Talk:7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel

Title

I believe a more fitting title for this article would be "The October 7th Attack" being that it's much more rememberable and easy to say. JamesCook1728 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I am able to move the page. I will not until there is consensus. NesserWiki (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should use the name that Hamas gave it since it is the only “operation name”, which is the “operation Al aqsa flood” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

More neutral sources seem to avoid adopting that name. I'm not sure exactly why, but I assume it has to do with not wanting to legitimize the attack, or create an appearance of alignment with Hamas. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The only reasons I can see using the Hamas given name is the lack of other “official” names for the attack (maybe invasion? Not sure of it counts) and because of such a large-scale, never seen before type of attack which too everyone by surprise being the first “invasion” into Israel since the 1948 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think they'd see it as a reclamation, not an invasion? MWQs (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria no, because that's name for the whole war. Al-Aqsa Flood belongs in the "part of" section of the infobox maybe? The hashtag #طوفان_الأقصى is on social media for updates from today. The Electronic Intifada podcast was "Al Aqsa Flood day 250" on some platforms but not others (YouTube but not Spotify). A couple of others had similar titles or headlines from the past week. If you've got something saying "Operation Al Aqsa Flood" was more specific and just the start of "Al Aqsa Flood" then maybe? But I think it's just an abbreviation? Being an abbreviation is probably why "Al Aqsa Flood" by itself is in more informal contexts like hashtags and podcasts. I should look for the long version, I've not seen it for a while, but I don't think it was supposed to be just the start. MWQs (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be two names, the initial october 7 attack was called operation Al aqsa flood, while the overall war itself is called the battle of Al-aqsa flood. The reference to a war as a 'battle' is consistent with the other wars waged on Gaza, being the battle of Al-furqan, the battle of the withered grain (rough translation), and the battle of Jerusalem's sword for the 2008, the 2014, and 2021 wars respectively The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it would be best we avoid using the Palestinian name or Israeli name at all costs in order to promote a more neutral presentation of the conflict, hence I said "October 7 Attack" which is a much more international name. JamesCook1728 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to using “October 7 attack”, so I’m not against your suggestion. I was only suggesting the Palestinian given name as it appeared to the be the only “official” name for the attack The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@JamesCook1728 no, "7 October" is a neutral international term, but "October 7" is an Israeli / USA name for it, or even a propaganda slogan. "7 October 2023" is the way to write dates everywhere except the USA, when the news in Australia or the UK calls it "7 October", it's just a date. But when a British Israeli like Eylon Levy or an Aussie Israeli like Mark Regev says "October 7" that's something else, that's "this is our September 11 and we're determined to copy every mistake the USA made after that" (or something like that) I am maybe being a bit dramatic, but it is distinctly more loaded to use the "September 11" form and not the "7 October" normal international date form. MWQs (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, 7 October Attack would be better. JamesCook1728 (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria is that mostly in Arabic? What's the word they use for battle? I've not seen it at all in English. And I probably would have missed it in Arabic because it's not a word I know. MWQs (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The word for battle is معركة، they call the whole war معركة طوفان الأقصى The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Israel doing something similar? I've heard "operation swords of iron" and "war of iron swords", but i thought they were almost synonymous, or at least symaltanious (i.e. the operation is the thing they are doing in the war). MWQs (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@JamesCook1728 currently being discussed below. MWQs (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Article title

So, very willing to have Wiki rules thrown at me on this;

Why are we still describing this as an “attack”? By the vast and overwhelming sources already cited in this article, it’s very clear that, where “attack” might imply some sort of targeted assault by one armed group against other, this is not what happened.

Given that this historical parallel doesn’t work, the closest I can think of is the roaming Einsatzgruppen, whose methods of murder were utterly terrible but also less terrible than the Palestinians responsible in this article.

“Attack” suggests that this was some sort of properly co-ordinated military operation. We know from every article sub-linked here that this was not the acse. it was from the start intended to be a massacre of civilians. There was no point anywhere in the planning of it in which anyone said that “this should not be a massacre of civilians.” And why would they? The whole point was to murder, rape and kidnap as many civilians as possible. KronosAlight (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you suggest something with "massacre" in the title? I think there's probably a reasonable case that "massacre" is accurate (despite that some military bases were also targeted), but it seems very clear that the broader term "attack" is accurate, so why not stick with it?

