Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
Line 1,608: Line 1,608:
:::::label the entire Palestinian militias as terrorists? No
:::::label the entire Palestinian militias as terrorists? No
:::::label the specific militants that perpetrated massacres as terrorists? Yes [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::label the specific militants that perpetrated massacres as terrorists? Yes [[User:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|The Great Mule of Eupatoria]] ([[User talk:The Great Mule of Eupatoria|talk]]) 05:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

== Any new advances in the map? ==

It's been awhile since the advance was changed on this map. Is there anything new from both sides? [[Special:Contributions/24.235.144.97|24.235.144.97]] ([[User talk:24.235.144.97|talk]]) 06:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:11, 9 October 2023

Title

If this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article, it will almost certainly need a less ambiguous title.

More likely, this can be added to an article about various Hamas attacks on Israel in 2023, or over a longer period. DenverCoder9 (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DenverCoder19 Well, sadly it can be changed to "2023 Israel Palestine war" soon 2A01:C22:C931:E700:78CF:B4BA:DE3D:CB0C (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I typed 2023 hamas attack and the first thing that came up was clashes in May. Maybe we could add October. Borgenland (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is now an operation name for this event https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/558406/?app=true SignedInteger (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
should this become the new article name (once translated) SignedInteger (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/07/world/israel-gaza-attack
Both sides have referred to this as a war, and sources are reporting on it as such. Perhaps appropriate to title it as 2023 Israel-Gaza War or something similar. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
2021 Israel-Palestine crisis is an indicator, maybe best to wait a bit and see just how serious this becomes. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best for us to wait for a bit. If there is no sign of deescalation, then it's a go. BlueHelvetical (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Gaza-Israel Conflict” or “Gaza-Israel War, 2023” are appropriate titles. “Palestine-Israel Conflict/War” is both inaccurate and inappropriate.
Just like the geographic region known as “North America” contains 3 countries, Canada, USA, and Mexico. There is no country, “North America” nor is there a nationality, “North American.”
By the same token, the geographic area known as “Palestine” contains 3 countries, Gaza, Israel, and Jordan. There is no country, “Palestine” nor is there a nationality, “Palestinian.”
If Mexico were to attack or invade the USA, it would not be appropriate to refer to it as the “North America-USA Conflict.”
https://theworldhistoryofwar.quora.com/https-www-quora-com-If-the-Palestinian-people-didnt-exist-before-Israels-existence-then-where-did-they-come-from-answe?ch=17&oid=16745248&share=f887561d&srid=a9am&target_type=post MetroNYCJerry (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what about 5th Arab-Israeli War 166.194.158.48 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Israel attacks back, we can name it 2023 Palestine−Israel War. Andrew012p (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Israel has attack back while Gaza is under fire right now from Israel forces Efuture2 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That should not occur. While the groups are from terrorist organizations within Palestine, the Palestinian military nor government has declares actual war upon Israel. IEditPolitics (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since Benjamin Netanyahu declared war, surely the conflict is, definitively, a war? I would also like to express my deepest appreciation for everyone’s commitment to Wikipedia’s truthfulness and neutrality on this particularly divisive topic (and everything else). MrBoy632 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed, he had already started a counter attack. Surely it's a war, rather than a conflict. Maybe compare it with previous conflicts and if it escalates, then it's a go. Either way, I would wait for an official government statement. So far, nothing new. BlueHelvetical (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is officially a war as not too long ago, the cabinet agreed on invoking article 40 aleph, which was not invoked since the Yom Kippur war, making it an official declaration of war. Zekromu88 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, Palestine's government did not explicitly declare war, nor use their official military. This is an act of multiple organized terrosit groups within Gaza and Palestine in general. To call it the Palestinian Israel War would be largely inaccurate. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. For now, I think it is too early to call it Palestine-Israel war. The side opposed to Israel is Hamas, which does not represent the Palestinians in West Bank. We should wait for more events. Zenms (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information – Titles of articles are generally goverened by WP:COMMONNAME which states, "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Please focus on what WP:RS are using to refer to this conflict. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would second the comment citing to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. It is easy to get caught up in various points of a conflict and forget to adhere to the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Given the statement by the Isreali Prime Minister, it would be justified in being called "2023 Israel Palestine war" and also because of the media coverage by reliable sources. It may be advisable to wait a few days to see how this progresses as there is no rush to finalize a title for the article right now. Jurisdicta (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably focus on getting the content right and picking the name later, something will coalesce. But people here seem to be generally on the right track and we shouldn't mind moving it and changing the name if a different one emerges. Keep in mind that no change is permanent. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict is occuring a bit after Yom Kippur, so shouldn't it be called ẗhe "Second Yom Kippur War" or "Yom Kippur War II"? 23.93.17.238 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen a reputable source use that term. Mostly it is being characterized as a war. Invanity (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox refers to it as the "Third Intifada", perhaps we should use that? SufficientChipmunk3 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will just note that I did hear this already referred to as "war in Israel" on television. Reference was made not only to missile attacks, but also attacks from "land and sea".
Remains to be seen but discussion over this is absolutely warranted. ShouldIHide (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. I believe it is way too early to call it Palestine-Israel war. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and doesn't represent Palestinians on the West Bank. I may be inclined to change my opinion as more event's unfold. --Stubbleboy23 (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Palestine did not declare war on Israel, only terrorist groups in Palestine. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Hebrew Wiki, We have two different pages for the war (he:מלחמת חרבות ברזל, Operation Swords of Iron) and for the first battle of the war (he:מתקפת הפתע על ישראל (2023), Surprise Attack on Israel (2023)). אורי9 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like at the moment it's Gaza/Hamas rather than Palestine as a whole so I'm not sure if it's appropriate to change it to "Palestine". And as mentioned, despite the media calling it a 'war' and a war being declared, I'm still not sure if the title should change to "war", it's currently too soon. To me it seems more like a conflict/clash or possibly a crisis, but even for that it's too soon to tell. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hareetz is covering it as Israel–Gaza War; Al-Jazeera, Israel-Hamas Conflict... Oops, now Israel-Hamas war,

as does The Guardian. Thus far... https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-08/ty-article-live/over-250-israelis-killed-1-590-wounded-civilians-and-soldiers-held-hostage-in-gaza/0000018b-0cd2-d8fc-adff-6dfe855e0000

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/8/israel-palestine-escalation-live-israeli-forces-bombard-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-palestinian-attack-october-2023-gaza-conflict-hostages-latest-news kencf0618 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two agorots' worth: I support the use of the word "war" in the article title, but at the same time wonder whether the name "Palestine" belongs there. The attack on Israel was a Hamas initiative (possibly with outside help), but was it really an official Palestinian one? After all, Mahmoud Abbas, who is supposedly the Palestinian president (although I realize that his status as such is very controversial), is not part of Hamas. Palestine, as it sits now, is politically very fractured. Beyond that, I have no recommendation for a proper title, and I agree with a number of contributors that we should wait and see how this situation develops. Kelisi (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I agree on the use of the word "war" but also due to the concepts of territorial dispute and the historical nature of the region, it may be possible to classify this as a warring internal dispute; a civil war. Therefore: October 2023 Gaza−Israel Civil War. LukeRDavis (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don’t think “war” is an inappropriate term any longer. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I believe that the name should be changed to The Israeli-Hamas War. USA1855 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal to change the title to include the word "war". More and more news outlet are beginning to use "war" to describe what is happening. Here is one example:
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2023/10/08/israel-gaza-war-more-than-1000-dead-as-fighting-rages-on.html Withmoralcare (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As many major outlets, including Al Jazeera, are describing it as the "Israel-Hamas war" Hensci (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Commander Nimrod Aloni has been captured ?

Found this on twitter: https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1710602173262840257?s=20

Can anyone confirm with RS? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to confirm. People are just spreading rumors because they think that this person looks like the IDF commander. ie it's social media self-research. Ignore it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is fake. HiyoriX (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the The Jewish Chronicle[1] is reporting it, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF literally published a photo of Nimrod Aloni in the meeting with the heads of the IDF yesterday. It just goes to show what a stupid, unreliable, biased propaganda tool Wikipedia has become. Hijacked by terrorists to spread fear and psychological warfare. How pathetic!

No need to be crying like a child. 「HypeBoy」TALK 22:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add "non-combatants" to the Military conflict infobox

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
Part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Gaza-Israel conflict
Date7 October 2023 – present
Location
Israel
Gaza Strip
Status Ongoing
Belligerents and Non-belligerents
Hamas
File:Flag of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine.svg Islamic Jihad		 Civilian non-combatants  Israel
Commanders and leaders
Mohammed Al-Daif
Ziyad al-Nakhalah		 Benjamin Netanyahu
Yoav Galant
Units involved
Al-Qassam Brigades
Al-Quds Brigades
PFLP[citation needed]
Lions' Den[citation needed]		 Magen David Adom
Red Crescent		 Israel Defense Forces
Casualties and losses
Unknown At least 2 (in Gaza).[1] and 7 (in Israel) civilians killed.

At least 5 (in Gaza) and 3 (in Israel) civilians injured.

Multiple civilians captured (in Israel)[2]

At least 10 killed[3]
Unknown number of prisoners[3]
Armored vehicles destroyed and captured:

Over 35 soldiers, police officers and civilians captured


Hi all, Like many, I am deeply frustrated with never ending conflicts. I believe that a major error in the reporting of such conflicts including by Wikipedians, is that it is always being presented as a two-sided conflict, when actually it is always a three-sided conflict where the third side is always forgotten about or only given as a foot note because they lack adequate representation in the conflict.

I am of course talking about the civilians.

These are unwilling participants who are being killed by being caught up in the middle of the conflict, despite not necessarily taking a side. This is particularly true of young children, who do not have a mental capability to understand, to even be able to take a side. The only ones supporting them are the medics are working tirelessly to save them. By not including them on equal footing, it is also suggesting that civilian victims are not as important as military casualties. In fact, I think that they are more important.

Even if you do not agree that non-belligerents deserve a front-seat in the conversation (and shame on you), to attribute them to a particular side is impossible given the level of reporting. All we know is what side of the border that they happened to be on when it happened.

For all we know, they could be a person of Israeli citizenship who does not politically align with the state of Israel (They could be a Palestinian living in Israel, for example). It could be a Palestinian living in Gaza who does not align with the values of Hamas. It could be someone of another state or religious affiliation or none at all.

It is disingenuous to equate a Palestinian or Gazan as someone who supports Hamas (and it might not be safe to elicit a true answer) and it is disingenuous to equate an Israeli or Jewish person as someone who supports the Israeli Government. So to include them in the info box under a particular state's figures could be offensive if it is wrong. It would be especially offensive to claim a Palestinian as an "Israeli" victim.

To the right is an example of how I believe the infobox should look like.

As it becomes known (if at all) that a civilian was supportive of a particular side, then by all means, they should be moved under the banner of which their align to. Note that it would be hard to be a "Citizen of Hamas" because Hamas is not a country and is itself a militant organisation so how is it even technically possible to be a non-combatant of Hamas. That is without a whole other can of worms of lumping Palestine with Hamas.

If it is absolutely decided that Civilians do not deserve a place of equal footing in the info box, my backup argument is that they should be included above the militants in the info box or of its own infobox above the military one, as they are the most important by virtue of being innocent and not actively making themselves part of the hostilities. Kleinerziegler (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can confirm the reports of kidnapping by now, I agree non-combatants should be added Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It isn't the convention for such things. I think it is best to raise this up to editors who are part of the Military History task force. Borgenland (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that Israel-Palestine conflict is in a bit of a unique situation compared to other conflicts where it isn't 100% clear cut that subjects of Israeli-controlled territory don't necessarily align with the national identity of Israel? Perhaps on that basis, this is the correct venue to have a discussion and make an exception.
If not, could you please point a link to the correct venue to have such a discussion? Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to the addition of non-combatants unless this becomes wiki-wide policy. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea, imagine doing Ukraine. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is primary a military conflict, with its own conventions and it would make every conflict more convoluted than it is already. Imagine having Henri Dunant listed as a field commander in the Battle of Solferino.
Anyways, move your forum here to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history
Borgenland (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Solferino was as far as I can tell, a purely military conflict without civilian non-combatant targets. Henri Dunant was not involved in any combat.
For Ukraine, I am very much in favour, as well as Northern Ireland, or any other conflict of civilian non-combatant targeting, especially where their national allegiance can be easily determined (for example, indiscriminate attacks in disputed territory). Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But he did involve himself. Which would make him a unit Borgenland (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the wiki page about it, the battle was already over, he was inspired by the aftermath to make Geneva conventions which relate just as much to how combatants can attack each other (or not) as it does to civilians. If he was out there on the battlefield telling sides not to kill each other in the heat of battle, or he was out supporting civilians not of any side (and the civilians without a side were actually present in that battle), yeah, I would support his inclusion. But really beside the point isn't it. Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others, if this was added here this rationale could really be used in most conflicts. I'm also not sure the point? We have a casualties section which typically delineates between civilians and fighters. If they were fighting together as some sort of militia group with its own wikipedia article then this might change, but as it stands I see no point as having civilians as a "third side" in really any conflict. Yeoutie (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands right now, civilian non-combatant casualties are not separated out at all anymore. This is really a reflection of how seriously Wikipedia (and people involved in this topic at large) really care about civilian casualties. It is just a foot note or and now not even mentioned at all because everyone wants to claim a civilian as "one of their own" to use for propaganda purposes against the other side rather than a genuine concern about civilian casualties. Kleinerziegler (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a point of concern that I would have to ask. There have also been Palestinian civilians killed in direct clashes in the West Bank in support of what happened in Gaza. While I'm not sure if they've been included in the infobox, how will your proposal address that? Borgenland (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you asked. It is very hard to determine the precise definition based on media reports, but essentially, I have done some more research when posting this and there is a logical difference between a "combatant terrorist", "non-combatant terrorist" and "non-combatant civilian":

There are two kinds of terrorists. The first are terrorists that kill innocent civilians in public places, with no military purpose or warfare-based strategic goal. 221 The second are terrorists that engage in warfare, within theaters of combat, against military targets (soldiers, service members, members of a tactical force, etc.), and with military objectives. 222 Brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, responsible for the Boston marathon bombing, are in the first group. Irek Hamidullin is in the second group

