn't make any sense either. M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: by "summarising" the reactions, you already reverted the edits of multiple editors. Reverting my edit is a violation of 1RR on your part, so I suggest you self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. Instead, put in the work to improve the content. —Alalch E. 16:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I'll make my nonsense very simple for you: are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Put in the work instead of fighting. —Alalch E. 16:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I repeat: are you going to self-revert (i.e. abide by the rules like everyone else)? If the answer is no or the edit is still there when I check again in a bit, then AE it is. M.Bitton (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This is comical. —Alalch E. 16:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If the rules are comical to you, then there isn't a lot I can to say to that. Sadly, I have no other choice but to report the 1R violation. M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 12 September 2025

Description of suggested change: Name of Qatari official slain is Lance Corporal Bader Saad Mohammed Al Humaidi Al Dosari of the Internal Security Forces (Lekhwiya) https://www.nbcnews.com/world/quatar/blasts-doha-qatar-israel-hamas-idf-strikes-rcna230038

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
JeffersonLockeSmith (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Placement of the reactions section (before or after "Political effects")

@Vice regent The entire reactions section works better before "Political effects", because reading that material first is a significant part of the relevant context for these effects. I'm of a view that articles should be laid out in such a way that reading them from start to finish should work without reading the whole article and thinking "well if I had read that first, that section I had read previously would have made more sense / been easier to understand". What do you think? —Alalch E. 21:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:FORBESCON military analysis

@Vice regent I have removed your addition in Special:Diff/1311022131 with the following explanation: this WP:FORBESCON commentary isn't bad but it doesn't add much as and the source is marked as WP:GUNREL -- Paul Iddon is a "freelance writer and journalist" and I would not consider him a subject matter expert; separately: listing the aircraft in possession of Qatar is of unclear relevance ... they have airplanes, and? Would Qatar have flown over to the Red Sea for an air battle? —Alalch E. 22:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea that Paul Iddon could be a subject-matter expert; I'm just not seeing it currently. —Alalch E. 23:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Killing of Al-Hayya’s family members in previous

@Jay Hi, I noticed you removed the section of text "Three other of al-Hayya's children, along with his wife, were previously killed by an Israeli airstrike during the 2014 Gaza War" claiming it was irrelevant.

Firstly, the killing of his other family members occurred during the 2014 Gaza war, not in 2007, as is described in the linked source.

Secondly, this information is relevant as the IDF have been known to deliberately attack and kill civilian who have familial relations with Hamas members. It is important to include this in the article as it provides background to the now recent killing of another family member who is also a civilian. Miyika .₊̣̇.ಇ/ᐠ｡ᆽ｡ᐟ \ 11:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2025

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:NOYEAR. Event is not inherently recurring and in the case that it does reoccur, disambiguation can then be discussed. (closed by non-admin page mover) veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 13:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

---

2025 Israeli attack on Doha → Israeli attack on Doha – Unneeded dismabiguation which directly hinders the neutrality of this page by implying that Israel has attacked Doha multiple times. It should be moved to ensure that it is not inaccurate and in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:Disambiguation. Consensus has already been achieved as to what the title should be, so please only discuss whether the disambiguation is needed or not. The only reason I have this request is because my request at RM: technical moves was rejected. Thank you, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 00:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - not even being a month out from the event makes it impossible to judge historical perspective to satisfy WP:NOYEAR. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

What future-predicting device do you possess that makes you think that this will happen again? Should we also preemptively disambiguate other pages? 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOYEAR: The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur. And this is not a recurring event. When Israel conducts an attack in/on Doha again, we will then disambuguate.—Alalch E. 15:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-threatens-hamas-wherever-they-are-qatar-hosts-summit-2025-09-15/

At least until the threat goes away, the year should remain included

It also helps put it in the context of the greater conflict rather than appearing to be isolated Eraybee (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC) User is not extended confirmed. Also note that the signature misrepresents the username. The !vote was added by user:Doodlingfool255

• Support, per WP:NOYEAR. Such an attack has never happened before, and given American assurances, is unlikely to reoccur. Green Montanan (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOYEAR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOYEAR. Lova Falk (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support, guess my reasoning? (WP:NOYEAR) --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 02:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2025

Under the apology section, change (Trump and Netanyahu placed a call to Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani) to Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-apologizes-to-qatar-for-strike-on-hamas-leaders-in-call-with-trump/

Mentioned in first paragraph of the source above Eraybee (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. The article Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has him listed as Emir of Qatar. Green Montanan (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday apologized to his Qatari counterpart, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani, for the Israeli strike in Qatar on September 9, which targeted a meeting of the Hamas terror group’s political leadership.

From above source

Please read it. Doodlingfool255 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Counterpart does not mean that they have the same title.

In this context, counterpart means they are both heads of government. Green Montanan (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done all 3 sources cited (the two in the section in question as well as the source provided by Doodlingfool) state that the call was between PM Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Trump and Netanyahu, without even mentioning Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. I believe the confusion here might lie in the fact that they have similar names. Nonetheless, I corrected the section according to the references. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that difference. With the names being so long, I didn't realize that there was an error in the name. Green Montanan (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2025

Change

Concurrently with the above, Qatar had been an important financial backer of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, having transferred more than $1.8 billion to it over the years. These transfers were authorized by Israel, who urged the Gulf state to provide the organization that exercises control over the Gaza Strip with aid throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s. Qatar started transferring millions of dollars to Gaza in coordination with Israel in 2018, doing so on a monthly basis with approval of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. This marked a deepening of Israel–Qatar relations. In 2023, with approval of both Israel and the United States, Qatar committed to donating $30 million a month to Hamas. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the reason for allowing the aid was humanitarian.

To

Concurrently with the above, Qatar had been an important financial backer of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, having transferred more than $1.8 billion to it over the years. Beginning in 2018, Qatar transferred monthly payments of roughly US $30 million to the Gaza Strip in coordination with Israel and the United States. According to Israeli and Qatari officials, these funds were intended for humanitarian purposes, which includes fuel purchases, civil-service salaries, and assistance to low-income families, and were monitored under arrangements approved by the Israeli government. Analysts note that Israel tolerated the transfers to maintain stability in Gaza and avert a humanitarian crisis rather than as political support for Hamas. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the reason for allowing the aid was humanitarian.

This edit clarifies that the Qatari transfers were humanitarian payments to Gaza made in coordination with Israel and the United States. It also updates the Times of Israel citation to a current, functioning URL for the same article (“Government okays Qatari funds to Hamas, which refuses to accept transfer,” 24 January 2019). Bedrockbob (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

References