Talk:7 October attacks

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 -- Remove speculation on North Korean involvement regarding tunnels

Non-expert speculation does not belong on Wikipedia, and the bolded line should be removed completely:

"In 2014, Hamas employed 900 full-time staff for tunnel construction, each taking three months and costing an average of $100,000. Funding came from commercial schemes via Gaza's mosques, with contributions from Iran and North Korea.[75]"

Citation 75, an Economist article purported to cite North Korean funding for underground tunnels, is totally free of any evidence to that effect, and only contains a single sentence of speculation. The Economist article couches its speculation with the phrasing that Western adversaries "are thought to" have funded tunnel construction, while the current Wikipedia article declares it as a fact. It does not specify who is making this speculation, and this claim cannot be confirmed or researched further through this citation. The only knowledge gained here is that The Economist is willing to publish unattributed speculation to this claim.

Quote from the Economist article:

"By 2014 the group’s tunnelling effort employed 900 full-time staff, with each tunnel taking three months and an average of $100,000 to build, according to a study by the RAND Corporation, a think-tank. Hamas raised capital for the tunnels, pitching them as commercial investment schemes, complete with contracts drafted by lawyers, through mosques in Gaza. Iran and North Korea are thought to have helped with construction, supplying money and engineers."

As per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, speculation may be used only if it is attributed to "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field". Even if the original source was an expert, this cannot be included in the article because it is unattributed, and it cannot even be attributed to the author, since Economist articles are not attributed to any Economist writer.

The other claims on tunnel funding are also sourced from the same piece of unattributed speculation, and they should be removed if they cannot be better supported. The claim that Iran generally funds Hamas can be attributed to many other sources, including the U.S. State Department and US-based NGOs. The claim about investment schemes through mosques does not seem to be as easily supported, and should be deleted if this is the only viable citation.

Citation 75 should be removed and replaced with a citation to the RAND Corporation study mentioned in the Economist article, which gives fuller access to the source of the cost estimate information (the phrasing on the cost figures should also make clear that these are estimates). The RAND study does not have any information regarding North Korean or Iranian financial ties to Hamas, nor about claimed commercial investment schemes involving mosques. Curlsstars (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

While I'd prefer to find more sources than remove text, the current accusation is so poorly sourced and, perhaps in any other instance, could be considered libellious that I've decided to remove it for now. Any editor can please re-add it if better sources are found. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to edit the content to attribute the claim to the Economist; it's a top tier source, so I don't see justification for complete removal. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Economist only quotes an unnamed report by RAND Corporation, of unknown reliability and with possible COI. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

COI? How? And what matters is that the Economist saw fit to print the claim - they've assessed the claim and decided it is sufficient to print, and unless we consider the Economist to be unreliable we shouldn't be rejecting it on the basis of us not liking the Economist's source.

Also, a quick search finds this.

We should probably also include North Korean influence more generally; in particular, the use of North Korean weapons has received a lot of coverage:

1. Evidence shows Hamas militants likely used some North Korean weapons in attack on Israel
2. North Korea training, providing weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis - report
3. South Korean military says North Korea may have links with Hamas
4. Expert: Hezbollah has built a vast tunnel network far more sophisticated than Hamas’s (North Korean support for Hezbollah tunnel effort)

BilledMammal (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The first three don't mention cooperation in tunnel construction, the fourth one is sourced to an Israeli intelligence agent. By the way, RAND is predominantly funded by the U.S. Army. Can't you find more reliable and impartial sources for what are expected to be statements of facts? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You overlooked the first link I provided. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

There seemed to me to be a direct contradiction there between "North Korea’s Link to Hamas" and the Economist article. Perhaps the Economist confused Hamas with Hezbollah? NadVolum (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Photograph of dead baby is WP:UNDUE

The photograph of the dead baby is clearly WP:UNDUE as it gives a misleading impression that young children were targeted by Hamas, and basically indirectly promotes the "mass baby murder" Zionist narrative that has been widely debunked at this point. In reality, only two babies died in the operation, as the article itself notes. The overwhelming majority of victims were adults. The proportion of child (<15 yo) deaths on October 7th was remarkably low in the circumstances (something like ~2%) and orders of magnitude better than Israel and other militaries engaged in an urban warfare context.