Source: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&amp=&context=law-student-publications&amp=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fas_ylo%253D2015%2526q%253Dnon-combatant%2526hl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%252C48#search=%22non-combatant%22
"combatant terrorist" - someone who acts as a soldier would on the battlefield as if they were in the military, even though that military technically doesn't exist because that organisation does not have statehood
"non-combatant terrorist" - the same except instead of attacking military targets, they attack civilians. i.e. September 11, Boston bomber.
"non-combatant civilian" - Neither of the above. Have not attacked anyone with deadly force.
There is a gray area often bought up, particularly from the Israel side, when Palestinians use rocks or malee to injure/kill civilians or IDF. I am not totally sure how to handle that circumstance, but in an ideal world where there is enough evidence to go through these cases, I would lean towards counting them as a non-combatant civilian unless it's proven that they used serious force with intent to kill or severely injury.
(PS: Politically, I don't like using the term 'Terrorist' to describe combatants - against a military force. I'd associate the term 'terrorist' with the second group who attacks civilians and it seems that Governments have adopted the term for non-State militias to associate them with the abhorrent practice of attacking civilians. As far as I am concerned, Armies who fight each other should be regarded as being on equal footing as both being military forces, regardless of who is better equipped) Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-combatants are not belligerents- casualties for civilians are covered at the bottom of the infobox. Civilian agencies operating during the war aren't relevant for the infobox - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closely, the infobox example was modified to say "Belligerents and Non-belligerents" Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do also note that your proposal would add an unnecessary gap in the leaders and units, especially if no obvious relief agency is available. It would also lead to more mistakes with users having difficulties with columns particularly in conflicts were there are more than two defined sets of combatants involved. Borgenland (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my example, I have deliberately omitted "Commanders and leaders" because so far no one has stepped up to stand up for purely the civilian casualties.
I might argue that MDA is supporting both Civilians and IDF, while RC is supporting both Civilians and Hamas, and could be listed twice in that regards, as they don't discriminate based on combatant status.
It would seem that there is precedent for a 4-way war: Syrian civil war. Kleinerziegler (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but your example did not list the Syrian Red Crescent or the White Helmets in whatever you consider to be non-belligerents. Borgenland (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely correct, the Syrian civil war should also be listed out as a 5-way war. Thank you for saying this. Kleinerziegler (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a third casualties parameter in the conflict infobox template for covering civilian casualties. There is nothing unique about this conflict or any other. The same style guide applies . Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023
Support: Israel/Palestine is a special case. Even if you want to divide everyone into Jewish people and Arab people, there are many Arabs in Israel, and many pockets of formerly (or currently, depending on your perspective) Palestinian territory that can be collateral damage of Hamas' own rockets. You cannot cleanly divide many innocent bystanders into supporters of one country or another. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But as far as legality is concerned, those Arabs in Israel are citizens of the State of Israel and some of them are serving in the IDF and/or are reservistst. Borgenland (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some who embrace the State of Israel, but others who reject the State of Israel, despite holding citizenship, or being eligible to hold citizenship (or technically are) but refusing to get an ID/passport on ideological grounds, and prefer the term "Palestinian" over "Israeli-Arab"
I would not automatically count on Arabs living within Israel proper as being on the Israel side, unless there is evidence to support their allegiance to one side or the other. Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: almost every conflict involves civilian casualties and the "parties" in an infobox typically represent the belligerents (and allies of said belligerents). Civilians are not fighting this war per se nor are they a belligerent. Per above and per this reasoning, adding in a "civilian party" would be superfluous and inaccurate. Dan the Animator 00:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's important to separate civilians and combatants in order to get a clear picture of the events. Yes, I know in modern conflicts like this the line between the two can be quite murky, but still. -75.142.18.247 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: as per other opposes, there are already parts of the infobox to put the desired info in, and it doesn't make logical sense to have a category of belligerents and non-belligerents. AllenY99 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whilst I appreciate the humanitarian sentiment, this is generally not how armed conflicts are conceptualised, and Wikipedia is not the place to change attitudes. Riposte97 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problem is, civilians are not under an umbrella either. Nothing unites say, an Israeli civilian killed by shelling versus a Palestinian civilian killed by shelling except for shared bad luck. Adding in groups like the Red Crescent further confuses things. What would a doctor who comes from some faraway country with aid have in commons with the previous two examples?
We group the Israeli military divisions and the Palestinian military divisions together because they fight for a side.
There really isn't a third side. Bremps... 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that would run into improper synthesis territory. If reliable media in the future (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source) starts reporting civilians as a "third side", then we can change our infobox. That has not happened yet. Bremps... 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the whole point, to converge onto Civilian casualties without attribute them to a particular 'side', because they are not an either binary side, they are on the side of being innocent, getting caught up in the middle (also a deliberate choice to place them in the middle in the info box).
If a Doctor comes from a faraway land and treats injured from "both sides" equally, they do not need to be placed under a particular side. In fact, MDA have a mandate to do exactly this and will treat anyone they can, including Palestinian fighters who have caused carnage (not that I think that they would get priority & probably for propaganda purposes), because their only job is to save lives.
So ideally, humanitarian efforts supporting civilians are listed without being sided either except on the side of civilians, unless they also support a particular side at the same time, then they are essentially on two sides at the same time.
I accept that this is currently a data problem, but think that it is still worth trying to sift through the data to find the information or make estimates as much as possible, with the hope that the "feel sorry for the innocent people" side will grow and this data becomes more available over the long term. Kleinerziegler (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's not the concept of Wikipedia's conflict infoboxes. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Uras, Umut; Gadzo, Mersiha; Humaid, Maram. "Hamas declares start of military operation against Israel". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  2. ^ Dahman, Ibrahim; Gold, Hadas; Tal, Amir; Alam, Hande Atay (2023-10-07). "Militants enter Israel from Gaza after woman killed in rocket barrage". CNN. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  3. ^ a b "Israel-Palestine War? Hamas Fires 5,000 Missiles, Attacks Israeli Cities; 11 Dead, Over 100 Hurt". News18. 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-08.

Requested move 7 October 2023

October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict → 2023 Palestine−Israel War – with the government of Israel declaring a state of emergency and war and most of the important palestinian groups involved in it, it only makes sense for it to be called a war rather than a conflict Abo Yemen✉ 11:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DarmaniLink (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative Palestine as a whole is not involved to my knowledge,only Hamas and by extension Hamas-occupied Gaza.The article should be changed to ''2023 Hamas-Israel war'' or just ''Hamas-Israel war'' Roma enjoyer (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for “war”: I weakly support the “2023 Israel-Palestine War” naming, however I would give full support to 2023 Gaza-Israel War. 78.171.44.45 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

There have been a large range of proposed titles so I thought I'd sum up the possibilities raised so far.

  • Support Most news outlets label this as the most significant war in the region since the Yom Kippur war. Hamas in the south, Hezbollah in the north, now Iran is apparently involved, as well as the US which is sending warships to the region. This is not just a shootout, or a dispute, this appears to be a war with regional players involved. Even if just a proxy war, it's still a war. Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - largely reported by media as a 'war' now Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Gaza War is the only title that makes sense to me. Charles Essie (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year disambiguator:

Option 1) October 2023 (status quo)
Option 2) 2023 (all alternative proposed titles have not included the "October".

Location descriptor:

Option A) Gaza−Israel (status quo)
Option B) Palestine−Israel (RM proposal)
Option C) Gaza (proposed by EkoGraf, "2023 Gaza War)
Option D) Israel−Palestine (proposed by VR)
Option E) Arab−Israeli (proposed by GloriousExistence)
Option F) Hamas−Israel (proposed by Red-tailed hawk)

Conflict descriptor:

Option i) Conflict (status quo)
Option ii) War (RM proposal)

What I'm seeing so far is that most people seem to favour "2023" over "October 2023", there is no consensus about the location descriptor, and also that despite the declaration of war there is relatively little support for changing the "Conflict" to "War". As a result it seems like the most likely title will be "2023 Gaza−Israel conflict" unless opinion changes. Am I missing anything? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat Can Hamas Invasion of Israel also be proposed on the line of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please note that Russia attacked Ukraine first and now both are in a war attacking and defending against each other. Same is the case here. Hamas invaded and now both are in a state of war. I put this before too in the discussion above. I was told that Hamas in not a nation. So is al-Shabaab (not a nation). But 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia exists. Then I was told that how am I saying that Hamas initiated this. Well if we compare it with Russia-Ukraine situation then Russo-Ukrainian War was going on by separatist forces. But then Russia escalated and invaded Ukranian formally and Russian invasion of Ukraine was made. Similarly Gaza–Israel conflict and regular clashes were going all the time but then Hamas escalated and invaded Israel. There was also a claim that according to reports only Hamas is not involved others too are. For that in Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia invaded and then Russian-backed forces like Wagner joined. Similar case here Hamas invaded and then Hamas backed forces (allies) like Hezbollah joined. Can we consider my proposal too like all other. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gazan invasion would be more appropriate if we are to be inclusive of all groups. Borgenland (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is not in Gaza Parham wiki (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice summary that is well reasoned and is consistent with existing naming conventions. It may be useful to survey what reputable media outlets are labeling this event, since WP:COMMONNAME does advise us to consider what reliable sources are using. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering if the name shouldn't be "2023 Gazan–Israeli War" instead. As my explanation, I want to point out that names of conflicts usually have adjectives. For example, ongoing conflict in Europe is described as "Russo-Ukrainian War" or "Russian-Ukrainian War" instead of "Russia-Ukraine War". And the same goes to most of wars in history.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map of alleged territory seized by Hamas

I have stumbled upon this tweet which purportedly displays the towns under temporary Hamas occupation. Should this image be included in the article? https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1710584095632163250 Ecrusized (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A proper map should be made if we are to show the occupied towns LuckTheWolf (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could use this: Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict detailed map
Just add more cities to it in southern Israel, with control and ongoing engagements and all that - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes DBakampaka (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of Israel casualties from Hamas rockets?

The introduction suggests this but the cited sources do not substantiate this. Is there any evidence from credible sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El-Baba (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not from the rockets alone but also the incursions. Borgenland (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This number presumably includes all people who died under any circumstances directly attributable to the terrorists. It includes rockets, invasions, any accidents which may have occured on the way to the shelters, any "friendly fire" which occured while trying to deal with terrorists, any suspicious people who were killed and subsequently realized not to be terrorists (one such case was reported on the media already, a driver) etc. Animal lover |666| 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of Israelis have been killed/murdered by militants/terrorists who conquered/took control of Israeli communities, villages and bases. Only a few have died from rocket fire. Israeli media currently reports at least 600 dead, 250 killed by Hamas militants/terrorists during a peace rave near Kibbutz Rehim. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Norwegian response

I can't edit the article due to its status, so I'll just put it here. The Norwegian Prime Minister, Støre, has said on Twitter [4]https://twitter.com/jonasgahrstore/status/1710621092673429700 that "Norway strongly condemns the attacks on Israeli civilians and ask that the violence stops immediately. This is a very serious situation developing. Israel has the right to defend itself against military attacks. It is important the violence does not escalate." 109.247.106.208 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an official translation in English I didn't see: [5]https://twitter.com/jonasgahrstore/status/1710620794198323432 109.247.106.208 (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just added it! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that important what the Norwegian Prime Minister said. I wouldn't add it. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the response of the Norwegian Prime Minister be less important than the response of other heads of state, as listed in International reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict? Renerpho (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been added to International reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict, thanks. Renerpho (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response weight

As always with such pages, a wall of response material is rapidly being added without a logical stopping point - if 200 countries responded, would the page simply list all 200 responses? A simple starting point for rationalizing this would be to ditch pure twitter/X content. Foreign ministry tweets are a primary source; without secondary sources supporting the mention of such primary statement, they have no weight and are undue. I would suggest initially removing responses that do not have secondary sources supporting them, and potentially later tightening this to multiple secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed wording usually adds no knowledge. A sentence such as "The attacks were condemned by countryone[ref], countrytwo[ref], ... and supported by countrya[ref], ... would seem sufficient, with more detail when anything substantial rather than routine is said. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on experience, it is better to condense such statements after things quiet down, because some editors are quite touchy especially if it deals with their home countries. Please do note also that a lot of countries, including mine, have lots of migrant workers in Israel so I might add ours the moment it comes out. Borgenland (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know that the West will support Israel by default and the rest of the world will call for restraint, with a few outliers supporting the Palestinians, so listing every single country in the western block with their identical statements is pointless. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions are added, until they become too numerous. In that case, only reactions covered in secondary sources may be kept. If that becomes too voluminous as well, a split is in order. Simple procedure. Dege31 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions are not inherently notable. They do not need to be covered at all unless the reaction itself has been the subject of analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to condense and split off. nableezy - 17:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and done. nableezy - 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a major change; there should be a consensus first.–St.nerol (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent, same thing was done with 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, split off to International reactions to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. Logical, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your only objection is a lack of prior consensus then you dont have an objection. If you have a reason in support of a listing of reactions belongs in this article feel free to provide it. nableezy - 04:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nableezy's action is in the spirit of WP:BRD, "there should be a consensus first" is not a problem. Pol098 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Romanian response

https://twitter.com/KlausIohannis/status/1710570418753474952: Romania strongly condemns this morning rocket attacks against Israel. We stand in full solidarity with Israel in these terrible moments. Our thoughts are with the families of victims and with those who are under fire. Cristi767 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's notable. But it would probably be better placed in the "international reactions" article instead of this. Only the superpowers and great powers deserve mention, in my opinion. KlayCax (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been added to International reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict, thanks. Renerpho (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open air prison by HRW

@KiharaNoukan: Your removal of sourced content is not only counterproductive to the state of the article but also in violation of 1RR. There is no reason not to include this important piece of information that belongs in the background section. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted sourced content factually stating that the Blockade of the Gaza Strip is conducted by both Israel and Egypt to insert WP:UNDUE POV calling the blockade an "open air prison." KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The HRW source I used (UN, Amnesty International, among others have made the same characterization) has called Gaza an open-air prison due to the Israeli blockade while mentioning Egyptian restrictions at Rafah border and not an Egyptian blockade; making my edit completely due and yours completely unsourced. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss Here is a very recent Reuter's article stating: "Israel, which along with Egypt maintains a tight blockade of the Gaza Strip" However, for the sake of each others' sanity and time, do you want to discuss this on the admin noticeboard page you opened up before giving me a chance to respond, or do you want to discuss this here? KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both these things are common in sources so both should go in, properly sourced. Both are potentially POV, one because there is no comparison between the Israeli and Egyptian control and the other because it is in general, although not only, rights groups using the phrase open air prison. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I would disagree with that characterization, given the extensively more thorough article on the blockade mentioning a dual nation blockade on line 1 of the lead indicating it to be a clearly WP:DUE short descriptor of the blockade, I don't see a problem with inserting both, with like you said, proper sourcing. "The Gaza Strip has been subject to an Israeli and Egyptian blockade since 2007, described by HRW as an 'open air prison.'" or something along those lines would work for me for consensus. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works with me, for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of this comment, an editor has already added in "economic hardship", left in the dual-nation blockade, and has recent sourcing directly connecting it to the attacks to make their additions evidently WP:DUE, I think these additions work better than my verbatim proposal, while maintaining the same content as the consensus reached. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What’s with the Nepalis?

