Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zenms (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 8 October 2023 (→‎Title: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
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]
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]

What is the official name of the operation

New account so I can't edit this but we know the Israelis are calling their "response" Iron Swords. Maybe for now call it the name that Palestinian militant groups are referring to as opposed to "Hamas attack on Israel".

You know, for the neutrality that wikipedia is so famous for! Bingusbungus12345 (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there already is a discussion to merge the two articles so this is pointless SignedInteger (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not really, actually. I still don't see a neutral article title. Bingusbungus12345 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Start an RM for a different title if the current one is seen as not neutral, seems OK atm. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas calls it Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. AmericanBaath (talk) 00:23, 8 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]

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]
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 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]

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.

Infobox

Surely ‘operation al-Aqsa flood’ would be a better title to the infobox than ‘Palestinian attack on Israel’, as it’s more specific? 81.106.115.150 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but this article also mentions Israel's operation too. Abo Yemen✉ 11:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment War has been declared, but isn't this only the Gaza half of Palestine? To my understanding, they are under separate leadership. Bremps... 00:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There is not enough information to support this change as of now. I'm open to revisiting the subject as more information appears in RS to justify calling it by the proposed name. For example, how much non-Gaza Palestinian involvement have we seen shown in sources? AlexEng(TALK) 01:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partially Support Israeli has decarded a state of war and newspapers are reporting the declaration.[1] Israeli does not recognize Palestine and, therefore, cannot and has not declared war against Palestine. Lewis150 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait We still hgavent received the official and de facto military reaction from West Bank, Fatah and PLO (even though one or two members of PLO seems to have involved in conflict, not all) therefore how can we say it is Israel-Palestine when half of Palestine yet still haven't involved?Eventually, West Bank will get involved too but I can not state in this course how will they get involved in. But wake me up when clashes start to occur inside and around West Bank. Cactus Ronin (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait -- User Veggies brought up the 2006 Lebanon War, but that lasted for 34 days, and is called a war in most reliable sources (and by both parties and most neutral observers). There is no minimum for how long a war can take, and we don't know yet how long this conflict/war will last, but most sources still call this a conflict. If we eventually decide to move, I agree with Dantheanimator's reason to prefer 2023 Gaza-Israel War (and to strongly oppose the currently proposed move). Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PrimaPrime's alternative 2023 Gaza War may be even better. Renerpho (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Until farther development. See where it leads and if it's materialize. Mathsquare (talk) 03:37, 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]

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]

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 [2]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: [3]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]

Merge?

@Slgrandson: Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:04, 7 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]

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]

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]

Duplicate

ElijahPepe keeps recreating a duplicate at 2023 Gaza war. Admins, notice this, please. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now up for the deletion process, so arguments against its existence should be taken there and no further redirects should occur until it is closed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected here, not deleted. It's a valid search term. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Gaza war. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has now officially declared war. Name should remain. 24.20.147.65 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy closed that deletion request so that 2023 Gaza war redirects to this article. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:40, 7 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]

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]
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]

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]

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]

Civilian/Combatant casualties/injuries?

Is there an accurate representation for how many combatants have been injured/killed? I think it would be a far more accurate representation for those who are curious as to how the war is going, which we now cant quite get a good sight on.

[Reply by zoryz_]

This information is almost certainly not available yet. This is still a highly fluid conflict. Perhaps the sides will make announcements with the numbers of combatants and civilians at some point, but we must wait. --Jprg1966 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, reports from the Palestinian side didn't specify how many victims were civilians or terrorists. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi Stowgull, not sure if you intentionally added it back but IMO the map is pretty pointless: we have limited knowledge of the territorial gains and the actual border is ridiculously low quality with no details on checkpoints, roads, etc. – Isochrone (T) 14:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the map. The map itself isn't well-sourced (the Commons page doesn't really have a good list of sources), and we should avoid placing unverifiable information in the infobox of an article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, a new, verifiable map should really be made from the UN OCHA map or using the relevant OCHA GIS data. – Isochrone (T) 15:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see #Map of alleged territory seized by Hamas where I suggested using the existing Israel-Palestine map template for a map - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Isochrone That was unintentional. Was just trying to correct the capitalization. Stowgull (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

I don't know why the flags were removed from the Reaction section, it just makes it more difficult to identify countries. BlackShadowG (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) appears to have removed them. Their edit summaries cited WP:OL and WP:DECOR. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it's somewhat standard to not have flags there, but I'm having trouble finding that in MOS:FLAG. My guess is that it's to do with MOS:NOICONS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then we’re gonna need a way better solution than the current format because right now this is very unhelpful and confusing in my opinion. S5A-0043Talk 15:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NOICONS only banned the use of flags in prose, this section is in list format. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The icons serve no navigational function, and country names are not linked. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they do Abo Yemen✉ 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do serve a navigational function, they're visual identifiers. Much faster to spot a flag than to comb through words. Killuminator (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Killuminator exactly Abo Yemen✉ 16:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One could convert this into an actual tabular list rather than the current WP:PROSELINE that we've got. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the reaction section is undue, with the listed reactions being largely based on primary sources, i.e. twitter posts, with no secondary sources establishing weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: This is a reasonable point. Is this a practice that is typically followed on other pages with global "reactions" sections? Is there no presupposition of notability if, let's say, the UN makes a statement? Just curious. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond sourcing, when there are hundreds are reactions, some sort of prioritisation is necessary. A statement by the UN secretary general would be meaningful - a statement just put out by the press office might not be, unless covered in secondary sources for some reason. Serious interview-sources statements by country leaders are also pretty worthy of mention, but this doesn't particularly apply to tweets, which more often than not are just generic words scripted by aides. The next level down are foreign minister statements, which again can be worthy of mention with the same provisos (tweets are again the lowest common denominator), and below that are all the generic foreign ministry statements, which are often little more valuable than your average press release material. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I will do some vetting of the tweets to see if they've been picked up in RS (or if there are better sources instead). --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: How's this: We start to hide (<!-- -->) countries where there are no secondary RS. We can delete them later if no sources emerge later. Figure it's easier than removing and then re-adding later. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
instead of hiding how about just marking them with a [Better source needed] Abo Yemen✉ 17:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, that's a better intermediate step. Yes, let's do that. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the flags section has been split to List of international reactions to the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict Abo Yemen✉ 17:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban

An Russian Telegram Channel wrote, that the Taliban supports Hamas. Link: https://t.me/c/1650319399/1/1993585 لهثسن (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but this appears to be a private Telegram channel. (I can't even see the message without joining the channel.) If you can find a news article from a mainstream source mentioning this information, I'd be happy to add it. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flag map of the conflict

based on https://liveuamap.com/ i made a flag map of the war. 47.204.53.161 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See #Map above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info box: add Iran to the "diplomatic support" for the palestinian groups

should we add a "diplomatic support" to the infobox for the palestinian side? because Iran is the only country that out right support the palestinian groups, and it shows america on the Israeli side. just my thoughts


Proposed infobox
October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict
Part of the Gaza–Israel conflict

Clockwise from top: Israeli casualties during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Palestinians celebrating the capture of an Israeli tank, Palestinian attacks on Israeli base, Rocket impact on a car in Rishon LeZion
Date7 October 2023 – present
Location
Israel and Gaza Strip, Palestine
Status Ongoing
Belligerents

 Palestine

 Israel
Diplomatic support:
United States United States[5]
Commanders and leaders
Mohammed Al-Daif
Abu Obaida		 Isaac Herzog
Benjamin Netanyahu
Yoav Galant
Herzi Halevi
Kobi Shabtai
Units involved
Al-Qassam Brigades[3]
File:Flag of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine.svg Al-Quds Brigades
File:PFLP Infobox Flag.svg Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades
National Resistance Brigades		 Israel Defense Forces
Israel Police
Strength
1,000[6]
Casualties and losses
198 Palestinians killed,
1,610 injured[7]		 100+ Israelis killed,
908 injured,[8]
53 captured[9][better source needed]
17 Nepalis captured by Hamas, 7 Nepalis injured[10]

References

  1. ^ PFLP (7 October 2023). "صادر عن كتائب الشهيد أبو علي مصطفى الجناح العسكري للجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين".
  2. ^ "الحرية – بيان عسكري صادر عن كتائب المقاومة الوطنية (قوات الشهيد عمر القاسم) استشهاد ثلاثة من مقاتلينا داخل اراضينا المحتلة عام 48". Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  3. ^ a b "Qassam Brigades announces control of 'Erez Crossing'". Roya News. 7 October 2023. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  4. ^ "Adviser to Iran's Khamenei expresses support for Palestinian attacks: Report". alarabiya.
  5. ^ Magid, Jacob. "US defense chief: 'We'll ensure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself, protect civilians from terror'". www.timesofisrael.com.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference aj7oct was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Hamas surprise attack out of Gaza Strip stuns Israel and leaves dozens dead in fighting, retaliation". AP News. 7 October 2023.
  8. ^ "100 killed in huge Hamas assault, 900 injured; many hostages said taken to Gaza; PM: Israel at war". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  9. ^ "Israel: At least 40 dead, 800 wounded, dozens taken by Hamas". i24news.tv. 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  10. ^ "At least 7 Nepali injured, 17 held captive by Hamas in Israel". India Today. 7 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.

Durranistan (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of convention for such infobox. Attempts to do so have been reverted. Borgenland (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Support in favor of Hamas

Could someone Add "Diplomatic Support" in the Palestinian section of the Template:Infobox military conflict. The countries/Organisations who Support Palestine are Hezbollah and Iran. Source (in German): https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Hamas-Attacke-erhaelt-Beifall-von-Israels-Feinden-article24447286.html لهثسن (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above. – Isochrone (T) 15:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Finlands response

Finnish foreign minister Elina Valtonen tweeted support for Israel, a tweet which was retweeted by the finnish government twitter page. https://x.com/elinavaltonen/status/1710561468419039583?s=20 Someone with edit perms please add this response, thank you Jukuboi (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PFLP

Should "socialist PFLP" be this prominent in the article? Why socialist and not secular? There is no explanation of secular PFLP's new cooperation with Hamas. Sometimes organization ideologies and networks change after decades. If all there is is a tweet and PFLP website I hoping someone else will remove it or make it less prominent for the time being. Ben Azura (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "socialist" because we don't make any special ideological note for the other Palestinian groups. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add response from Portuguese President and Prime Minister

Both the Portuguese president and the Prime Minister condemned the attacks branding them as "Unacceptable". The Portuguese prime minister said: "The attacks from today against Israel are unacceptable and deserve our strong condemnation. We are sorry for the victims of these attacks, we leave a word of solidarity to their families."

Taken from the following articles in Portuguese:

https://e-global.pt/noticias/lusofonia/portugal/portugal-primeiro-ministro-condena-ataques-em-israel/

https://www.publico.pt/2023/10/07/politica/noticia/israel-marcelo-costa-condenam-ataques-inaceitaveis-nao-ha-portugueses-afectados-2065916 PedroSheridan (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:35, 7 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]

"Expressed restraint" is not proper English

You can say "called for restraint" or "urged the parties to show restraint", but not "expressed restraint".

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 [4] 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[5]. 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]

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]

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]
@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Name

I suggest we name this war, or at least the initial attack the Palestinian Offensive 2023. Wikiman38 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are extensive discussions on the name of the article above. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:35, 8 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1179135610"