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 JustHereToLeave (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 10 October 2023 (→‎Requested move 7 October 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Add "non-combatants" to the Military conflict infobox

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

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

Multiple civilians captured (in Israel)[2]

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

Over 35 soldiers, police officers and civilians captured


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

I am of course talking about the civilians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&amp=&context=law-student-publications&amp=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fas_ylo%253D2015%2526q%253Dnon-combatant%2526hl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%252C48#search=%22non-combatant%22
"combatant terrorist" - someone who acts as a soldier would on the battlefield as if they were in the military, even though that military technically doesn't exist because that organisation does not have statehood
"non-combatant terrorist" - the same except instead of attacking military targets, they attack civilians. i.e. September 11, Boston bomber.
"non-combatant civilian" - Neither of the above. Have not attacked anyone with deadly force.
There is a gray area often bought up, particularly from the Israel side, when Palestinians use rocks or malee to injure/kill civilians or IDF. I am not totally sure how to handle that circumstance, but in an ideal world where there is enough evidence to go through these cases, I would lean towards counting them as a non-combatant civilian unless it's proven that they used serious force with intent to kill or severely injury.
(PS: Politically, I don't like using the term 'Terrorist' to describe combatants - against a military force. I'd associate the term 'terrorist' with the second group who attacks civilians and it seems that Governments have adopted the term for non-State militias to associate them with the abhorrent practice of attacking civilians. As far as I am concerned, Armies who fight each other should be regarded as being on equal footing as both being military forces, regardless of who is better equipped) Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-combatants are not belligerents- casualties for civilians are covered at the bottom of the infobox. Civilian agencies operating during the war aren't relevant for the infobox - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closely, the infobox example was modified to say "Belligerents and Non-belligerents" Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do also note that your proposal would add an unnecessary gap in the leaders and units, especially if no obvious relief agency is available. It would also lead to more mistakes with users having difficulties with columns particularly in conflicts were there are more than two defined sets of combatants involved. Borgenland (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my example, I have deliberately omitted "Commanders and leaders" because so far no one has stepped up to stand up for purely the civilian casualties.
I might argue that MDA is supporting both Civilians and IDF, while RC is supporting both Civilians and Hamas, and could be listed twice in that regards, as they don't discriminate based on combatant status.
It would seem that there is precedent for a 4-way war: Syrian civil war. Kleinerziegler (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but your example did not list the Syrian Red Crescent or the White Helmets in whatever you consider to be non-belligerents. Borgenland (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely correct, the Syrian civil war should also be listed out as a 5-way war. Thank you for saying this. Kleinerziegler (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a third casualties parameter in the conflict infobox template for covering civilian casualties. There is nothing unique about this conflict or any other. The same style guide applies . Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023
Support: Israel/Palestine is a special case. Even if you want to divide everyone into Jewish people and Arab people, there are many Arabs in Israel, and many pockets of formerly (or currently, depending on your perspective) Palestinian territory that can be collateral damage of Hamas' own rockets. You cannot cleanly divide many innocent bystanders into supporters of one country or another. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But as far as legality is concerned, those Arabs in Israel are citizens of the State of Israel and some of them are serving in the IDF and/or are reservistst. Borgenland (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some who embrace the State of Israel, but others who reject the State of Israel, despite holding citizenship, or being eligible to hold citizenship (or technically are) but refusing to get an ID/passport on ideological grounds, and prefer the term "Palestinian" over "Israeli-Arab"
I would not automatically count on Arabs living within Israel proper as being on the Israel side, unless there is evidence to support their allegiance to one side or the other. Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: almost every conflict involves civilian casualties and the "parties" in an infobox typically represent the belligerents (and allies of said belligerents). Civilians are not fighting this war per se nor are they a belligerent. Per above and per this reasoning, adding in a "civilian party" would be superfluous and inaccurate. Dan the Animator 00:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's important to separate civilians and combatants in order to get a clear picture of the events. Yes, I know in modern conflicts like this the line between the two can be quite murky, but still. -75.142.18.247 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: as per other opposes, there are already parts of the infobox to put the desired info in, and it doesn't make logical sense to have a category of belligerents and non-belligerents. AllenY99 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whilst I appreciate the humanitarian sentiment, this is generally not how armed conflicts are conceptualised, and Wikipedia is not the place to change attitudes. Riposte97 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problem is, civilians are not under an umbrella either. Nothing unites say, an Israeli civilian killed by shelling versus a Palestinian civilian killed by shelling except for shared bad luck. Adding in groups like the Red Crescent further confuses things. What would a doctor who comes from some faraway country with aid have in commons with the previous two examples?
We group the Israeli military divisions and the Palestinian military divisions together because they fight for a side.
There really isn't a third side. Bremps... 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that would run into improper synthesis territory. If reliable media in the future (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source) starts reporting civilians as a "third side", then we can change our infobox. That has not happened yet. Bremps... 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the whole point, to converge onto Civilian casualties without attribute them to a particular 'side', because they are not an either binary side, they are on the side of being innocent, getting caught up in the middle (also a deliberate choice to place them in the middle in the info box).
If a Doctor comes from a faraway land and treats injured from "both sides" equally, they do not need to be placed under a particular side. In fact, MDA have a mandate to do exactly this and will treat anyone they can, including Palestinian fighters who have caused carnage (not that I think that they would get priority & probably for propaganda purposes), because their only job is to save lives.
So ideally, humanitarian efforts supporting civilians are listed without being sided either except on the side of civilians, unless they also support a particular side at the same time, then they are essentially on two sides at the same time.
I accept that this is currently a data problem, but think that it is still worth trying to sift through the data to find the information or make estimates as much as possible, with the hope that the "feel sorry for the innocent people" side will grow and this data becomes more available over the long term. Kleinerziegler (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's not the concept of Wikipedia's conflict infoboxes. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are better ways of describing civilian casualties in the infobox. And listing the Red Crescent as a "combatant" is too strange to even consider. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleinerziegler someone edited your response to include a bad word. HuntersHistory (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This adds too much clutter to an infobox.
  2. There is already a section dedicated to civilian casualties.
  3. If this is applied to this conflict, it would have to be applied to all conflicts. The Syrian civil war infobox is already cluttered enough with four columns in the belligerents section. It does not need any more.
CreepersNeedHugs (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Requested move 7 October 2023