In terms of policy, WP:POVNAMING and WP:NPOVNAME encourage "neutral" names, though with exceptions when there's a very clear WP:COMMONNAME (which I don't think there is here).

See also Talk:Tel al-Sultan massacre#Requested move 27 May 2024, a somewhat related (different scale of course) discussion where I also argue for "attack" over "massacre". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Massacre is too broad for October 7. This is like naming the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip a massacre. Yes, there were massacres, but there were also genuine military confrontations, such as in Beit Hanoun, khan yunis, shujaiyya. Likewise on October 7 there were several confrontations such as Hamas wiping out the border guard, as well as battles in sderot and ofakim, seizing military bases. The whole operation itself can be called an attack as a massacre is too broad, and the massacres themselves, such as Re’im, obviously retain their names The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Massacre is too narrow more than too broad. Mainly because of the hostage taking. They certainly weren't "take no prisoners"? I wouldn't argue with the individual locations described as massacres, but I agree it's not a good way to characterise the plan as a whole. MWQs (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There were several military targets that were neutralised on October 7, which is how Hamas were even able to reach the civilians in the first place. All of the border crossing outposts were captured and soldiers in there killed or captured, all the kibbutzim who were overrun had their military bases captured (such as Re’im and be’eri), 370 out of 1,100 killed were soldiers on the field, there is a very significant military aspect on October 7 that cannot be overlooked but when we look into the individual cases we can make the distinction, which is why Nahal oz who was captured and had its military bases defeated, with most of the people being killed being soldiers is named an “attack”, while Re’im, where 360 festival goers were shot dead is labeled a “massacre” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The article really needs to improve how well it covers the military bases. It only even really mentions Nahal Oz? e.g. They're all missing from the table except that one, but there was definitely more than one. If you're familiar with others maybe add them to the table, it's a start. There was something at Zikkim I think? And a second lookout base. At least half a dozen. MWQs (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it it seems to be the bases at the border, even areas where civilian massacres took place there had been military bases such as in Re’im and kissufim and if I recall correctly, be’eri The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@KronosAlight no, "attack(s)" doesn't "suggest that this was some sort of properly co-ordinated military operation" because "attack" also covers a chaotic "terrorist attack" and "attacks" covers hundreds of lone wolves individualy attacking people. The only plausible alternatives would be uprising / revolt but I don't think they'll get support? "7 October" is the most common name, but we need to add something because that's in use for "on this day", adding "attacks" is the broadest and least biased option. MWQs (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed deif speech

Should the Mohammed deif speech, or excerpts from it, be included in the background? His October 7 speech does summarise all the ‘justifications’ comprehensively, and I believe it is worth mentioning or including, and in fact it was there for a while The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is covered in Israel–Hamas_war#Hamas_motivations, so I would either link to that section of use the excerpt feature. Obviously we should strike a balance between Hamas justifications and the reasons for the attack according to experts. Alaexis_¿question? 07:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis I don't think excerpt from there is the right approach, more detail is warranted here. We could expand on it here and then {{excerpt}} in the other direction maybe? MWQs (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