Is it a transliteration of a Hebrew word or are these actual nepalis? TomGoLeen (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Nepalis - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 14:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were Nepalese nationals who got caught up. But I do recognize the the demonym needs to be clarified. Borgenland (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article should say why Hamas kidnapped Nepalis. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No available explanation yet. Though I'd suspect they'd accuse them of propping up "enemy" economy. Borgenland (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Nepali, Thai & Mexican abductees migrant workers, tourists or retirees? They're from countries unconnected to the conflict, so more relevant info on who they are & why they were targeted would be useful. Does Hamas regard migrant workers & tourists as their enemy, or as easy targets to kidnap for ransom? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention it but I added a link in the infobox to Nepali people to clarify it. (Don't change the link even if I know it's a redirect, specifically to avoid further confusion like this) ChaotıċEnby(talk) 20:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simchat Torah, Shemini Atzeret, and Shabbat

One should remember that not only is Yom Kippur a much more important holiday than Simchat Torah (one with military implications- Yom Kippur is a fast day), Shabbat is not a holiday in the same sense as either- it happens once a week. I would remove the mention of Shabbat and perhaps clarify the difference between Simchat Torah and Yom Kippur. Tangle10 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurred on Shabbat which is rest day. But aside from that, could you also clarify Succot? There are also mentions of that holiday. Borgenland (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sukkot ended right before this happened, and is a feast holiday. Tangle10 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tangle10 So many mistakes. There were three different occasions on the day of the initial attacks: Shabbat, Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah. Of the three, Shabbat is the most halakhically limiting. Yom Tov, such as Shemini Atzeret, is second to Shabbat. Simchat Torah has no halakhic significance on its own, despite being the most culturally prominent among the three. The combination of these three different occasions caused a unique difficulty: it's as halakhically limiting as possible (Shabbat), as laid back as possible (Shemini Atzeret, which is a "Yom Tov", a time of family dinners and time off work), and one of the happiest and busiest day in the Jewish year, especially for young parents and their kids (Simchat Torah). Joalbertine (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proper, biblical name of the holiday is Shemini Atzeret. In Israel, Simchat Torah is celebrated on Shemini Atzeret, a one-day holiday immediately following the seventh (final) day of Sukkot. In the Diaspora, Shemini Atzeret is a two-day holiday immediately following the seventh day of Sukkot, and Simchat Torah is celebrated on the second day of Shemini Atzeret (which is colloquially referred to as Simchat Torah rather than "the second day of Shemini Atzeret"). The day the war started was Shemini Atzeret (and Shabbat) in both Israel and in the Diaspora, and it was Simchat Torah in Israel, but it was not Simchat Torah in the Diaspora. 108.21.213.213 (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bible does not say anything about a day called Shmini Atzeret. It says "On the eighth [the Hebrew word is Shmini, and as an adjective it comes after the noun in Hebrew] day, you shall have an Atzeret [the exact meaning of this word is unclear, but it's at the beginning of the clause (not unusual in biblical Hebrew), immediately after the word "Shmini"]". Animal lover |666| 14:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Animal lover 666 This etymological information is irrelevant. I believe the point was that Shemini Atzeret is דאורייתא (a mitzvah originating from the Torah), as opposed to Simchat Torah which is not even דרבנן but is simply not a mitzvah of any kind. Joalbertine (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support should be added in the infobox. The Pentagon, the highest US military body, announced its support and readiness to provide what Israel needs. Iran expresses its full support for the Palestinians. Dl.thinker (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the infobox earlier. At this point the support is solely diplomatic. Wouldn't "support" as a belligerent only make sense if the DOD was actually supplying materiel? --Jprg1966 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's military is funded by the US by default, so that would be pointless. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine having to pitch in the rest of Europe arming the IDF and every Eastern bloc country supplying Kalashnikovs to Hamas. Borgenland (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone re-added it? Doesn’t seem to have reached consensus or have a source, also seems poorly placed as it’s diplomatic support, I’m removing it if I don’t see any other reasons for it staying up Bobisland (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source has appeared in the form of a WSJ exclusive article, I have taken the liberty to re-add Iran to the infobox as supporter, citing this source. Given the WSJ's status as a highly regarded quality newspaper, and the convincing contents of the article, I believe it shouldn't be a problem to re-add Iran to the list without first hashing it out here on the talk page. --Jurryaany (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title should be updated to include War

As Israel declared a state of war in the morning of October 7, shouldn't the title be updated to reflect the change of status from operation to war Efuture2 (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new RM can be proposed once the current RM, which includes some discussion about this, is dealt with. Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see #Requested move 7 October 2023 Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Please see discussion above for the existing requested move. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over-linking of titles

In the list of presidents and prime ministers who offered support for Israel, do we need to link each leader's title? It creates a MOS:SEAOFBLUE and isn't really necessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you BOLDly removed the links to the titles, I would not revert you. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Perhaps it would be convenient if there was a map that showed what countries' positions were. Dl.thinker (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A map would be very helpful here, especially if it indicated where the fighting has been. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Andrew012p (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia as a palestine supporter?

I think the part of Saudi Arabia should be in the neutral section instead of the "Palestine support" one,since they speech was more to a peaceful solution to the war Lucasmota0975 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of a mixture, I'd say keep it where it is but as its position potentially evolves, it could be changed - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 18:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is appropriate the way it is now Stephan rostie (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasmota0975 I agree it should be changed to neutral. 124.123.164.140 (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New attacks against Tel Aviv

Hamas has fired 150 rockets towards Tel Aviv

source: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/on2pog/nye-rakettangrep-mot-israel in Norwegian 158.248.72.36 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, in English NotAGenious (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
original telegram? NotAGenious (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli retaliation

At least 200 people have been killed and 1,610 wounded in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza during Israel’s retaliation after a surprise attack by Palestinian forces into Israel, the health ministry says [6] better add this to the Intro page for more context and a balance. Mujiwins (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Jprg1966 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian reacation

Can someone ddd the Armenian reacation? Source:

https://newsarmenia.am/news/in_the_world/mid-armenii-shokirovany-nasiliem-mezhdu-palestintsami-i-izrailem-i-targetirovaniem-grazhdanskogo-nas/ لهثسن (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... NotAGenious (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
☒N I withdraw - I'd like to see an official, reliable statement by the ministry. NotAGenious (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated casualties tolls

Reported casualties so far:

- Israel: 250 dead, 1,104 injured

- Gaza: 232 dead, 1,697 injured


source: BNOnews


https://twitter.com/bnonews/status/1710725503655596082


Stephan rostie (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I believe BNO's Israeli numbers are off here. The number at one time was 150+ Israeli dead and 1,104 injured. Those have each now been updated to 200+ and 1,452. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support and opposition in the lead

Should countries support/opposition be mentioned in the lead? I was under the operating assumption that generally these sorts of things should be mentioned in the leads of conflicts. But I'm not sure if that'd make this page too verbose.

@Jprg1966: reverted the addition, unknowingly, I reverted his. So I just wanted to reach some sort of consensus with him + other editors on the page. :)

Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my main concern was that the language reflect the balance of actual opinions voiced so far. So I tried to do that with my last edit. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. @Jprg1966:. I don't have a strong preference for inclusion/deletion. Not sure if there's a general "rule of thumb" in conflict-type situations or whether it's up to the judgement of editors in each article. KlayCax (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I summarized it[7]. I don't think nitty gritty details are for the lead (like it doesn't matter that PA's support for the uprising happened at an "emergency meeting").VR talk 19:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I think the title should be changed to 2023 israeli gaza war first of all not to be confused with the 2023 may conflict and because this is way more than a "conflict" Fnfp (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please see the discussion above for the existing requested move. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:October_2023_Gaza−Israel_conflict#Requested_move_7_October_2023 Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page move needed on a technicality

The current separator between "Gaza" and "Israel" in the name is a minus sign −, instead of an en dash –. Per MOS:DASH, an en dash is the correct character here. Would also need to be applied to the international reactions page. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, can you update the redirects and text? Andre🚐 20:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)My apologies, I accidentally moved the talk page without moving the article itself. Someone else has to do it, it's protected. Andre🚐 20:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll need an admin for this :( ChaotıċEnby(talk) 20:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I was able to move the reactions page, though. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back to keep it consistent and get rid of the red link until the article gets moved. - RockinJack18 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PFLP?

The lead mentions that the PFLP is involved with the attacks. Which reference verifies this? Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox appears to link to a statement on PFLP's website. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is a primary source and is non-specific bluster. Are they actually a part of today's attacks? Cullen328 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone kidnapped has been identified

Shani Louk, a German citizen, who was seen unconscious in that pickup truck video was identified and reported to be missing by her relatives, as she was attending an outdoor party in Urim, Israel. source. 2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is relevant

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1710757415388414307#m

A German citizen was murdered. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tweets are generally considered unreliable for sourcing requirements. XeCyranium (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

party near Re’im

Palestinian terrorists arrived to the nature party complex in the Re’im forest, fired at the participants and threw grenades https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1710551424436748742 https://www.jta.org/2023/10/07/israel/it-was-utter-chaos-families-and-survivors-describe-the-horrors-of-hamas-invasion https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryhehzybp#autoplay https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2023_q3/Article-f88c2856ee80b81026.htm https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gunmen-homes-captives-abducted-gaza-leave-israelis-shock-2023-10-07/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

peoeple dead https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-bodies-being-removed-identified-from-site-of-large-party-near-reim/

"Survivors of Massacre at Israeli Outdoor Rave Describe 'Battlefield'" https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-07/ty-article/.premium/survivors-of-massacre-at-israeli-outdoor-rave-describe-battlefield/0000018b-0a85-dae9-adcb-abbfa4990000

a lot of them are missing. https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hjyzajclt

I added a sentence about bodies being recovered from the party. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The event appears to have been named Universo Paralello but can't find a solid source for that yet.©Geni (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/07/middleeast/israel-gaza-fighting-hamas-attack-music-festival-intl-hnk/index.html calls it Nova Festival. Borgenland (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding, the massacre at the nature party (which was in the forest) has nothing to do with the battle at Camp Reim (Gaza Division headquarters). These are different events that took place.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-07/ty-article/.premium/survivors-of-massacre-at-israeli-outdoor-rave-describe-battlefield/0000018b-0a85-dae9-adcb-abbfa4990000
Geographically, there are Kibbutz Reim, Camp Reim and Forest Reim in this area. These are 3 separate places and it is advisable to be careful of confusion. 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E813:77F3:5AD8:B10C (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a third battle in the kibbutz itself (https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/b15wi11xz6#autoplay) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

death toll 300 now

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israeli-death-toll-in-hamas-onslaught-rises-to-at-least-300/ 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is already over 350+
T.me/manniefabian/39497 77.248.247.89 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of "widespread sexual violence"

The female Israeli citizen's body that was displayed was not undressed, she was wearing shorts and a bra. A look through this female Israeli's social media account shows that she has posts of herself in that very same outfit and other similar loose, revealing outfits. There is no proof that the Palestinian fighters undressed her or sexually assaulted her. Revise this segment. 41.47.21.14 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be helpful if you specified the text you wanted changed and provided a reliable source that supports your proposed change. XeCyranium (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Widespread sexual violence and massacres of Israeli civilians have been reported." The citations do not mention any reports of "widespread sexual violence." One article mentions the woman discussed above, the other cites statements by American politicians speculating that sexual violence would occur. 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by another commentator, both articles are void of any, let alone widespread sexual violence."
Proof that the body was dressed: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU
Proof that the deceased female Israeli wore such outfits regularly: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi8DSsnfuZoR_0BsRt0sU7ex66XFy9rJCpxA&usqp=CAU 41.47.21.14 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
she was not a soldier but a german citizen attending a party 2A02:6680:110B:9A00:C4B1:4809:B0E2:1AD2 (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Proof that the body was dressed"
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU center image which is a still from the video of her body in the pickup truck which clearly shows her bra/top pulled up over her breasts. Notice how high up in the shoulder blades the bra/top straps have been pulled --straps that usually meet in the middle back. In that image (and more visibly in the video clip), her bare breast is visible from the side. The image also shows her miniskirt seemingly split up the rear --likely not the original state of even such an immodest dresser as the victim. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: Hey, The Telegraph source documents a woman of German citizenship being paraded naked, "The naked body of a woman was paraded in the back of a pickup truck." (...) "Some in the crowd which included youngsters spat on the woman's body." This counts as sexual violence specifically sexually humiliation, her names was Shani Louk, although she was not alive when she was being paraded. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee: That sounds like one case of sexual violence, but I still don't see support for the claim of numerous cases. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: Perhaps then a better wording is available, or more citations to be necessary. The one does document substantial sexual violence. Des Vallee (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it's pretty misleading. Most people would assume that sexual violence would refer to sexual assault or rape against a living victim. This would more accurately be described as desecration of a body rather than wartime sexual violence 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual violence is not limited to being alive, necrophilia as an example is considered a form of sexual violence, despite the affected individual being dead. Likewise mutilation of a body for sexual purposes is also considered a form of sexual violence, and the given source describes her body as mutilated. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee: That may be true, but Sexual violence does not include anything about necrophilia or other post-mortem examples, and generally seems to imply that the victim is alive (or that the killing is part of the violence). This could be a problem with that article, but I agree with the IP user who commented before that the average reader would assume that we are talking about living victims. Renerpho (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, it wasn't "sexual violence" when they dragged that male Israeli commander out in his underwear, they were literally just caught with their pants down. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we arguing what is and isn't sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources call the specific instance being referred to sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources say there has been widespread sexual violence or say there has been sexual violence? That is what matters not editors arguing over what constitutes sexual violence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I agree in principle. I think the question has been whether a source that doesn't use the exact term "sexual violence" or "sexual assault" can still be used. To answer that, we must agree what the term actually means. I would lean no in this specific case, because there doesn't seem to be clear consensus that this is synonymous, and thus would be WP:SYNTH. Renerpho (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer here is that it is an emphatic no. No reliable sources mention sexual assault. This seems to be a fog of war situation, and also many people "defaultly" believing that a naked body of a woman is somehow definitive evidence of sexual assault (it is not). 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone Mention the various images of violence against Israelis and at Israeli women? The are crimes and brutality. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGF3hJOLXn/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGRHwMIzVO/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyHSu-ZIAUG/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyI3Ju0rkUL/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyIzHMYLIE2/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/p/CyIZ1muONBH/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== your tellking me this isnt violence? also these articles: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/missing-israelis-viral-post-shows-pics-of-men-and-women-kidnapped-by-hamas-4461651
https://english.jagran.com/world/israel-gaza-under-attack-hamas-palestine-tel-aviv-military-operation-operation-iron-swords-benjamin-netanyahu-london-celebration-metropolitan-police-10105820 Azz205 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.foxnews.com/world/videos-hamas-brutality-toward-israelis-eerily-reminiscent-isis-tactics Azz205 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Violence doesn't equate sexual violence. That's the issue here. There is no evidence of any sexual violence just because women have been taken prisoner. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cye1k60kz23o source? Azz205 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tablet magazine is reporting that women at the music festival massacre site were raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends. That one source may not be enough, but other media outlets are probably investigating. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends" is such an explosive claim that, if true, would be widely covered by international sources.VR talk 01:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrating protests