Template:RM protected

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

DarmaniLink (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative Palestine as a whole is not involved to my knowledge,only Hamas and by extension Hamas-occupied Gaza.The article should be changed to ''2023 Hamas-Israel war'' or just ''Hamas-Israel war'' Roma enjoyer (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for “war”: I weakly support the “2023 Israel-Palestine War” naming, however I would give full support to 2023 Gaza-Israel War. 78.171.44.45 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The title implies that Israel is fighting all Arabs instead of solely the belligerents listed in the infobox. Framing this as a generalized ethnic conflict is misleading. Lunaroxas (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The war is between Hamas and Israel, not Arab nations and Israel. And like others have pointed out, Hamas does not represent all of Palestine. Not all members of Hamas are Arabs, and not all Arabs are members of Hamas. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most news outlets label this as the most significant war in the region since the Yom Kippur war. Hamas in the south, Hezbollah in the north, now Iran is apparently involved, as well as the US which is sending warships to the region. This is not just a shootout, or a dispute, this appears to be a war with regional players involved. Even if just a proxy war, it's still a war. Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - largely reported by media as a 'war' now Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Gaza War is the only title that makes sense to me. Charles Essie (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a war. I'm surprised it hasn't been renamed yet. Is there even one example of media or politicians calling it a conflict? Hamas has ground forces in Israel. Netanyahu specifically referred to it as a war. Hamas has called bombing Gaza for a war crime. It's very clearly a war. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia has turned a bit into a joke. Everyone but Wikipedia is calling it a war. Even Hamas has talked about war crimes. Netanyahu has declared war. Why not call it what it is? 82.147.226.240 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fatah, which leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is officially involved and clashes are being reported in the West Bank. It now makes sense to use "Palestine" or "Palestinian" in the title instead of "Gaza" or "Gazan." AmericanBaath (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is now labelled a war by Financial Times Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This conflict has been labeled as a war by many people including the media and Palestine and Israel officials I think that this should be labeled as a "war."
CostalCal (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Israeli President literally declared war. The "conflict" started in 1948. Also, it's about more than just Gaza, although they are being focused on by the media and bombed excessively, all of Palestine has been under an active apartied state since the unlawful colonization in 48. 136.37.8.145 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The situation is very complicated, is it really a war though? So far it's armed skirmishes between the Hamas lead Gaza Strip, the Fatah lead West Bank has largely been silent. Unless there is an official reply from the Palestinian Authority, the current title should stand. BlueOcean02 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d consider it currently a war between Israel and Hamas, Israel’s Prime Minister has declared war. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The PLO has not declared war and so the article doesn't deserve to be renamed. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poor argument. Same can be said for the Russian invasion of Ukraine - is that not a war? Russia has never really declared war on Ukraine, and instead called it a "special military operation". Just because technicalities such as PLO not declaring war on Israel itself doesn't mean that this isn't a war. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative Hamas-Israel war or Israel-Hamas war. Israel’s Prime Minister has declare war. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support "2023 Gaza-Israel War" as this involves only Gaza, not all of Palestine, however Hamas is not the only belligerent against Israel. The PM of Israel has seemed to declare this a war over the past few hours as well, so this is the best option in my opinion. JustHereToLeave (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summarised