For what they did, third party sources more credible, But for WHY they did it they say is the best we've got. Some mcommentary is warranted (the sources on the main page include a translation with footnotes explaining some of the things he refers to), but not wp:false balance. I think a rather high level of scepticism is warranted for experts saying "their real motive was…" as an outsider, reading minds is impossible, so that needs a lot more supporting evidence than "an expert says", they need to give a good reason for why stated notive is inaccurate. MWQs (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The enxtra sources that are warranted would be to get multiple sources within Hamas / Al-Qassam: Deif's speech is the definitive, but also spikesmask Abu Obeada, Sinwar, Haniyeh. And possibly Osama Hamdan and Basem Naim, fairly minor figures, but they are the most articulate in English and thus we avoid things nnbeing lost in translation. Not warranted to quote all in the quoting all in the article. But maybe using the "quote =" field in references and add as extra refs if they say the same thing. MWQs (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria I thought I already added it? Or was that Israel–Hamas_war #Hamas_motivations? As well as the motivations we should also include "begin marching now towards Palestine" (times of Israel quote him when they re-released that bit, if we need secondary sources) because a lot of sources paraphrased him in ways that implied they called for global attacks, when they didn't call for anything violent except against Israel iself. MWQs (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe it was included at one point, notable things to include are what he cites as the reasons for it (such as the blockade, West Bank occupation, complete neglect of international law and international silence), it does seem to be very comprehensive. The part you’re mentioning might have been mistranslated, he was calling the world to rise up against Israel (he also called on “those in the West Bank, the Triangle, the Negev, the Galilee”) overall for the background what he cites as context for the attack is very much comprehensive and because he is not a nobody (he is the leader of Hamas’ armed wing), it definitely seems worth including The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2024

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as:

• Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..."
• Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..."
• CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..."
• CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..."
• Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..."
• France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..."
• ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..."
• Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..."
• NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..."
• NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..."
• Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..."
• Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel."
• The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... "
• WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..."

Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support – Despite all the requested move discussions for this article, this proposed name has a key aspect to it: Three-sided support. Both pro-Israeli sources (Times of Israel), pro-Palestine (pro-Hamas) sources (Al Jazeera) and English-based Western sources (all the rest up there) all call it "October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel". Even the non-news outlet Institute for the Study of War called it "October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel". So I have to say support on Common-Name reasoning. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support any phrasing with 7 October/October 7, which is a necessary part of the common name – 7 October attack would be sufficient. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. We'd need evidence that this is both WP:COMMONNAME currently, and that it will last beyond 7 October 2024. Additionally, we usually pay attention to consistency with other war-related articles, where [year] [event] (or [event] ([years]) is the dominant form. Finally, there has consistently been a consensus not to move.[1][2] — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's pretty solid evidence this is the common name. Britannica headlines it as The October 7, 2023, attack. In web searches for hamas attack on israel, the majority of recent sources prominently include the date, sometimes just to set the scene but more often as a descriptive common name. First page of results from this month (october 7 not included as search term):

  • an Oct. 7 cross-border attack (AP)
  • Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack (AP)
  • Hamas and other militants stormed into Israel on Oct. 7 (CBS)
  • The brutal attack of 7 October by Hamas (UN)
  • "another October 7" [quoting Biden] ... the October 7 attacks (Council on Foreign Relations)
  • the 7 October attacks (International Institute for Strategic Studies)
  • "since the immediate aftermath of October 7" ... the Hamas-led October 7 attacks (CNN)
  • the attack by Hamas on 7 October (Sky)