In Berlin the attacks where celebrated, things like that could be mentioned in the article https://web.archive.org/web/20231007231849/https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/terror-unterstutzer-feierten-angriff-aus-israel-polizei-lost-propalastinensischen-aufmarsch-in-berlin-neukolln-auf-10588360.html FSbiran (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more appropriate in the International reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict article? --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now where including it would be appropriate. I'll add it in. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed mentioned in List of international reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict#Demonstrations. Renerpho (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas warns that they will spread the invasion through the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Due to Israel's Future Assault on Hamas (Gaza), they are now threatening to spread more through the West Bank instead of it being Gaza alone.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3237188/israel-vows-mighty-vengeance-hamas-warns-deadly-gaza-assault-will-spread-west-bank-and-jerusalem ItsMeJoeyHigi (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Hyperlink

One of the commanders on the Israeli side, Johnathan Steinberg (who is KIA), has an article. These are the same person, but there is no hyperlink in this specific article to the article about Yonathan. 2601:246:5E01:30A0:B0B8:FFE1:2419:1DF3 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonatan** 2601:246:5E01:30A0:B0B8:FFE1:2419:1DF3 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:246:5E01:30A0:B0B8:FFE1:2419:1DF3
Hi, the link to the existing article has been added.
Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have created an article based on hours old info from limited original sources often known for highly biased information on multiple sides. Why are some editors in such a rush? We are not here to scoop the networks. Wait until we have multiple analyses. There is WP:NODEADLINE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any constructive suggestions, rather than SOAPBOXing? The article is sourced to credible news outlets like CNN, Al Jazeera, and The Times of Israel. Of course information will change and update. Wikipedia, luckily, is perfectly capable of updating as the information does. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no sense in fighting this. It is inevitable. It's a major event. It will undoubtedly evolve. Andre🚐 01:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be agressive. I don't agree either, but I don't need to belittle others to get my point through. Stay kind. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Doesn't a major event that has repercussions and echoes around the world deserve an article? Dl.thinker (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about a subject that is leading to a large number of deaths and is likely to incite further deaths, I would think an encyclopedia ought to wait for the dust to settle. We currently live in a world filled with misinformation which has caused so many problems. We are WP:NOTNEWS. An encyclopedia should at least attempt to wait long enough to gain a more full view of facts and analysis. That is, yes there are repercussions and echoes around the world. So, let us be responsible and not contribute to those repercussions. Let us report when we have a fuller story to document. We should never be part of any echo chamber on any side. But as others have said, it's a waste of time to remind editors that this is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSOR Borgenland (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the last time that policy was correctly cited. Your explanation certainly doesn't indicate this is a correct cite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We would be derelict in our duty if we failed to have this article and keep developing it as the war proceeds. Waiting until "the dust has settled" is an empty, unhelpful cliché. Who gets to decide when the dust has finally settled? Some random person on the internet? I have heard countless criticisms of Wikipedia over the years, but if we did not have an article about this war, that would bring on the most devastating criticism by far in the past 22 years, and I would agree with that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not violate WP:NOTNEWS, which has four restrictions. There is no original reporting by Wikipedia editors. This is not routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. This is not Who's Who type of content. This is not celebrity gossip. Those are the only things that NOTNEWS precludes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, factual reporting in RS is mostly repeating what they have been told by an involved source. I can read a newspaper for this. And then read it tomorrow and get a different set of 'facts' and then.... It's not what I use an encyclopedia for. No, we do not wait for one random person. (Did I suggest something so silly?) We form a consensus that RS are using primary sources from all involved with expert analysis tying it together. Wikipedia has no deadline. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree but it is always the same with these breaking news things, nothing to be done, the article will develop and eventually settle down. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first major, rapidly moving event that is covered on Wikipedia as it happens. We have done this from the first day, and will doubtlessly continue to do so. The earliest edits at World Trade Center/Plane crash were quite erratic, too, even though they came from some of the founders of the platform. Renerpho (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza-Israel or vice versa?

Do we list it in alphabetical order or do we not? 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict has it the other way round, but then again, that may be the wrong one. Bremps... 01:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there's a standard here. I believe it's up to editor's preference. KlayCax (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think we should go with alphabetical order unless a different order clearly predominates in RSs. That's what we do in bilateral relations articles (e.g. Germany–Israel relations rather than Israel–Germany relations). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and move the 2006 page. Bremps... 03:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is handled by WP:AND: "It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang. If one concept is more commonly encountered than the other, it may be listed first, as in Electrical resistance and conductance. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such as Relegation and promotion) should be redirects." LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to ngrams, "Israel-Gaza" is far more common; infinitely so in the case of "Israel-Gaza conflict". BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third Intifada..?

No one - In israel or in palestine, called it Third Intifada, really no one. אקסינו (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not universal but several American news agencies have referred to it as such. Similarly, we use "Third Intifada" in the 2014 Jerusalem unrest article, along with others.
If there's any terms being commonly used in Israeli or Palestinian media about this - and it's being widely used - I recommend that it's added. KlayCax (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So by that logic this would be the fourth intifada. Or, perhaps, there is no third intifada despite the wishes of bloodthirsty outsiders to label everything as such. Total crystal ball violation. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP: Crystal only applies if we're speculating it is. If reliable sources are referring to it in the present tense as such: then it's a different case. The situation is obviously horrific. I'm not implying it isn't. KlayCax (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, some news called it a third intifada, and others called it Hamas-Israel war, Israel war and some called it a Terror wave, we just need to stick we a netural name and I think the current title does it perfectly.
It could be defientely called an Intifada in a matter of days weeks or maybe months but it's not the name used by anyone other than some populist news agencies thus it's incorrect to call it that. אקסינו (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream news agencies such as The Guardian have also referred to it as such. It's not limited to tabloids. I think we're past the point of just considering it sensationalism from clickbait low-quality "news"papers. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed. It's a controversial term and it's too soon to decide it will be called the Third Intifada. Andre🚐 01:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Commanders and Leaders

Under "Commanders and Leaders", Police Commissioner Kobi Shabti is listed, while Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir is omitted. Ben-Gvir is the official in command of the Israeli police force and Shabti's superior officer. All leaders of the Israeli police, especially the Cabinet member in charge of them (Ben-Gvir), should be listed since the police is engaged in the conflict. Ben-Gvir, as Minister of National Security, is a member of Security Cabinet of Israel.

Timeline needed.

self-explanatory. Great Mercian (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a timeline is necessary, or even feasible. Many events happened nearly simultaneously across many locations in a short period of time. It probably would be impossible to reconstruct a sequence beyond the broad outlines already given. If this conflict continues in the coming days, as it almost certainly will, a chronological progression of the conflict will become easier to write (.e.g, day-by-day or week-by-week, etc.). --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what a timeline is? Great Mercian (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could try to create a timeline article....divided by hour? It's only day 2. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_October_2023_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict kencf0618 (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map Image Typos

The map shows 'Netivol', this should be 'Netivot'. The location is on the East side, approximately midway up the image.

See Netivot for more info. Elderlystrawberry (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

It is now 8 October. Will the article need to be reformatted to include a timeline? Borgenland (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just wait a bit for the media and parties involved to settle on a name

It might be the Gaza War, it might be the Israel-Palestine War 2023, it might get some fancy Hebrew name, heck for all we know Fatah and Hezbollah could get involved and it's suddenly the 5th Arab-Israeli War 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:55B0:11B8:C431:F554 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a war this is a slaughter 2601:40:C481:A940:3C92:C11F:3285:D004 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual violence?

It is mentioned in the lead that there was sexual violence. However, the links provided do not say this. Driving around a body of a naked woman does not imply there was sexual assault per se. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems your objection has some point. Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The woman wasn't naked either, it appears this is how she dressed normally (look her up). Even the Israeli commander who was caught was in his underwear. It seems a lot of them were simply caught unexpectedly, nothing sexual about that. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was not a soldier caught unexpectedly, she was a german citizen murdered in a music festival 2A02:6680:110B:9A00:C4B1:4809:B0E2:1AD2 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that she is even dead, most likely taken for prisoner swap. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bullet holes shown in the back of her head on video aren't proof? 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:41BB:C608:C30A:AA5D (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to what you said, there is still a sentence in the article saying, “a video of Palestinians parading her unconscious naked body in a car,” which should be changed to reflect the fact she is fully clothed and was being transported as a prisoner, not paraded. 159.242.0.110 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't unconscious, she was dead. It wasn't transporting a prisoner, it was showing off and reveling over her corpse. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:41BB:C608:C30A:AA5D (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources that say the opposite; she is most likely alive. The main goal of this seems to be taking prisoners for swapping, and it's entirely consistent with that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier cited "Proof that the body was dressed"
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU center image which is a still from the video of her body in the pickup truck which clearly shows her bra/top pulled up over her breasts. Notice how high up in the shoulder blades the bra/top straps have been pulled --straps that usually meet in the middle back. In that image (and more visibly in the video clip), her bare breast is visible from the side. The image also shows her miniskirt seemingly split up the rear --likely not the original state of even such an immodest dresser as the victim Cramyourspam (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did this ever get put back in? Because it needs to be.

"Others were captured and bound and kidnapped. “I saw videos with a male getting held by a group of Arab kids. Like, they’re like 16, 17,” one survivor recalled. “They’re kids, but they’re young men already, and they’re holding this guy, and he looks as his girlfriend is being mounted on a bike and driven away from him. God knows what she’s going to experience … Women have been raped at the area of the rave next to their friends bodies, dead bodies." Several of these rape victims appear to have been later executed. Others were taken to Gaza." In photographs released online, you can see several paraded through the city’s streets, blood gushing from between their legs.

Source.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

Article should mention that legally Gaza and the West Bank are occupied territory and that this is the opinion of pretty much the entire international community. The way the article talks about "occupation" is that it's just some Arab claim. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

condemn of labeling word "militant" for palestine

I was disspointed for who labeling palestinian as "militant" in this article as lokking wikipedia have siding to pro israeli page. please remove this word and replace to another word to become fair. Insankerdilmahubersuara1993 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about a regular Palestinian army, are we? Borgenland (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of international RS are using "militant", NYT, WAPO, Reuters. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the only acceptable term in this instance is militant. Azz205 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of casualties in Gaza

Daveout can you explained why you removed mention of the Israeli attack on the hospital in Gaza and the fact that it killed an Indonesian working there?[11]

If Hamas has caused similar casualties they should be mentioned too.VR talk 04:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was an hasty action, I should have looked the context a little closer. That's why I self reverted before you wrote this. I still think the way it's described is too wordy, as if it were trying to imply something. Anyway apologies for the inconvenience. Stay well. –Daveout(talk) 04:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and you too.VR talk 04:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the claim (And maybe also with its claim, but that needs to be ascertained) is not accurate/correct
https://www.businessinsider.com/doctors-without-borders-hospitals-ambulances-targets-israel-hamas-gaza-2023-10 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E813:77F3:5AD8:B10C (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure no Indonesian has been killed yet, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that no Indonesian national has been killed
https://x.com/kemlu_ri/status/1710924285324452195?s=46 2404:8000:1024:13EA:2B8A:247D:DD6:1C8A (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Southern Lebanon involvement

Just recently, Southern Lebanon initiated their rocket attacks on Israel in support of Gaza. IDF responded by artillery fire, and some UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL) in Lebanon is pulled back to their base. Should it be included in the article? I'm looking into others opinion, as I am unable edit it due to article protection. BlueHelvetical (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some sources? I can't find anything to this effect.VR talk 05:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's being reported on X (formerly known as Twitter) Efuture2 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is reliable sources of UN peacekeepers backing away/increasing their presence there due to rocket attacks there, but the issue is still ongoing and nothing much (information) can be found as of now. I will keep on updating if there is anything new. BlueHelvetical (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to ya with reliable sources. BlueHelvetical (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify who exactly since Southern Lebanon is not an independent state. Borgenland (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's Hezbollah. I will look into some more informations. BlueHelvetical (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: UNIFIL confirms rocket attack at southeast Lebanon towards Israeli-occupied territory in the general area of Kafr Chouba and artillery fire from Israel to Lebanon in response. They are in contact with authorities in both sides of the Blue Line, at all levels, to contain the situation and avoid serious escalation. BlueHelvetical (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here it was reported in the guardian live coverage, add hezbollah to the list of belligerents. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-palestinian-attack-october-2023-gaza-conflict-hostages-latest-news#maincontent MysticForce07 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i24news
ynetnews
Hindustan Times
BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of mortar shells doesn't square with Hezbollah. Those guys have a lot of rockets.©Geni (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gulf News now reports that Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for shells and missiles fired at Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely. They don't recognise the Shebaa farms as Israel (in fairness neither does anyone else its just that most of the world thinks they are part of syria rather than Lebanon).©Geni (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well now Hezbollah has claimed responsilibity for it. "Lebanon’s Hezbollah says it has targeted three occupation outposts with mortar shells in the “occupied Shebaa Farms” in southern Lebanon." https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-palestinian-attack-october-2023-gaza-conflict-hostages-latest-news#maincontent MysticForce07 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this section as a mistake\edit conflict. hope it's fine now. –Daveout(talk) 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate section for names

Daveout[12] it is convention on wikipedia to have a separate section for names (its often called "etymology"). I would respectfully keep the names section separate from the background section.VR talk 04:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see the "Etymology" section at Second Intifada.VR talk 04:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
these government nicknames are more like trivias. no one cares about them, although it´s a good idea to keep them in for register sake. no need for a highlighted special section. cheers. keep well my friend. (others may disagree and undo my edits, it's all good just the same) –Daveout(talk) 04:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Applodion. Regarding [this]. Sorry but it´s a completely BS rationale, it´s far more common for wars\operations to have their allegedly vital nicknames on the lede than on a special section. Also, the text was moved just one paragraph down; comprehension is not affected in any shape or form. If you like etymology sections (actually nickname sections) so much please create one on the Columbine page explaining that the perpetrators' nicks were Rebel and Vodka. That definitely will be useful. Best wishes keep safe. –Daveout(talk) 02:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change Title to "October 2023 Anti-Israel Massacres"

non extended confirmed users cannot participate in requested moves and this has no chance of consensus anyway
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is not a conflict, this was a coordinated air, land and sea terrorist invasion with the express objective of killing as many Jewish civilians as possible.