Furthermore, the location of the dead baby photograph is also curious. It is placed in the "Reported Atrocities" section. However, while the death of the child is tragic, we don't know whether the killing was deliberate. The child could have been killed by stray gunfire, which would be an accident but not a war crime. JDiala (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed in light of no response. JDiala (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Good points. starship.paint (RUN) 14:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it is WP:UNDUE;

First, the baby was killed during an attack where the civilians were deliberately targeted, an attack where the intent was to kidnap and murder as many civilians as possible - which included a baby being kidnapped. Such a killing belongs in the "Reported Atrocities" section.

Second, it is WP:DUE; there is an imbalance in the article towards pictures of the impact on Gaza, and we should be increasing the number of images of the impact on Israel, not decreasing it.

I've reinstated the image, absent a consensus to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Remove immediately as the image has been sourced to ZAKA, which given the scandal surrounding ZAKA reporting[1][2][3] makes all the information accompanying the photo unreliable / likely made up. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you are suggesting the baby did not die during the Hamas attack - and have evidence to support that claim - your reasoning is not sound.

  Further, the image has been stable in the article since last year; you need a consensus to remove it, rather than boldly doing so after removal has been challenged. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is not how WP:ONUS works. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it is; editors don't get to remove content and claim WP:ONUS when the content has become the status quo and thus has consensus. Instead, the editor needs a consensus to remove it - if you don't believe me, consider what result in an RfC on the inclusion of this picture would be required to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting the baby did not die. The picture is that of a dead child. I'm saying that we can't trust in any of the information provided by Zaka – how the baby died, who killed it, even whether it's an Israeli baby. Simply, the source of the image has been found untrustworthy, that's it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) As far as I can tell, the only allegation regarding Zaka's image is that they "released sensitive and graphic photos". There are no allegations that the images and context related to them is untrustworthy; unless you have a source regarding this that you have not yet presented?

  I note that Hamas did kill babies in the attack; there is no reason to believe that this is not one of those babies. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  A logical fallacy. "There are sometimes rocks falling from the sky, so there's no reason to believe a random rock isn't one of them". Things is, an encyclopaedia has a higher bar of evidence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  No reason, except for the fact that - since we’re talking in euphemisms - this "rock" looks like it has fallen from the sky, and an organisation, that while not perfect is not generally unreliable, has told us that it fell from the sky.

  In addition, Zaka isn’t the only source telling us that baby was murdered by Hamas BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  The photo's origin is an unreliable organisation, period. That ToI has run it in the same week only shows how little verification was performed before publication. We now know that ZAKA made up many of their "facts", and I'm quite sure the consensus here is to avoid sourcing Wikipedia to that group unless unavoidable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I agree this is UNDUE as non-representative of the casualties, and BilledMammal consensus is required for inclusion. nableezy - 14:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Clear consensus here for removal. Note that BilledMammal has not engaged with the arguments made. JDiala (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal:

1. That is a warped application of WP:DUE. The test is not whether an atrocity represents a statistically significant proportion of all atrocities committed in an event. Thousands of sources have focussed on the murder of babies on October 7. You may not agree with that focus, but it's inarguably the case.

2. Zaka remains, as far as I can ascertain, reliable. If Kashmiri has a reason why this isn't the case, please put it here.

3. Onus dictates it remains if stable for a long period in the absence of consensus. Riposte97 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t what onus or undue say. nableezy - 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Attack? According to Int'l Law Armed Resistance is Legal under Illegal Occupation

According to International Law, the illegally occupied have every right to resist an occupation by peaceful or violent means. The term attack is loaded as it suggests the action against Israel was not permitted under international law. The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but there are several caveats: the attack took place outside of the occupied territory, and attacks targeting civilians, of any nationality, are never legitimate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Are colonizing illegal occupiers civilians? The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, "the attack took place outside of the occupied territory..." but in the territory of the illegal occupier... The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Lord of Misrule — The term is used by a very large majority of secondary reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that mention this specific event as a “armed resistance” and not an “attack”? You can use WP:RSP to see the list of reliable sources. Anything not marked on that list doesn’t mean that the source isn’t reliable either, just that a conversation about it has yet to occur on Wikipedia. But nonetheless, for any change to occur, it needs to be back up by reliable sources. So, the next step would be for you or someone else to link a few sources for “armed resistance”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thx The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Could I cite the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907? The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Not unless a reliable source does. NadVolum (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/occupied-territory/ The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Or https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law/9780198861034.001.0001/law-9780198861034 The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't count as a source for this as it does not say this specific event (7 October 2023) was an "armed resistance". That is what you need to find a source for. Not a law that could be interpreted to say this is an armed resistance. A direct source is needed that says the 2023 attack is an armed resistance. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