  Yes, three of the above don't use October 7 as a name, instead putting it in prose, but others use the mere date metonymously. Speculating about future names seems less relevant than reflecting the sources we have now. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Hameltion as a name it's just English: 7 October, Template:Lang-ar (day first, read right to left) and October 7 in American. Other pages add "attack" because 7 October is in use for "on this day". MWQs (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Consistency doesn't really apply here in terms of [Year] [Event], because the COMMONNAME has emerged as [Date] [Event] instead, so the consistency would be with articles like September 11 attacks and January 6 United States Capitol attack. And the February and November RMs were five and eight months ago now, respectively, and the intermittent time has only reinforced 7 October as the Hamas attack's COMMONNAME. DecafPotato (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  @DecafPotato but none of those have a long description, by 8 October 2024 anyone adding that much detail will add a year. MWQs (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Kashmiri It is definitely the common name, but just 7 October, not the proposed title. I agree with you about consistency, we should do common name OR consistent description, not mix them, the proposed title is a bit of a mess that isn't common or consistent. We can't just call it 7 October but as @DecafPotato points out, adding just "attacks" to be 7 October attacks would be consistent with others. But I very strongly support 7 October not October 7, the others were in the USA, this wasn't, The month first thing is used more often in sources with POV problems (e.g. Eylon Levi), day first is common in a wider range of sources and is more readable to most of the world. MWQs (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons stated above. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• oppose prpposed title but would support the title changing to "7 October attacks" by itself. The long description with a year-less date is weird, and not consistent with other pages. The common name is 7 October, nobody calls it the proposed title. MWQs (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, putting all those elements in at once (7 October + Hamas + attack on Israel) sounds like the introduction to an Eylon Levy speech (he tended to pile in 3 different slogans before he got to a verb). To me "Hamas" sounds weird, because the attacks were the Qassam Brigades, Hamas is more the name for the political party, it's like saying Sinn Fein did a bombing spree instead of attributing that to the IRA. We can justify "7 October" OR "Hamas" being included as the common name in English, but both sounds like Eylon Levy. MWQs (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@DecafPotato I just noticed you did find cases where people had written that combination of words, the Eylon effect is just the effect of saying it out loud. But I agree with @Kashmiri that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" won't be said in the 2030s, because by 8 October 2024 anybody adding that much detail will add the year. But there is a precedent for 7 October attacks by itself persisting as a common name, but not your proposal. MWQs (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer "7 October attacks" over the current title, for what it's worth. In the initial comment I conceded that it's likely a more common name than my proposed title but made an argument about WP:PRECISION in favor of including "Hamas-led" and "on Israel." But if editors disagree with that argument my position is very amendable to "7 October attacks." DecafPotato (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I was have been considering suggesting a chang from "Hamas-led" to "Hamas-initiated" because some of it was planned but "go that way and do some violence" describes their leadership for about 2/3 of it. Changing it to just 7 October attacks solves the led vs initiated problem as well. MWQs (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kashmiri, this attempt to include the 7 October date has already failed a couple times in favor of formulations like the current title. This date is not meaningful to the average English speaking reader or if it is now, it will not be by this time next year.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. "October 7" is the natural way to refer to the most recent October 7. If the yearless form lasts beyond its anniversary like "September 11" did, then it may be time to rename. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• I do believe that October 7 is the common name and that it is more recognizable than "2023". I reject the consistency argument and also reject that This date is not meaningful to the average English speaking reader. Especially when "Hamas-led attack on Israel" remains in the title, there should be no concern that readers won't know what we're talking about. However, I am not sure whether the move target should be 7 October or October 7. The local date format is, in fact, "7 October", but the English-language sources provided by the nom above show that reliable sources lean towards "October 7". Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on conciseness and long-term significance grounds. "7 October" is noticeably longer than "2023", and the possibility of Hamas launching another attack on another October 7 cannot be ruled out as the Gaza war is a current event. NasssaNser 14:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The second part of your comment is not only WP:CRYSTALBALL but also contradicts itself — how does the possibility that Hamas attacks Israel on the next October 7 mean that the title is too imprecise when Hamas attacked Israel many times over the course of 2023? DecafPotato (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support October 7 (or 7 October) is generally the most commonly used term by national and international newspapers, to the degree that it would even meet the requirements for a non-neutral title. But it’s not, and therefore the requirements are more than met. It’s also the way the term is colloquially used in political discussions and sometimes on wiki, which is a decent indication that it will remain the commonly used term at least in the near future. While we can’t know the actual future (and therefore any arguments that there might be a different name in the future hold limited weight), one could also argue that events commemorating this attack will likely use the same language that is utilised by Israel and other western countries, which is generally Oct. 7.

FortunateSons (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support The vast majority of international media refers to the attack as the 7th October attack (or some variation of the date), therefore, it would appear that this is the WP:CommonName. A lot of weight is given to the date (7th October) when referring to the attack. I don't think I've ever seen anyone described the attack as the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel; the current title is certainly not the WP:CommonName. IJA (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Weasel words under ‘Allegations of Genocide’

“Genocide experts” who? Please clarify NeutralASP (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There are citations with details. This is not the best way to format edit requests. See WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

New to editing, sorry about formmatting. I’m struggling to see how in this instance it’s ok to use weasel words. Also the link you sent is not working. NeutralASP (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind I get it now. If you could resend the link though that would be much appreciated. NeutralASP (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The WP:EDITXY redirect was vandalized. It's fixed and protected now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)