Regardless of our POV, we must neutrally represent these massacres committed in the name of ethnoterritorialism, nationalism, and other far-right politics.


It is not that we have an obligation to any POV or side, rather that incidental in our pro-Arab nationalist bias, we wikipedia editors are failing our responsibility to humanity by virtue of our bias. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds too much like a pogrom, and negates the fact that both sides are actively engaging against each other at the same time. Borgenland (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The topic is broader than the events of the morning of 7 October. I image that eventually enough sources will emerge that we will be able to support some articles on individual massacres but we haven't reach that point yet and that isn't this article.©Geni (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was and continues to be extensive engagement with military forces and military targets. Though there appear to have been massacres in the course, these do not make up the entire event. 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this supposed to be a joke discussion? Never knew people in war get killed instead of being hugged and given rainbows. It’s been going on for 16 years in Gaza alone, and you’ll be in for a not so cute surprise if you see what israel is continuously doing to Gaza, unless you only acknowledge crimes if it’s the Arabs doing it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to be WP:POINTy or something? What's your goal with a title like that? DarmaniLink (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah has apparently joined in

So what to name it now? 2023 Arab Israeli War? 5th Arab Israeli War? 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:55B0:11B8:C431:F554 (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t go that far, since no nations are actually involved, but rather militias and popular support The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No other countries have joined in so 3rd Intifada might be more fitting MysticForce07 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Intifada specifically for a low intensity conflict in West Bank? 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:55B0:11B8:C431:F554 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(or rather occupied territory, which doesn't really cover Gaza anymore since they left after the Second Intifada) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:55B0:11B8:C431:F554 (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hezbollah fired some rockets at the Shebaa Farms, which is illegally occupied territory, but has little to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict itself. Hardly of any consequence, so not really significant enough for the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kidnapped

German-Israeli citizen kidnapped. She kidnapped with a group of tourists. She was at the party in Reim forest. According to the documentation they published, the terrorists stripped, beat her and spat on her. They transferred her to Gaza.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/al-aqsa-storm-militants-infiltrate-israel-after-gaza-rockets-10-07-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkt4cnj11p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E813:77F3:5AD8:B10C (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It said she was stripped, when all that exists is a video of her in the same kind of clothes she wore regularly. So it seems to be just sensationalist spin. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what the fuck does that even mean? No need for rudeness in a horrible situation like this.
Hamas murdered a German citizen Its that cut and dry Why with the opposition of mentioning it?
She's all over the news and is a major image for the casualties.
Ignoring this is nonsensical. 2601:40:C481:A940:3C92:C11F:3285:D004 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i see two other users have pointed this out and they've been removed. 2601:40:C481:A940:3C92:C11F:3285:D004 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was mention but as since she was a regular civilian, we couldn't simply put out her name due to possibility of WP:MEMORIAL violation Borgenland (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication she was killed nor stripped, she was most likely taken alive for prisoner swapping. Only one being rude here is the one adding expletives. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was stripped. The earlier cited "Proof that the body was dressed"
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU center image which is a still from the video of her body in the pickup truck which clearly shows her bra/top pulled up over her breasts. Notice how high up in the shoulder blades the bra/top straps have been pulled --straps that usually meet in the middle back. In that image (and more visibly in the video clip), her bare breast is visible from the side. The image also shows her miniskirt seemingly split up the rear --likely not the original state of even such an immodest dresser as the victim. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"whilst overlooking the prelude to the conflict and Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilian targets."

this aside is not derived from the sources presented.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad bestie, it has been corrected by the girlbosses and it has been reverted The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map

@Veggies: I have removed Hamas presence in the map from Ashkelon. Ecrusized (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PNG based off of the modular map of the Israeli conflict.
Maps based on the much more comprehensive and detailed Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict detailed map are far superior to the map we have now. Module maps allow the citation of sources to reflect an accurate and verifiable state of things on the ground. See your false claim and inaccurate map for proof of why we need that. They are intricately clickable, allowing users to go to the module and see what all points of interest are and go to their respective articles. So, why did you remove it from the article? -- Veggies (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you see it fit I think you should go for it. I only reverted it because you specieded hamas and the invasion included multiple factions (I was under an assumption that militants in general were in the city, not specifically hamas), so slay The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: I don’t like the module map because it is very bleak. It does not cover roads, heights or urban density. The current map should be as easy to edit as the module. I couldn’t upload it as svg since it’s size is too large but you can download it at the page and export it as png. This should be very east to edit for anyone who has edited vector files in the past. Ecrusized (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized: Your map is a stitch job—and not a good one. I can see the seams of where the different screenshots of the map you wanted were poorly stitched together. And you call my efforts "low quality". The point of Wikipedia is so users can edit the Wikipedia themselves—not to rely on requesting changes from a small group of users. This is why the module map was developed. Your map is out of date and uncited. -- Veggies (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: I'm not an expert mapper by any means. I have already requested a map from user Rr016, and I have made the current map in the meantime. A better map should be ready in a few days. As you can see in my ping below, you can edit the file by downloading it. SVG's are the most common file format in Wikipedia's maps and should be available for the largest number of users to edit. Right now, it's your map vs mine but I think if it were put for discussion more users would support the current map. Ecrusized (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see, Talk:October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict#Please consider reverting to the previous infobox map image. Ecrusized (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized: It's not "my" map. Unlike you (evidently) I don't claim to own my contributions to this site. The module was created by many other people. I suppose you haven't noticed that the modular map is an SVG one, and it is only the thumbnail that I've tried to put on the article that is rasterized. That's why I link back to the module in the caption. If I could place a cropped SVG live-snapshot of the module in the infobox, I would. Only in your mind is this a "you vs me" conflict. And stop making new talk page sections every time you need to bring something up. There's already plenty of "Map" threads on here. -- Veggies (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed to own anything. This was uncalled for "Unlike you (evidently) I don't claim to own my contributions to this site.". I am simply stating that no one else besides you and I had participated in this dispute. I'll repeat once again that you can edit the current file in many ways as I have explained. Ecrusized (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: I have updated the map in accordance with the modules map. Ecrusized (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Causality update

According to IDF spokesman the Israeli military has killed more than 400 Palestinian fighters in southern Israel and the Gaza Strip https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-it-killed-more-than-400-terrorists/ Hu741f4 (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would question it, notice it refers to them collectively as “terrorists”, “times of Israel” doesn’t seem to be reliable in this case, have you seen a similar count from other media? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest getting a reliable sources from a global news network. Local state/independent medias are likely to be a bit inaccurate especially during this ongoing conflict. BlueHelvetical (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ToI is usually OK, the terrorist label is coming from the IDF. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why were PFLP and DFLP removed?

Their unit are still listed so why remove them? Genabab (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the citations for their involvement, then you can add them The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Correct Hebrew transliteration

מבצע חרבות ברזל≠Mivtsa Charvot Barzel מבצע חרבות ברזל=Mivtsa Ch/Kharavot Barzel Sorry formatting is terrible when combining Hebrew and English. Location: Second paragraph of the "Background" Section. Source: Me, a native Hebrew speaker. TomGoLeen (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a better source: The academy of the hebrew language TomGoLeen (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TomGoLeen: I changed it to "Kharavot", and marked it as needing a citation. The CNN article we are currently citing does not provide a transliteration. Right now, a search for "Mivtsa+charvot" only lists this Wikipedia article (and a mirror site), while "Mivtsa+kharavot" finds the WikiData entry. If you have a source (ideally a specific URL), that would be nice. Renerpho (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023 (3)

Under International Reactions, add a line saying:

Several countries including Russia have called for restraint, without directly supporting either side

Source: https://www.dagens.com/news/russia-calls-for-immediate-ceasefire Sng Pal (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was already there, but has been moved to its own article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll in Israel is now 400+ per "Times of Israel"

Per the news outlet, the death toll on the israeli side is now over 400. The "Times of Israel" also state that there are currently 2,048 injured on the israeli side.

Link to the article: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israeli-death-toll-passes-400-another-2048-injured/


The article was posted 10 minutes ago as of my writing. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add:
The "Times of Israel" article is referencing the Israeli Health Ministry. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ecrusized (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im watching N12 and it says 500+ 87.68.136.59 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the death Toll has risen to 600+ according to "Times of Israel".
Per Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian ( https://twitter.com/manniefabian ) N12 is saying the death toll in Israel is 500+ and "Channel 13" is reporting 600+ deaths on the israeli side. Poles Ragge (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Note]
  • Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian is a military correspondend for the news agency "Times of Israel".
  • At time of my writing "Times of Israel", "Channel 12" and "Channel 13" are all refering to the Health ministries number of 600+
Poles Ragge (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im currently watching "The Welt" (german news channel) and they're also referencing the official number of 600+, that was made by the health ministry of Israel. Poles Ragge (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
small update per "channel 12 news" and per "times of israel", the israeli death toll has risen to 700+ Poles Ragge (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian policeman kills Israeli tourists in Alexandria

Something related to the topic source 2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering whether to place it in international reactions instead. Borgenland (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the events are linked, though. Bremps... 15:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't really state they're linked unless the motives of the shooter are made clear. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timing (Holiday)

It's important to note that the attacks began in the early morning hours of Shemini Atzeret. To understand why this is such a crucial detail, read Yom Tov and Melacha. It's the main reason that many Israelis compare the attacks to the Yom Kippur War. Joalbertine (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joalbertine: The article currently says: The attack took place during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah and Shabbat, and a day after the 50th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War, which also began with a surprise attack. What do you suggest to be added to this? Renerpho (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho I would write something along the lines of: The attack took place during Shabbat and the Jewish holidays of Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah, which conclude the long holiday season of Tishrei ("High Holy Days"). It was also a day after the 50th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War, which also began with a surprise attack during a religious holiday ("Yom Tov").
I think it's important for the reader to understand that a large portion of the population had no access to phones, radio, television or computers for about 13 hours into the event, because observant Jews would only use electricity on Shabbat/holiday if it's a matter of life or death. Since the only information they had was the sound of the sirens, some friends of mine sat in shelters for almost the entire day without any idea of what was going on outside. The text should convey this reality in some way. Joalbertine (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joalbertine: If that is so then I agree. However, we need a reliable source that discusses those issues. Do you have a newspaper article that does so? Nothing against your personal experiences (you and your friends have my sympathy), but we can't use anecdotal evidence here. Renerpho (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho I totally understand. However, it's not likely to appear in a newspaper article because for Israelis it's simply obvious, and as you can see, it's very hard to explain halakhah to an outsider. That's why I suggested stating the basic facts about the nature of the day, without going into too much detail. Joalbertine (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure there won't be anything in local newspapers? The concurrence of multiple holidays seems unusual enough to me that it should be mentioned even in Israeli newspapers, if it is really relevant. We are currently citing an NPR article [13] for the "took place during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah and Shabbat" part, and AP [14] for the second half of the sentence. If any of that is to be replaced by something not in the current sources, we need a different one, as those are not basic facts. Renerpho (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah are always the same day in Israel. They don't always coincide with Shabbat, obviously, but there's nothing unusual about that. These are all regular events in the Jewish calendar, so I'm not sure why a newspaper article would be needed to corroborate their existence or religious nature. Joalbertine (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joalbertine: We are in a difficult situation then. If nobody has reported this as relevant then we cannot include it. In the case of the "holiday situation", we currently have to rely on outside sources (two articles published in the US), and what they make of it. What you have said about why the details matter sounds highly relevant to me, but that's not enough. Renerpho (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IDF casualties on the palastinian side?

someone messed up ManU9827 (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mess up, this is just the number of Palestinian casualties claimed by the IDF The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"in Israeli Airstrikes"

@EkoGraf: Regarding this edit, I included "in Israeli airstrikes" because it isn't an attempt at providing a full accounting of Palestinian casualties; it doesn't include those killed in ground fighting. I think the infobox needs to clarify this, but I don't mind how it does that - if you can think of a better way than saying "in Israeli airstrikes" then I encourage you to add it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, adding "in Israeli airstrikes" is not in line with other Wikipedia conflict infoboxes (including previous Gaza wars) where only casualty figures are listed (with attribution to the source and distinguishing between civilian and combatant). Causes of death are not for the infobox. As per the established template of Wikipedia conflict articles, their causes of death are expanded upon in the main body of the article, to be specific, in the casualties section of the article, which is the standard Wikipedia encyclopidic practice. If you want to elaborate in the casualties section regarding this, I can help you with that. EkoGraf (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intention with that edit isn't to include the cause of death; it's to make it clear that the Palestinian Ministry of Health (Hamas) is not claiming to make a full accounting of casualties. I think that is something we need to make clear, as currently we are misrepresenting the source.
Can you think of a way to do that other than to say "in Israeli airstrikes"? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: the Palestinian Ministry of Health (Hamas) is not claiming to make a full accounting of casualties, please provide a source confirming that the Ministry is not making a full accounting. PS I already added (if you didn't notice) Gaza in the brackets of the ministry to indicate for which region they are claiming the casualties. EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters; "Gaza health ministry says 370 dead in retaliatory strikes"
Amnestry; "Israel’s retaliatory attack on Gaza has killed at least 232 people and injured nearly 1,700, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health."
France24; "The death toll in the Gaza Strip rose to 313 Sunday, the health ministry in the Palestinian enclave said, as the army carried out air strikes on Hamas targets for the second consecutive day."
Anadola Ajansi; "More than 250 Palestinians, meanwhile, were killed and over 1,700 injured in Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry."
Forbes; "Roughly 370 Palestinians have been killed and 2,200 have been injured in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Ministry of Health said Sunday."
Among many others. BilledMammal (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Again, did you not notice I already added "Gaza" in brackets beside the Ministry to indicate the region they say they are documenting as an attempt at compromise? EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it clear that they are only reporting casualties from within the strip, as there are other ways to interpret that disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Hope this satifies you [15]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian killed

Lithuanian killed in Israel.