An example of what I mean would be like this Associated Press news article which states "Hamas surprise attack out of Gaza stuns Israel". That is a source that says this event was directly an attack. That is the sources you need. Something that directly says this specific event is an armed resistance and not an attack. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Last question of the day... while this source states "attack," it is contextualized by calling the attack a response from the Palestinian Resistance https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/07/palestinian-resistance-in-gaza-launches-historic-surprise-attack-against-israel/ The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia is pretty selective on which sources can be used. Typically these would be a newspaper or academic journal. One then weighs common usage if different sources say different things. Drsmoo (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Lord of Misrule: Are colonizing illegal occupiers civilians? If you're unable to tell apart combatants and non-combatants, i.e., you don't understand the term "protected person", then I'm sorry but it doesn't make much sense to engage in a discussion about international law. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

But doesn't international law classify all occupiers/settlers as combatants? The Lord of Misrule (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you bother to check the links? — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The typical understanding of settlers in this context is for those in the Israeli settlements. The Gaza envelope, where the attacks occurred, is not one of these settlements. Drsmoo (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a distinction without a difference for the lived experiences of actual Gazans, the overwhelming majority of whom are descended from (or are) individuals expelled in 47 from elsewhere in the erstwhile Mandatory Palestine. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

To editor The Lord of Misrule:, the legal status of a person as combatant or non-combatant under IHL has no dependency on their physical location. Settling on occupied or annexed land does not make a person a combatant, just like living in the Gaza Strip does not make a person a combatant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

the attack took place outside of the occupied territory

The overwhelming majority of Gazans are descended from (or are) individuals expelled in 47 from elsewhere in the erstwhile Mandatory Palestine. From their perspective, all of Israel is occupied. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Lord of Misrule: The sort of thing you should be looking for as a source here is one that ties together a discussion of international law with the specifics of this event. Such a source is this academic paper: The Palestinian Operation on October 7 Between International Legitimacy and Criminalization, which covers the Palestinian right to self-defense and right to self-determination in the context, including with recourse to armed resistance. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That source is from an Open Access Journal, which is not disqualifying to my knowledge, but, I’ve been unable to find much detail about this journal (International Journal of Law and Politics Studies), it doesn’t seem particularly widely cited in Google scholar, though that may not be disqualifying. It is currently not evaluated or indexed in https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/details?id=67098, and I haven’t seen an evaluation of it anywhere. The author doesn’t appear to have ever been cited. I suspect a reference from this particular source would likely be disputed by some. Which could then lead to an evaluation of the source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Drsmoo (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that most of the sources for this topic are currently news sources, the first relevant journal sources to emerge are not something to be sniffed at. I'm not seeing the cause here to interrogate this particular journal paper - is there anything that it says that you find surprising or which contradicts what is well known in international law? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

In much the same way as an attacker has responsibilities (proportionality, civilians, etcetera), a "resistor" is subject to the same sort of restrictions, both Israel and Hamas have breached their right to self defense/right to resist respectively. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly why have each of them lost their rights as a result of the atrocities they have committed? NadVolum (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not lost, breached. Civilian attacks for one. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

