Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Rename to "October 7 attacks"?

This seems to be the more well-known name of the attacks and I feel the name fits better with other articles on Wikipedia than its current one. "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" might fit (considering many articles use the name of the attacker's operation as the name of the article, like Operation Barbarossa) if it wasn't likely to bring up undue weight issues. Bill3602 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We are where we currently are based on a conscious choice to currently side with the most neutral descriptive title possible. Operation names, while accurate, are discouraged unless focused devotedly on the military planning etc., since they are rather POV. "October 7" is also POV and has the air of 9/11-style branding about it. Neither are perfect, and both have flaws, and thus the descriptive compromise so far remains. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I always thought the title seemed a bit off compared to other article names, but it does make sense to use it as 10/7 and al-Aqsa Flood both bring up POV concerns.--Bill3602 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename to "October 7 attacks". Drsruli (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is off compared to the bombing of Gaza where Israel is not mentioned in the title. CurryCity (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Every single international mainstream source is calling it "October 7th attacks". Even al-Jazeera, a source which is notably anti-Israel, is also calling it the "October 7 attack". It So it has nothing to do with a "rebranding", discounting the fact that in both cases, this was a significant armed attack on civilians by an Islamic terrorist organization that was a gamechanger moment for the world. Last I checked, no one called 9/11 the "2001 Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States". And no one, apart from Wikipedia for some strange reason, is using this mouthful of a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.105.206 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

AJ investigation into attack

October 7 Al Jazeera Investigations with transcript (1 hour) Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

October 7: Forensic analysis shows Hamas abuses, many false Israeli claims Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Source 38

We really should not use that NYT article as a source. 129.219.21.241 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for this request? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Discrediting Blinken's quote about his own witnessing of Hamas atrocities

The sentence "U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described some of the evidence given by the same ZAKA volunteer" is implying that Blinken's graphic description of Hamas' atrocities is as false as are all the ZAKA volunteer's claims. But Blinken clearly stated that his statement was based off his own witnessing of photographs and videos, and not off the ill-advised ZAKA volunteer's stance. Please remove "given by the same ZAKA volunteer" and add "evidence shown to him". Watch his conference here: 'Overwhelming': Blinken recalls seeing graphic images from the Hamas attack on Israel. Deerove (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The citation for that sentence clearly states a ZAKA volunteer described that. NadVolum (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Where? I can't find it. Deerove (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope this isn't some lawyering, it says "His descriptions echo those of an Israeli emergency responder, who described discovering the scene in a home at Kibbutz Be'eri during a recent press conference. Yossi Landau, the head of operations for the southern command of Zaka, Israel's volunteer emergency-response organization, described the scene he said he found after entering a home at Kibbutz Be'eri." NadVolum (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You are pointing to the first part of the paragraph: a young boy and girl, 6 and 8 years old, and their parents around the breakfast table. The father's eye gouged out in front of his kids. The mother's breast cut off, the girl's foot amputated, the boy's fingers cut off before they were executed.

But the sentence "a baby, an infant, riddled with bullets. Soldiers beheaded. Young people burned alive. I could go on, but it's simply depravity in the worst imaginable way." is not mentioned in the article you are referring to; here Blinken was referring to the atrocities seen by himself in photographs and videos. This is where I am asking for someone to make an edit to clarify that it was said after media evidence was shown to him. If you want I can quote what exactly he said during the conference from the YouTube video. Deerove (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have to be made clear that the evidence was shown privately to him by Netenyahu with no checks. NadVolum (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Terrorist?

At the bottom of the page, the attack is put into the category "terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2020s" or "massacre against Jews." I don't agree with this and think it violates NPOV. Many view the events as a legitimate military operation against an apartheid state. Many military installations were targeted, and the soldier-civilian death ratio is far better than that of Israel or any other Western nation engaged in urban combat. JDiala (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: See this discussion, which involved 58 editors with 184 individual comments. The discussion resulted in a consensus on Wikipedia that deemed the attack a “terrorist attack”. To challenge that consensus, you would need to have reasons not already mentioned in that discussion, as any reason mentioned in that discussion to not include it was on the minority consensus view. So, read through that discussion and if your reasons (which must include new sources) were not already discussed, then you can open a new discussion to reassess if community consensus has changed from that discussion. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Could you cite the WP policy which requires that opening a new RfC requires a new reason? JDiala (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: Not so much direct policy on that, more of a mix of WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY (essay), which eludes to the idea as well WP:CCC (policy) which says Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. You are not required to propose any new reasonings or sources. However, common sense (essay) would first off read the previous discussion, which would reveal a 2-1 editor consensus that it was a terrorist attack. This means, to a degree, the idea that it isn't a terrorist attack (which I !voted for in that discussion) is the "One against many" or the "losing" ideology. The consensus is less than 6 months old, so WP:CCC plays huge here since less than 6-months for a full RfC is a fairly recent consensus, meaning an attempt to rehash the same debate may be considered disruptive in a contentious topic. So to answer your question, no, there is no direct policy saying you must provide any new reasons or evidence via sources to start a new RfC. However, a word of advice is that a new RfC on this fairly recent topic may be seen as disruptive to editors and administrators. Hopefully that helps. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Blinken's quote about his own witnessing of Hamas atrocities

• In the sentence "a baby, an infant, riddled with bullets. Soldiers beheaded. Young people burned alive. I could go on, but it's simply depravity in the worst imaginable way" Blinken was referring to the atrocities seen by himself in photographs and videos.
• I am asking for someone to make an edit to clarify that it was said after media evidence was shown to him. Please remove "given by the same ZAKA volunteer" and add "evidence shown to him".
  • "Watch Blinken react to footage of Hamas terrorist attack on family | CNN Politics". CNN News. 3 November 2023.

The sentence "U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described some of the evidence given by the same ZAKA volunteer" is implying that Blinken's graphic description of Hamas' atrocities is as false as are all the ZAKA volunteer's claims. But Blinken clearly stated that his account of the atrocities was based off his own witnessing of photographs and videos, and not off the ill-advised ZAKA volunteer's stance. Watch his conference here: 'Overwhelming': Blinken recalls seeing graphic images from the Hamas attack on Israel. :

Deerove (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing about this already, if there is no consensus for the change there it wont be made in the article despite a request.

I forgot to add the CNN reference I added here in the discussion. It should be added. Deerove (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References