Sources: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2095071/israeli-lithuanian-policemen-killed-in-hamas-attacks-media

https://www.lrytas.lt/lietuvosdiena/aktualijos/2023/10/08/news/izraelyje-zuvo-lietuvis-28649797 Ginas9999 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Israelis have dual citizenship. Listing every single one of them as a foreign citizen is misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Any killed individual should be counted for exactly one nationality, and in case of Israelies the nationality should be Israel. If the other nationality is relevant in some other part of the article, list it in the prose there. Animal lover |666| 14:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archive time

Talk page is over twice the recommended maximum (170kB out of 75), I'll be archiving old stuff that's closed/already added/no chance to be added, before stuff crashes. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving time has been reduced, hopefully it will clear up by tomorrow. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. Guess my preemptive creation of Archive 2 was unneeded, thanks a lot. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Injured and missing Brazilians

What are the criteria for adding people from other countries affected by the conflict to the 3rd box in the infobox?Like Nepalese and Thai. Because it was reported that 2 Brazilians were in the Unniverso Paralelo party who are missing (dead or kidnapped) and one injured. Source: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2023/10/ataques-em-israel-deixam-um-brasileiro-ferido-e-dois-desaparecidos.shtml OLuizgs (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Theres also the fresh reports from antony blinken that several american citizens are "dead, missing". Also, the indonesian medic that was killed by Israeli forces is also gone from the infobox. Poles Ragge (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you send any current sources on the disappearance, injury or death of Americans in the conflict? I couldn't
t find. OLuizgs (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, firstly the "Times of Israel" live ticker Article [ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/blinken-says-there-are-reports-of-several-americans-killed-missing-in-israel/ ] referenced Antony blinken. Better to say, a tweet from Kaitlan Collins [ https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1711006008938545162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1711006008938545162%7Ctwgr%5E8fe039b4122680206efde0c5bf80fbfe44529a41%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofisrael.com%2F%3Fpost_type%3Dliveblog_entryp%3D3115970 ] where she said that Antony blinken told CNN that several american citizens are dead and/or missing.
The German goverment announced that atleast 2 german citizens are missing/kidnapped by Hamas. The news channel "Die Welt" is reporting on that.
I could only find stuff about one of the two dissapeared german citizens, Charlie Louk. [https://www.welt.de/videos/video247883122/Angriff-der-Hamas-auf-Israel-Offenbar-auch-Deutsche-unter-den-Opfern.html ].
Her mother posted a video on social media, saying she recognized her daughter in a hamas video. According to her and "Die Welt", Charlie is that girl in that video where Hamas fighters film a lifeless body of a woman on a pickuptruck, surrounded by hamas soldiers that are chanting (Video is graphic).
According to the Swiss goverment news channel "SRF", there were no reports of swiss citizens missing, kidnapped or killed at the moment of writing (16:00 UTC+1). The swiss live-ticker is here: https://www.srf.ch/news/international/grossangriff-auf-israel-mindestens-500-tote-in-israel-hisbollah-angriffe-im-norden.
Im swiss, if anyone needs translation of swiss or german news, i am here.
Also, SRF cited the official swiss Departement für auswärtige Angelegenheiten (EDA) aka the swiss Ministry of foreign affairs.
At the moment of writing, thats all i know. Poles Ragge (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Palestinian death tool of 370 killed and 2,200 injured OR 400+ killed hamas members (claim by IDF)

According to the military corresponded from "Times of Israel", Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian, the palestinian health ministry claims that there are 370 killed and 2'200 injured on the Plestinian side.

[SOURCE: https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1711011674277163456]


The "Times of Israel" also say's the IDF claims to have killed 400+ Hamas terrorists.

[SOURCE: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-october-8-2023/]


Both claims are similare numbers BUT the Plestinian health ministry didn't distinguish between civilians or hamas terrorists/fighters.

The IDF only said "Hamas Terrorists". Poles Ragge (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IDF is calling every Palestinian killed “terrorist”, I wouldn’t take their word for it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why i put "Hamas Terrorists" in brackets. The only real sources we have of dead and wounded are either from the Israeli IDF or from the Hamas and palestinian health ministry. Both have interest to make their side look good and the other look bad. Poles Ragge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF does take significant steps to reduce killing or injuring civilians, but when the terrorists use them as shields hurting them is sometimes inevitable. They also recognize the fact that civilians are not terrorists, but some times it takes time for them to be sure how many are each. Animal lover |666| 14:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're also right. But we currently have some fog of war everywhere. Only after this crisis we will have full visibility who was a terrorist and who not.
And yes, Hamas is using civilians as human shields, no doubts to that. Poles Ragge (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
citation please? i have not heard this. Mark28482 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're different numbers. Israel is saying they have killed 400+ fighters inside Israel, while the Palestinian Ministry of Health (Gaza) has said that 370+ have been killed in airstrikes on Gaza. We need to clarify this to prevent further confusion; see the discussion at #"in Israeli Airstrikes". BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

death number of palestinian citizens ?

how many Palestine citizen have been killed please confirm it Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Palestinian health ministry, 370+ people were killed in Palestine. Around 50%, aka around 135~ deaths, were civilians.
More up-to-date sources i couldn't find yet. Well, at the time of writing.
The only other source is by the IDF and they only talk about 400+ killed "Hamas Terrorists". We don't know if all 400+ were terrorists or also civilians that were counted togheter. So the Palestinian Health Ministry is the only "good enough" source at the moment.
At the time of writing of course... Poles Ragge (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank

@EkoGraf: I don’t think the clashes in West Bank are related with the ongoing conflict/war in Gaza. Ecrusized (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, RS media outlets are reporting it hand-in-hand with the events in and around Gaza. If sources explicetly state its not linked I have no objection to removing it. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this, 7 deaths in a short time is not usual but the connection is not obvious and the WB is otherwise quiet. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actions in the West bank should count into this crisis. Its just primarily in and around Gaza. The WB and norther israel-lebanon border could also be counted at being connected with the Gaza-crisis. Poles Ragge (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now both WB and Lebanon should be included, unless RS say otherwise.VR talk 20:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - Restore this in infobox

@Shaan Sengupta, Please add this which is removed from infobox. 103.241.226.129 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone removed it, it might be disputed. I shall leave it for others to do it. Shaan SenguptaTalk 15:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been removed, it has been moved to October_2023_Gaza−Israel_conflict#Notes. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't been removed, its still in the infobox. Just moved to a note beside the overall number of dead within Israel, which counts the foreign citizens. Listing them separately would be double-counting. EkoGraf (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More casualties

Please add to the foreign victims a Chilean who was murdered by Hamas, the name has already been published and the Israeli ambassador in Chile confirmed it publicly, I leave you the link


https://www.24horas.cl/internacional/noticias/hija-de-chilena-murio-en-israel-tras-ataque-de-hamas-habria-recibido-8-disparos Darknessofhumanity (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you add this section in infobox
| casualties3 = 17 Nepalis kidnapped by Hamas, 7 Nepalis injured[1]
2 Thais killed, 11 kidnapped by Hamas, 8 injured,[2][3]
2 Ukrainians killed.[4]
2 Argentinians killed.[5] 103.241.226.129 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "At least 7 Nepali injured, 17 held captive by Hamas in Israel". India Today. 7 October 2023. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  2. ^ "2 Thais killed, 8 injured, 11 kidnapped in Hamas attack on Israel". Bangkok Post. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  3. ^ "Two Thais killed in Israel-Gaza violence, says Thailand PM". The Straits Times. 8 October 2023.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference kyiv was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ LA NACION, Ataque de Hamas: murieron dos argentinos en Israel por el violento asalto terrorista, 8 de octubre de 2023, Gabriela Origlia, https://www.lanacion.com.ar/el-mundo/ataque-de-hamas-murio-un-argentino-en-israel-por-el-asalto-terrorista-nid07102023/

more info

From the beginning of the event (documentation that became less unusual) "Extraordinary documentation: terrorists have infiltrated the surrounding settlements and are shooting" https://www.mako.co.il/pzm-soldiers/Article-af01eb8bf780b81026.htm

The fighting is still going on in some areas, 8.10.2023 (https://news.walla.co.il/item/3614541 , https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryczojxwa): "Terrorist squad in Kibbutz Bari, exchange of fire on the spot 2023" "The difficult battle in the Gaza village continues: "The biggest nightmare of the residents of the Otaf has come true"

results:

"The father and daughter were kidnapped and managed to escape, the traces of the mother disappeared" https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-560435ee64e0b81027.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

"Reports that several Americans killed - Blinken"

'"The terrorist murdered the grandmother, took a picture and uploaded it to her Facebook. That's how we found out" | Chilling evidence from the terrorist attack' https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rykxjfxb6#autoplay

'Biden's Secretary of State announced that in the next few days the US will announce military aid to Israel. Compared to 1973, he said: "Then there was a war of army against army. This time it is an attack by a terrorist organization. Women, children and a Holocaust survivor in a wheelchair were kidnapped to Gaza"'

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/h1jq4eg11p#autoplay "After the exchange of fire with Hezbollah: Gallant instructed to prepare for the evacuation of settlements in the north"

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryczojxwa "This morning the dimensions of the disaster are also revealed in Kibbutz Nahal Oz. According to the residents, at least 20 terrorists infiltrated the kibbutz territory yesterday, more than five of them including children were murdered. The terrorists also took hostages from the kibbutz with them. Residents are being evacuated to Mishmar Ha'Negev"

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/s1nlru0x6 https://www.ynet.co.il/blogs/war2dayevening "A day after the start of the attack on the Gaza Strip, when the security forces arrived in the settlements, the depth of the horror that took place there was revealed. In Kibbutz Nir Oz, as in Bari, many of the buildings caught fire. The terrorists burned houses to make the residents come out, to shoot them or kidnap them."

"In Ofakim they relive the day of the hard fighting: "I fortified myself with the gun, protecting the family. That's what there is"" https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-10-08/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000018b-0f0f-dae9-adcb-afbf25f20000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Palestinian attacks

There is basically nothing in this article as to the nature of the Palestinian attacks. Thay should be characterized properly as surprise attacks against Israeli civilians. It might be going to far to describe them as "cowardly". However, it should certainly be clear that they were unprovoked surprise attacks aimed not at the IDF, or at least not only at the IDF, but primarily at civilians. TiltonHilton (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have specifically taken over military bases and captured soldiers, so that is not a correct assessment. And "unprovoked" is the overstatement of the ages. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamas militants gunned down civilians intentionally. These attacked were not against the IDF - they were trying to kill Israelis whether they were soldiers or not. TiltonHilton (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned. Their targets are mainly military and directed at the IDF but there have been civilian casualties (Re’im massacre). This isn’t just hamas though, basically all of Gaza is invading with various militias so it’s best not to put the blanket of “hamas” over all of them, which is what the IDF is doing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I understand Hamas interviews they seem to insist that there are no civilians in Israel, only settlers, which they say allows them to attack them. Borgenland (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TiltonHilton it would be actually appropriate to call these attacks "cowardly" with attribution and probably in the reactions section. For example, "X condemned the attacks as 'cowardly'."VR talk 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Unprovoked” surely they just attacked Israel out of the blue, surely Israel had not done anything the Palestinians to warrant all of this The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update to foreign citizens killed.

The german news channel "Die welt" announced that a german tourist from berlin (not Shani Nicole Louk) is now reported to be killed after being kidnapped by Hamas.

I'm trying to look to somehow get a link for that news thats not gonna be the link to the youtube-livestream of the official "Die Welt" channel.

Poles Ragge (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.welt.de/tv-programm-live-stream/
Here it is Poles Ragge (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More info: A mother talked with one of the reporters and said her daughter got killed after bing kidnapped.
Please take with a grain of salt (safety-first) Poles Ragge (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PIJ

Need help fixing flag for Ziad Nakhalah in infobox. Borgenland (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland: Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2019) uses the same flag for al-Nakhalah, while May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes uses no flag at all for him (but uses the same flag earlier in the infobox). What do you suggest as a fix? Renerpho (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears someone made a fix while I was away. Not sure who did. Borgenland (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents

Hi. Popular Resistance Committees lauch attacks with drones on Israel, someone can add this organisation to the belligerents ? Thanks. Idem for al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades who publish videos.

(source PRC : https://qaweim.com/) (source al-Aqsa : https://nedal.net/) AnthonyRd71 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

You need the mention 50%+ civilians Israeli casualties if doing the same with Hamas. Vkutikov1 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No source provided that more than half of Israeli casualties are civilians, while source cited for Palestinian casualties. EkoGraf (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Not done.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments removed from this talk page

Constructive comments from new accounts have been removed from this talk page. Does the 30 day, 500 edit minimum apply to the talk page as well as the article? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Applies to the RM, WP:ARBECR. Any others may be restored if you believe they are constructive. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a few instances of identical comments that were posted twice (apparently accidental), from this page and the List of international reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict talk page, especially duplicate edit requests. The 30/500 rule played no role in that. Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 30/500 rule doesn't apply to ordinary discussions (it does to move requests). I've generally been trying to archive discussions that have naturally resolved so as to keep the page readable, but I can stop doing that if you'd like. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I think this article needs more archiving, not less! Renerpho (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023 (2)

Finnish state-owned media Yle tells that a dual-citizen of Finland and Israel has been injured in the clashes. Source: [1] EtelaPuolanka (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Talk:October_2023_Gaza−Israel_conflict#Lithuanian_killed for another case of a person with dual citizenship. If particularly notable, this should be mentioned in the prose in the relevant section of the article, but not in the infobox. Renerpho (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done If there is a reason to include the Finn (unlike the Lithuanian), please ask again and say so. Renerpho (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://yle.fi/a/74-20054128

Trim discussion topics

Calling for an urgent closure and archiving of outdated discussions (especially casualty figures) and international reactions (moved to another article). It is becoming quite difficult to scroll through this talk page. Borgenland (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The archive time was reduced to 1 day, it should clear up tomorrow hopefully. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Latin America in the Western World?