They have not lost rights as such. They breached the law. It's illegal to target civilians everywhere. You can't go and kill your neighbour just because you have a claim to the land they live on. What the attackers did was a war crime and they should rightfully be prosecuted for it; unless it is argued that Gaza was not in the state of war with Israel at the time, in which case the killings should be considered a common crime (murder). In short, there's no justification for the 7/10 attack, just like there's no justification for this type of Israeli response. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no accommodation for the civilian attacks under international law; the attacks on military targets fall under the right to resist. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, not only military targets are included but also the entire security apparatus – police, security agencies, secret services, etc. The discussion is mostly around the question whether the term combatants includes civilian employees in military forces doing non-combat roles, such as accountants, car mechanics servicing police cars, or IT technicians servicing their computers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not that simple. It depend on the role of the police during the conflict. See p62 here. Zero^talk 13:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I admit I had in mind the situation like in Gaza or in counterinsurgency where police forces are an active side of hostilities, e.g., by conducting home searches for combatants or interrogating suspects. Obviously I didn't mean traffic police. But that publication presents the matter clearly. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not a respectable peer-reviewed academic journal, I'm sorry. This is a predatory publisher, i.e., one who will publish anything for a fee. This journal is not indexed in any real academic database (SCOPUS, etc.), except of course CNKI which indexes everything indiscriminately. There are unfortunately hundreds if not thousands of such publishers milling out hundreds of "papers" a day. Read more at predatory publishing and see our policies at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Predatory_journals. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like an RSN subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a perennial source, so perhaps no need of a separate discussion when our policy on predatory journals already covers it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You can't declare a journal as predatory without a source declaring it at such. It's not on Beall's list. Yes, it is open access, by design on the part of the publisher. It is also double-blind peer-reviewed. Predatory? Undetermined. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know this journal or its publisher. It might be predatory, but I don't see a prima facie case for that. The fact that it charges authors a fee means nothing; the fact that their fee is less than a tenth of what mainstream publishers charge for open-access is even evidence against. Zero^talk 07:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"Al-Kindi Center for Research and Development" was created long after Beall ceased publishing his list. It's a one-person company registered in 2021,[4] run off a dilapidated terraced house in West London,[5] and whose 2023 micro-entity accounts show a debt of £1,104 (vs a £674 debt in 2022). Their contact telephone number is a mobile number in Oman.[6] It's decidedly, confidently not a respected academic publisher. I don't need to add that none of the "journals" have an editorial board or a real peer review process. It's all fake. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't make a blind assertion like that. It has a published editorial board. Feel free to email its members and check whether the list and the peer review process is legit, but short of this, quit with the circumstantial and irrelevant information. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, why are you defending the indefensible? I've explained you why Al-Kindi is with full certainty a predatory publisher, and offered you hints how to spot one. Since you're completely deaf to all the reasonable arguments, I'll ask @Randykitty, an expert in academic publishing, to weigh in.

By the way, I could not find a person named Belal Ali AbuHasballah who would be affiliated with the East China University of Political Science and Law. However, a Belal Ali AbuHasballah wrote a Master's thesis on public international law vs Israel-Palestine conflict at the Islamic University in Gaza in 2019. Is he the authority you're pushing in here? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry for responding so slow. Al-Kindy definitely looks to me as being predatory. The address given is a garage in a residential neighbourhood. Their website proudly announces that their journals are indexed by CiteFactor and Index Copernicus, two fake journal evaluation databases. They also proudly list all kinds of trivial databases (for example, indexing in GScholar means nothing, as Google indexes everything). I checked the editorial board of their British Journal of Biology Studies, which has exactly zero researcher from the UK on its editorial board, which consists of rather obscure scientists from Asia (and one person with a Chinese name working at a secondary school in Canada. I looked at one article and the opening line of its abstract is "Interaction between biological and vision science is rough with misinterpretation on either side." Sure, sure... In all, this smells like rotten fish... Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything: I merely presented the source as an example of something. What I'm just objecting to is the excessive independent reasoning that is going on here. Your points above are 10% evidence/90% personal judgements based on said evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Telling apart an established academic publisher from a business like Al-Kindi is much like telling apart a large software company (think Microsoft, Adobe or Oracle) from a garage project (one-person software developer). For you it may be "personal judgement"; for others it's something painfully obvious. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't care whether it is published out of a garage or not (most of the world's great start ups began just so), so long as it has qualified academics conducting a proper peer review process. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that "attack" implies a wrongful act. For example, both Operation Tidal Wave and The Blitz use the word "attack" describing air operations by opposing sides in WW2. The introduction to the article makes it clear that the October 7 attack is considered either resistance or terrorism depending on who you ask. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparent internal discrepancy in number of militants captured

In the infobox, it says '~200 militants captured'; in the section Capture and interrogation of militants, it says 'Following the attack, more than 600 militants were captured in Israel.'. Jontel (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Change militants killed to terrorists

Hamas c asualties must be changed from militants to terrorists. 2A0D:6FC7:55D:E5D8:B0CE:C1FF:FEB0:3981 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:TERRORIST. I don't like it either, but there you have it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)