I'm looking at this edit summary. My understanding is that the Latin American world's being part of the West is geographically true, but not necessarily politically true; there's a bit of distinction (even if one is a Huntingtonian on this sort of thing). Should we refer to "Latin America" separately in this context? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global South so I'd say yes. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it also make more sense to mention blocs instead (EU, NATO etc)? Mellk (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey's reaction seems to be distinct from that of its NATO partners. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huntington makes a distinction between "the West" and "distinct civilizations intimately related to the West", with Latin America being a part of the latter; but says that in general researchers consider that the West has three main components (European, North American and Latin American). Compare Western world#Latin America. I suggest we circumvent the issue, by either following Mellk's suggestion, or to simply use the three components mentioned by Huntington, and say "most countries, including European, North American and Latin American nations and India". Renerpho (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023 (4)

do supported by united states on israels side 47.204.53.161 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear and no sources. Not done.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of War?

There are multiple reports that Israel has issued a formal declaration of war. If this is true in the sense defined under international law, it would be a fairly rare occurrence in the post 1945 era and should probably be noted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WAPO< "Israel’s declaration of war, a mostly symbolic formality, would allow the government to enact a wider mobilization of military reserves and compel the government to identify specific wartime objectives, raising the specter of a ground invasion of Gaza." Idk if it is worth mentioning specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first time since 1973. I think that is worth mentioning. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A symbolic formality with very few modern examples. I'd say it merits a mention, assuming we are talking about the legal formality that in theory sovereign countries are supposed to issue before commencing hostilities. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India: "Israel officially declares war for 1st time since 1973 as death toll mounts to 600." The Jerusalem Post: "Article 40 allows the government to order “significant military action that may lead, with a level of probability close to certain, to war."
There are several sentences in the article about "being at war" etc., why would it be a problem to include a sentence that officially confirms it? RiniX (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas casualties per IDF

I would like to clarify that I was forced by another editor to remove [17] a source [18] explicetly stating that the IDF's claim of Hamas casualties was for both militant deaths in and outside of Gaza. The editor in question insists on saying the figure is for deaths inside Israel only, calling upon a BBC report which said 400 were killed "during the fighting in Israel" [19], which is ambiguous to me. In any case, I leave it to other Wikipedia editors to decide whether IDF was referring to all Hamas casualties or not and which source should be used. I myself do not intend to continue being part of this discussion any longer due to bad faith behavior experienced and will leave it to the rest of the editor community to decide which information is correct. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, one more source [20] saying IDF refered to Hamas casualties both in and outside of Gaza. EkoGraf (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk that the IDF is reliable for Hamas casualties any more than Hamas would be for Israeli. They are probably both unreliable for their own casualties for that matter. The casualties are being constantly updated so it's probably not that critical. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add US to infobox

It is appropriate to add this information. Biden ordered military aid and more is coming. Blinken too. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aid as in soldiers on the ground or Ukraine-style aid? That's an important distinction. Bremps... 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If US becomes a participant, then yes. Atm, no. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "Supported by:" in the infobox military conflict is deprecated. Parham wiki (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is it? I just added it but anyone's free to revert. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I self-reverted, as the Template:Infobox military conflict page confirmed that it is deprecated. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar check

There's a lot that needs review. However, here is an incomplete sentence at the bottom "considering that Netanyahu's coalition partners, who opposed a two-state solution for the conflict and would prefer to annex the entirety of the West Bank, even at the expense of turning Israel into an apartheid state." Considering what?37.252.80.255 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence makes sense. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Did it? I think they are right that "considering" was not referring to anything. Renerpho (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed ", who". Renerpho (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Israelis

@EkoGraf: The current number of missing of 750+ in infobox is unreliable. It originates from a tweet by Jerusalem Post[22] being quoted by other news reports. I think it should be removed. Ecrusized (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecrusized: If you think its unreliable then remove it by all means. Wasn't sure myself since it has not been widely reported on. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023 (5)

The number of kills is unconfirmed so very biased at this point from both sides.

The countries that ally Israel or Palestine are not represented. 143.177.11.229 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The reported casualties are sourced to reputable news outlets. If one side or the other is being untruthful about the casualty counts, there is nothing we can do about it. We cannot do our own independent investigation. As for the allied countries, it is now considered deprecated to add "supported by" in the infobox. Only direct participants should be listed. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox casualties

@EkoGraf: I have merged the IDF, police and Shin Bet casualties with the note listing foreign nationals. Additionally I have also removed the number of displaced and the Israeli estimate of killed militans. The section seemed too large for the infobox and I think those should be listed inside the article like the list which shows the casualties of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore I consider adding (86% civilians) next to 700 killed in Israeli casualties, would you support this? Ecrusized (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the number of Israeli civilians from the total would essentially be WP:SYNTHESIS, if you plan to subtract the number of Israeli combatants from the total. It's quite possible there are additional combatants who have not yet been identified in the total of 700+. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized: I have no problem with the merging of the Israeli security forces dead to the note listing the foreigners. I also have no problem with the removal of the number of discplaced or Israeli claim of militant dead (due to its potential unreliability). However, I agree with @Jprg1966: that 86 percent shouldn't be added unless sourced, because it is more than likely there are still a number of Israeli combatants among the 700 dead who have not yet been identified. It will become clear in a few days. EkoGraf (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map 2

@Veggies: The current map is in .png format since its too large to be uploaded as an .svg. However, you can download it as .svg at its page in common through MediaFire and export it as .png. The .svg format is very easy to edit and can be done using Inkscape, a free software. It can also be done using Adobe Illustrator, a paid but slightly more advance program. Personally I use Inkscape. You can also request changes at the files talk page. Ecrusized (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

Under "Terminology," the article refers to the Palestinian offensive as "Operation Al-Aqsa Deluge" and the Israeli counterattack as "Operation Swords of Iron." The rest of the article instead uses "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" and "Operation Iron Swords." The "Terminology" section should be changed to fix this consistency error. AmericanBaath (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Google searches reveal "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" and "Operation Iron Swords" are the more common variants. I'll change accordingly. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reverting to the previous infobox map image

Just wanted to express that I dislike the current map (Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png) for a number of reasons. Firstly, it puts the Gaza Strip and West Bank in a dotted line as opposed to a solid line, implying that it's a disputed territory and not an internationally recognized border, which is a problem. But I also dislike that there's low contrast between the colors in the towns where fighting is ongoing and there is no highlighted outline of the region where fighting is ongoing unlike the previous map, which makes it visually more difficult to understand the scale of the conflict.

  • Previously used image, File:October 2023 Gaza−Israel War.png
    Previously used image, File:October 2023 Gaza−Israel War.png
  • Currently used image, File:Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png
    Currently used image, File:Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png

I don't think either of these are perfect, but I do think that the previous one is easier to interpret and more informative. It is possible that the older one contains outdated information and therefore would not be appropriate to use right now, but I would appreciate if the map displayed visually had more in common with the older one, or if the newer one at least was modified to account for some of the issues I mentioned.

I did not attempt to boldly do this myself because I don't even want to think of getting into an edit war on a topic this contentious, even though all I'm proposing is a stylistic change and not really a content change. I hope others will agree.

Thanks,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the current revision is now the previously used map again, but I'll leave this thread up since things can change rapidly on an article like this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the version "Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png" because its more accurate with showing Palestinians' presence only where it was reported. The old map made it seem like Palestinians occupied the entire blue area, when that's probably not the case.VR talk 20:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza and the West Bank are disputed territories. A large part of the world does not recognize Palestine as a state and much of it is under Israeli occupation. The same thing could be said about Israel itself, I suppose, but one SVG map of the region has to be used and that's the one they went for. Second, there is no highlighted regions on the map because there is no definite "front line" between two armies. Militant infiltrators have attacked separate towns and points but haven't linked into a unified offensive line. Fighting is sporadic. -- Veggies (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Palestine is in a unique situation among polities with limited international recognition in that its borders were agreed upon by the United Nations itself, so these are still "internationally recognized borders" unlike most unrecognized or partially recognized polities. On a highly touchy and sensitive topic like this, I'd like to avoid conveying or implying - intentionally or unintentionally - that Palestine is "not a real country" or merely an insurgent breakaway movement within Israel. Dotted lines don't always have to convey this, of course. File:Israel and occupied territories map.png is a good example of how this problem can be avoided by having all international borders be dotted and explaining in the key what Palestine's slightly different looking borders mean.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? File:Israel and occupied territories map.png has different border styles for the Palestinian territories, just as you admit. Is it a key that says "Armistice Demarcation Line" that you want to see? What is it you're arguing, exactly, because I'm lost, now? -- Veggies (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the miscommunication, Veggies. I can see how bringing up that map would create confusion as I brought it up as more of an "if we're gonna do it this way, there's a wrong way and a right way to do it" side point, not as an example of what I'm asking us to do here. To be clear, my preference is either to have no solid borders at all (like in the old map) or to use the same border style for all polities involved. But just to make sense of what I was trying to say there:
  • Normally, a map that has a mix of solid borders and dotted borders with no key or legend explaining what the borders mean will visually imply that the dotted borders are less legitimate than the solid borders. This is usually fine when we're talking about breakaway/insurgent polities with de facto borders but no association with the United Nations, but Palestine's borders are de jure internationally recognized ones, so a map that could visually imply that Palestine is a breakaway state within Israel as opposed to a separate country is problematic.
  • If we are to use dotted lines and display Palestine differently, there's a way to do it that avoids those problems, which is the only reason why I drew attention to that other map. It's fine in spite of its dotted lines and differentiated Palestinian borders for the simple reason that it doesn't imply that the Palestinian borders are less legitimate than other international boundaries. It displays all boundaries as different types of dotted lines (which removes any visual implication that the boundaries of Palestine are in a lesser category than the rest of the boundaries) and explains the purpose of making Palestine's borders different, which is simply to show the reader the former borders of the Palestinian Mandate and the current agreed upon lines. Not to make it look like it's just a disputed region. I am not saying that my preference is to model the map off of this, but rather that if we are to make Palestine's borders look different from the rest, there's a better way to do it. Hope that clears that up, but if it doesn't, don't worry because it's not relevant.
But enough about that side convo, I regret bringing up that other map in the first place as it clearly just derailed the discussion. Just to be clear again, my preferred position is to either have no solid borders at all or to use the same border type for both sides of the conflict.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer module maps because they can be sourced better and updated by consensus on EnWiki (Commons doesn't allow overwriting of ordinary files for "Substantial changes"; see c:COM:OVERWRITE). The land control map could well be useful—if the module map were to be updated to have something like an interpolated border between the various places I would support it—but it's going to be a bit harder to keep an ordinary svg/updated based upon local consensus on the fly if we don't use the map module.
For these reasons, I think the module map should remain, but it should be improved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair, there are certainly advantages to the module map that make it worth using. I do not mind that we still link to it in the infobox. Some sort of interpolated border would be very useful for visually conveying the scale of the conflict, though I do not know how challenging this would be. If I could change any one thing about the map, it would be the low contrast between the shade of green used for Gaza and the shade of blue used for Israel. When they're put right next to each other in those small boxes, they become very hard to see, and I can imagine this would be even more of an issue for colorblind readers. This is less of an issue when looking at the full-sized map which is animated, but it's not ideal at the small resolution used for the infobox image.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" countries called for de-escalation

I added in the lead that "Most countries called for de-escalation." I think it is pretty obvious that's the case just looking through International reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict. Is there any objection if I restore that wording?VR talk 20:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: No objections from me in principle, under the condition that you add a reliable source that says so (the Wikipedia article you mention does not suffice, and neither would any form of WP:SYNTH). This is not obvious. And please remember WP:1RR. Renerpho (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho: Why do we need a RS for that? We are summarizing RS's here. Do we have an RS that "Most countries condemned Hamas" (as stated in the lead), even though its fairly obvious they did? VR talk 00:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one.[23] If you have something similar for what you want to add then go ahead. Renerpho (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a RS for that? -- We need RS's for everything. You can summarize RS's, but you have to cite them somewhere; or there has to be consensus that a statement is obvious, in which case you don't need an explicit citation. But going ahead and doing your own statistics on the list we have compiled here is WP:OR. This list is not an independent summary of RS's. If you find a similar, independently created list in a RS then you could summarize that. Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deif message

@Vice regent: Deif's statement, as head of Hamas, holds more importance in the lede than Abbas' statement, head of the PA. Your "summarization" removed the relevant former and kept the irrelevant latter. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree with this. The likes of the ft are likewise currently profiling Deif not Abbas, who is not relevant here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Abbas' statement should also be removed. But we should summarize Hamas' position in the lead very briefly (just as we summarize the Israeli position). The more full statement should be in the body and not the lead.VR talk 20:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Hamas cited these events in the justification for the offensive, with Mohammed Deif, the commander of its military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, called on Palestinians and Arab Israelis to "expel the occupiers and demolish the walls" is too much detail for the lead. I would summarize it as "Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join the fight."VR talk 20:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa linking to wrong page

Change the Israeli town Sofa from linking to the page for couches (furniture) to its own page. Insituin (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The town does not appear to have its own page, but it now is a redlink instead of linking to the furniture page. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil position on the conflict

The brazilian government never said it supported "Israels right to defend itself", it simple condemned the hamas attacks on civilians and called for de escalation, please correct the information 2804:4FFC:40D:9D00:4D20:2973:F9C3:415C (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks 2804:4FFC:40D:9D00:D084:D667:4BFA:679B (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes/dis accurating at this paragraph

"It is the first direct conflict within Israel's de jure territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Hostilities were initiated in the early morning with a rocket barrage against Israel and vehicle-transported incursions into Israeli territory, with several attacks on surrounding Israeli civilian communities and Israeli military bases. Some observers have referred to these events as the beginning of a third Palestinian intifada. Israel formally declared war for the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War."

1. 2006 Lebanon War and 1982 Lebanon War ( first and second Lebanon Wars ) was declared as wars at Israel. The difference can be that they started as military operations and their status were changed because the events 2. the 1973 Yom Kippur War happened at golan height and sinai. The are outside of the Green Line (Israel). There were a few infiltrations into the area surrounding Gaza (the area that was attacked yesterday and today) through tunnels during operation Tzuk Eitan and the Israel Defense Forces dealt with them. In the current case it is broader and included a lot of damage to civilians and their kidnapping. 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:8B1:FC2F:B000:4280 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong about the paragraph? Renerpho (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WB Palestinian casualty count

Up to 13 in 24 hours, an unusually high number, if anyone can find sourcing on that, reasons for, etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section Israeli and international victims

Is there a section that lists the victims? Victor Grigas (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all support additions being removed collectively?

I tried to add the U.S supporting Israel but it was removed and called deprecated although this type of infobox layout is seen across Wikipedia? If it’s newly deprecated can the wording be changed to arms supplier? Bobisland (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See #Add US to infobox section above and template discussion/RFC refers. Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 Brazilians missing, 1 injured during attack on rave.

i am not able to paste the link here for some reason, but several Brazilian news outlets are talking about it.

in addition, the rave was organized by Alok (DJ)'s father, maybe important to mention. 177.83.128.215 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

correction:DJ alok's father was not the organizar, he was only onde of the djs there. 177.83.128.215 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

Please include the case of the 8 Mexican Foreign nationals reported missing or killed on the attack , one by the name of Orión Hernandez Radoux, apparently captive in Gaza or missing, boyfriend of German- Israeli citizen Shani Louk who was shown deceased in a video posted on social media , naked and paraded as a trophy trough the streets of Gaza and was later recognized by her Mother . 189.216.171.79 (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We already have a sentence on Shani Louk. I see news articles about 2 Mexican nationals being captive, which is also already noted in the article. If you can find an article saying there are 8, I'll add it. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential bias in 'Outside Gaza' section

Second to last sentence in Outside Gaza section states: "Video footage confirmed that a small unit belonging to the Palestinian militias had arrived at the Jewish settlement of Psagot near occupied East Jerusalem."

I am uncertain whether the "occupied East Jerusalem." is acceptable and would like someone to please review it. 2600:6C60:5D00:66FA:FCEA:5DC2:E74B:D324 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest terrorist attack in Israeli history?

Multiple sources have made this claim and called it "Israel's 9/11", but how accurate is this really? What consitutes a "terrorist attack" versus an "act of war"? You don't see most of the war battles throughout history listed among the list of terror attacks, so why would this be any different? If this is truly to be considered a "terror attack" then wouldn't the death toll rank it amongst the likes of attacks such as the Camp Speicher massacre in 2014 and 9/11 in terms of death toll? Undescribed (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed A terror attack is an attack carried specifically on civilians of a certain country / or people, in order to hurt or kill them.
Usually careied by extremists, intended to slaughter civilians, *to promote their agenda / ideals*, and literally "Installing terror onto the streets".
A declerance of war, is a country attacking another, and attacking the other's *military*, to seize land, and control the population. Not to slaughter them.
Usually in order to hurt the other side, and win specific things such as a complete control over the country, a weakening of the country, seizing specific land (See nagorno-karabakh), and more.
A WAR ON TERROR / WAR INCLUDING TERROR, is a war in which a terror organisation/entity, such is Hamas, is involved. Hamas slaughters civilians and innocents to promote his political agenda, and is controlling a certain amount of land (See Gaza Strip), and is, de facto, a country.
And when a large scale armed conflict, and with two entities fighting from their controlled areas, it's war.
When at least one side is using violence, mass murder, and yes, literally, "Terror", on the other side, it's a war including terror.
Again,
The terms are broad, blurry, and general, yet usually when the term "War on Terror" is used, it's specify a terror organisation, involved in a large-scale, armed conflict, consisting of two different entities, usually fighting from their controlled land (Usually); in which the terror organisation uses its arms to kill innocents of the other side, to promote their political agenda/Ideologies.
An example for a war including terror, is WW2 and the Holocaust. When Nazi Germany invaded several countries (War), and used its power and reasources in order to enslave, starve and slaughter population they regard as enemies of theirs (Thus promoting their political agenda with murder: Terror), such as Jews, Gays, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Communists, etc.
  • NOTE: The difference between a war and a military operation, is that a war is usually a large-scale armed fight, while an operation is a smaller one.
  • NOTE: Again, the terms are broad, in some cases even refrencing the same thing, and in some cases meaning two completely different things.
רם אבני (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of refs [24] mentioning it as the "the deadliest attack in Israel in decades". My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jprg1966 Yet it is factual. And therefore somebody needs to find a source who tells that, link it, and re-write the fact that it's the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history. רם אבני (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why it is still relevant is because I was thinking about adding the statement to the article, but wanted to first get consensus on whether it constitutes a "true" terror attack like 9/11 which it has been compared with by multiple sources. If I just add it without discussing on the talk page first it will probably be removed. Isn't that what the talk page is for? Determining what information is relevant to an article? Undescribed (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Undescribed Not sure, yet I support you in adding said statement.
    Maybe the 9/11 part can come as a side note: "(...) It is the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history; regarded to be "Israel's 9/11". רם אבני (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's fair. I apologize, I misunderstood what you were asking. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't want to jump the gun on adding said statement, even if it is reliably sourced. This is a very high traffic article at the moment. I've even found sources claiming this to be the "second-deadliest act of terrorism in world history after 9/11". Even with a reliable source this seems like a rather controversial statement, no? Undescribed (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's difficult to weigh. I think with multiple RS, you could put it in the "analysis" section: "XYZ sources asserted it is the second-deadliest terror ...". I would avoid putting in the lead, though. That's my 2 cents. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Undescribed Well, you can certainly use a refrence of the amount of dead in each major terror attack. Possibly there's a table in Wikipedia of the deadliest terror attacks. Not that I know of.
    Controversial? Definitely not. If it is the second-most killed terror attack in the world, by amount of dead, then it is.
    You cannot argue against the amount of dead people.
    And when we're refrencing "the terror attack", we of course mean the suprsise terror invasion, who killed 700+ Israelis, and started said war (Which is the subject of the article).
    And not regarding specifically the war, but the attack that started it.
    (Which by the way should be another article) רם אבני (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think that is the main dilemma at this point. This article needs to be split with a standalone article focusing on the initial attack. Thats another reason why I'm so adamant about adding statements about it being "the deadliest terrorist attack ever in: xyz". This article is about the supposed war now, not a single attack. This type of statement should be added to the article about the attack that started the war, not in the war article itself. Just my two cents. Undescribed (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Undescribed May you please create a discussion on spilitting between the terror suprise attack and the war?
    (Which probably still for now counts as a continuing terror attack, since some Kibbutzim, Cities and areas still has Hamas' terrorists lurking around.
    When they hault from lurking around the gaza envelope, (Not to be confised with the gaza strip), and in Israel, then it'll probably be counted as the END of the terror attack, and then just a war.
    By "hault" I mean be killed by the Israeli military, or escape to areas that are safe for Hamas' people.)
    Sorry to put the responsibility on you, it's just 5:15, and I really wanna head to sleep.
    Thanks! רם אבני (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine in the info box

The citation for Ukraine supporting Israel in the conflict is pretty insufficient, it just refers to the president's words of encouragement. Might as well list half the countries in the world if that's all it takes to be included as a military supporter. XeCyranium (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's already mention that the "supported by" line is deprecated anyway, so I guess it'll be removed eventually. XeCyranium (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Uruguay to countries with reinforced security following the attacks

The Minister of the Interior, Luis Alberto Heber, ordered the police forces to reinforce security to preserve the safety of Israeli citizens and organizations in Uruguay, following the surprise attack by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the declaration of war.

"We are going to remain in a state of alert to provide peace of mind and avoid any type of incident that could put people's safety at risk," the Interior Ministry reported.

El País Accuratelibrarian (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas' amount of soilders

I ask you to remove the saying that Hamas' has "1000+ militants". The terror organisation has at least a couple tens of thousands alone, without the other terror organizations.

It is late, 4:55 a.m. here, so please somebody rlse find a few sources for Hamas' amount of militants, and maybe another one for the others.

Thank you in advance! רם אבני (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @רם אבני: Hamas is certainly far stronger than 1,000, but the "strength" parameter is meant to describe the strength of units active in the conflict. See the template page. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jprg1966: It may still be worth looking for a more recent source, or one that actually includes the cited figure. The current citation (in its archived form[25]) does not give that number 1000 anywhere. As far as I can tell, it doesn't give any figure for the strength of Hamas's units. Renerpho (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jprg1966 The topic is of the war of Israel against Hamas.
For now, both are fully in war.
Therefore, their strength count shall be represented.
If you mean the suprise terror attack, and not the overall war, then that's a discussion to have. (Since a few hundred Hamas' militants entered Israel, while others shot missiles).
But regarding the war, both are fully in. רם אבני (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @רם אבני: I take your point. Given the fluidity of the conflict, as well as the failed verification that Renerpho mentioned, we should probably leave that field blank for now. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@רם אבני: Assuming you are right, would you have a reliable source for "your" figure of a couple tens of thousands? Renerpho (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1,000 sounds inaccurate to me as well, but, for what it is worth, I think the figure comes from this article: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/1000-hamas-fighters-infiltrated-israel-most-killed-or-back-to-gaza-blinken-101696810480050.html FortalezaNY (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FortalezaNY: Thanks, that would be a reasonable citation to use for the strength parameter, if we decide to add it back (as "about 1000", not "1000+" which is still unverified). It can't be the original source for the number, because that article is only a few hours old, but that doesn't matter much at this point. Blinken said, quote: "We had about 1,000 Hamas militants who infiltrated Israel. Most of them seem to have either been killed or have gone back into Gaza." Renerpho (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Surely Blinken didn't get that number from Wikipedia, right? Renerpho (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article split for the initial attack?

Seems notable enough to be a stand alone article. Undescribed (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to have one eventually, but wouldn't it be a lot of the same information already in this article? Is there enough to differentiate it? --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean assuming this escalates to a full blown war on terror, which unfortunately seems to be the case, I think that there is already enough information for at least a basic article for now, and it will certainly be expanded in the future. We already have multiple articles on the attacks related to this even such as the October 2023 Hezbollah strike, Re'im music festival massacre and Battle of Sderot, so why not have an article on the initial attack as well? Undescribed (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map update - Palestinian presence in Ofakim

The stand-off in Be'eri and Ofakim is still ongoing in Ofakim, meaning the map needs to be updated to reflect that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for that? I'm reading that the city was cleared earlier on the 8th. [26] -- Veggies (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: The article stand-off in Be'eri and Ofakim says it is still ongoing as no source says the standoff itself ended. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source for your claim...is Wikipedia itself? Yeah, no. I'm going to go with verifiable sources, thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American English?

To my understanding, we do not change the status quo. However, is there anything preventing us from having multiple varieties of English (defence and defense in different sentences, say) in the article? Bremps... 03:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, MOS:ARTCON does, though it lists some exceptions. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC) (edited LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Comparisons

Comparing this attack to 9/11 is a reaction some are having, as such it belongs in the reaction section and should not be state in wikipedia's voice. Other comparisons have also been made, to the 1973 war, or the Tet offensive (and broadly some have compared the Israeli occupation to apartheid). All of that should be attributed and put alongside reactions.VR talk 03:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Mule of Eupatoria

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria You made an edit with an explanation "the claim is verifiable, and the video has been surfacing around a lot. The link is broken because Wikipedia is so itchy about citations. This is a video uploaded by a news organisation and is translated accurately" to restore content with a broken youtube link in the lead. This does not make much sense, editors everywhere have been able to add in linked and verifiable sources. From what I can tell, you added this in originally with the edit description of "Another Instagram video surfaced of a militant (presumably Hamas) who gestures at an Israeli geriatric and her disabled child instructing that “we should not kill a woman, or a child, or an old man or a worshipper”. I don’t know if Instagram is able to be cited here. If we include individual actions then it goes both ways queen!"

Per WP:BURDEN, you are required to provide a verifiable RS for your addition. "The link is broken because Wikipedia is so itchy about citations" is not a blank check to add in whatever you desire. This is especially important when you are trying to use youtube, per WP:RSPYT. If this is an Instagram video, as you state in your original edit, it would also not be allowed for inclusion, per WP:USERGENERATED. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for both videos to surface on mainstream news websites, for now I get it being reverted. Flow of new information makes citing more difficult because it’s localised to these specific websites for now The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change Palestinian militant groups[e] to Palestinian Terrorist Groups to reflect what they are under the definition of the word.

change Palestinian militant groups[e] to Palestinian Terrorist Groups to reflect what they are under the definition of the word. the current usage of the word causes several problems, being apologist and justifying what happened amongst them. It is important to use the correct words in these cases, and they are terrorists by every single definition of the word. Mark28482 (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being sarcastic? Based on their actions they are just as terroristic as Israel. Using the blanket statement of “terrorist” over Palestinians is the justification they have been using to shell and target Palestinian civilians for the past 16 years. Label the terrorists as terrorists, not every Palestinian fighter that ever existed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sarcastic, attack the argument, not someone personally. the argument you proposed here are null. those who carried out these attacks were Palestinian terrorist groups. you try to change the subject and blame others to justify this, and none of that is relevant to this request.
additionally you try to change the meaning of my statement by putting words in my mouth, nowhere did i say any blanket statements over Palestinians, i pointed out that those who carried out the terrorists attacks are in fact terrorists. Mark28482 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you’re aware of what you’re arguing about. If the militias are to be completely labelled as terrorists, then so should Israel because both of their actions fall under the definition of terrorism, only difference is Israel has been doing it on a far bigger scale. If you are talking about individual events like the re’im massacre then of course the perpetrators are terrorists committing terrorism.
“ change Palestinian militant groups[e] to Palestinian Terrorist Groups to reflect what they are under the definition of the word. the current usage of the word causes several problems, being apologist and justifying what happened amongst them. It is important to use the correct words in these cases, and they are terrorists by every single definition of the word” doesn’t seem to specify the terrorists that carried out the acts, unless I am missing something The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what you said has nothing to do with the fact that those responsible were terrorist groups. you keep saying other people are bad and have done bad things. that is not what this request is about. go ahead and make a request for such changes but this is not the place. i do not wish to argue with you any further, you keep attempting to change the subject and justify what has happened to fit your rhetoric which is not impartial in this situation and you should recuse yourself from further editing and contributing this article because you are unable to maintain a impartial view. you have strong personal beliefs that affect this and trying to justify what has happened which is not appropriate. Mark28482 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referencing your initial statement of renaming Palestinian militias “terrorists”. If you don’t want to argue that’s up to you queen, first you mention the renaming them all then you’re talking about specific massacres and now I’m trying to justify what happened (justify what? The uprising or the massacres, I’m not sure what you’re talking about sweetie)
In short:
label the entire Palestinian militias as terrorists? No
label the specific militants that perpetrated massacres as terrorists? Yes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any new advances in the map?

It's been awhile since the advance was changed on this map. Is there anything new from both sides? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1179299554"