  • Comment

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

Year disambiguator:

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

Location descriptor:

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

Conflict descriptor:

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

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

@Chessrat Can Hamas Invasion of Israel also be proposed on the line of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please note that Russia attacked Ukraine first and now both are in a war attacking and defending against each other. Same is the case here. Hamas invaded and now both are in a state of war. I put this before too in the discussion above. I was told that Hamas in not a nation. So is al-Shabaab (not a nation). But 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia exists. Then I was told that how am I saying that Hamas initiated this. Well if we compare it with Russia-Ukraine situation then Russo-Ukrainian War was going on by separatist forces. But then Russia escalated and invaded Ukranian formally and Russian invasion of Ukraine was made. Similarly Gaza–Israel conflict and regular clashes were going all the time but then Hamas escalated and invaded Israel. There was also a claim that according to reports only Hamas is not involved others too are. For that in Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia invaded and then Russian-backed forces like Wagner joined. Similar case here Hamas invaded and then Hamas backed forces (allies) like Hezbollah joined. Can we consider my proposal too like all other. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gazan invasion would be more appropriate if we are to be inclusive of all groups. Borgenland (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is not in Gaza Parham wiki (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah has not inflicted direct land-based military operations, so it would be hard to call it "Gaza-Hezbollah Invasion of Israel," or something of the sort, just based off of Hezbollah launching air strikes on Israel as military support for Hamas. Dark Energy9 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to 2023 Gaza-Israel War, descriptive and without any technicalities that may be misleading
DarmaniLink (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice summary that is well reasoned and is consistent with existing naming conventions. It may be useful to survey what reputable media outlets are labeling this event, since WP:COMMONNAME does advise us to consider what reliable sources are using. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Year disambiguator: 2023 as this stands out from rest of conflicts and clashes in 2023, more so if it is to be named "war."
Location descriptor: Gazan–Israeli as per @Artemis Andromeda.
Conflict descriptor: War Wiki6995 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We need to wait until and unless the Palestinian National Authority or Palestinian Liberation Organization speak on the issue. Lunaroxas (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The PLO has nothing to do with Gaza as they are based in the west bank Abo Yemen✉ 16:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - I do think it should be titled as a war, since war has been declared by Israel on Hamas. However, there is a chance that the war may spill into other regions, such as Lebanon and the West Bank, should Hezbollah and other groups decide to join in support of Hamas. If this happens, calling it something like the Israel-Gaza War would be incomplete. Adding a descriptor of a year, "2023 Israel-Gaza War" may be inaccurate too, we don't know how long this war is going to go on for. There is something about "Palestine-Israel War" or "Gaza-Israel War" that sounds a little clunky to me, though. (PaulThomas92 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    The article name can be changed if 2024 starts Abo Yemen✉ 18:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given the reasoning in some of the above votes, just thought I should clarify this: while two of the belligerents are technically a part of the PLO (de jure rep. of the State of Palestine), the West Bank (as a geographic polity) is not actively engaging in significant military offensives against Israel and Fatah-aligned troops (which represent a significant proportion of Palestinians militants) for now. In any case, whatever your vote, it should be based on how the majority of secondary sources are framing. btw this is not a vote Cheers, Dan the Animator 18:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This has clearly evolved into a war. A conflict is a brief period of violence, but now major, devastating attacks are taking place between the two sides. This article should be renamed 2023 Gaza War or 2023 Gaza-Israel War. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This is clearly a war! War has been declared as well. Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gaza-Israel War or 2023 Gaza-Israel War War has been declared & this is being described as a war by many sources. It’s affecting parts of Israel & Gaza as well. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – At this point, it is a war, both formally and de facto. Israel's response is not a limited operation. WP:RS are also widely use the term "war". I would suggest 2023 Hamas–Israel War, but 2023 Gaza-Israel War seems reasonable too. --Mindaur (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This is a war. It is more of a war than the Russian invasion of Ukraine, since this war has been formally declared. 2023 Hamas–Israel War seems like the best name at the moment (until World War III becomes more appropriate). ERBuermann (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, yes it's a war, and no, I oppose it anyway, because it's WP:TOOSOON. Editor time should be respected, and unless you want to have Requested moves every couple of days for who-knows-how-long as things evolve, we should just sit tight for a while. We don't have a WP:CRYSTAL BALL, and we don't know if tomorrow or the next day Lebanon will be involved, or Syria, or who knows what-all else. All the good suggestions above can be REDIRECTs for now. Everybody understands what the current title means, everybody hears the word "war" in the news, and it's all fine, so le'ts just chill for a while. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. As of now, this is a Gaza-Israel thingy. There are Palestinians in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and who knows where else. I don't see any of these Palestinians fighting Israel, so far. Also, Palestinians make up a significant share of Israel's population, sit on its parliament, and rule in its government. Again, I do not see any of these Palestinians revolting. So, no cigar por any "war" between Palestine and Israel, as of now.XavierItzm (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It should not contain "Arab", as it's too disingenuous and ambiguous, and while other organizations like Hezbollah have been involved, not to the extent that it could be considered a large Arab war against Israel. This is a war, as stated by both sides of the conflict. Gaza is more geographic, and since its de facto controlled by Hamas, and Hamas is the military organization that coordinated, initiated, and is the main belligerent in the attack, the name should use the term "Hamas", though "Gaza" is acceptable. Thus: 2023 Hamas–Israel War or 2023 Hamas–Israeli War, with acceptability in it being 2023 Gaza–Israel War or 2023 Gazan–Israeli War. The current name is too long. Dark Energy9 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for names "2023 Gazan–Israeli War" or "2023 Gaza–Israel War". I personally think it should be "Gazan–Israeli" instead of "Gaza–Israel", as names of wars usually use adjectives/demonyms in the titles.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Just from a quick google search, most English-language RS now clearly use the word "war" in editorial voice to describe the article subject (ex. The New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, Financial Times, Haaretz, Deutsche Welle, NPR, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Vox, U.S. News, Foreign Policy, etc.). I support "2023 Gaza War" for WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE but I don't really mind "2023 Gaza–Israel War" either. StellarHalo (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any rename that includes war. In particular 2023 Gaza-Israel war per WP:COMMONNAME. Israel should be included as it started with an invasion of Israel. Israel has responded by taking the war to Gaza. There are skirmishes on the border to Lebanon but these appear to be small compared to the fighting around Gaza. AncientWalrus (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be consensus for the "conflict"->"war" rename and to drop "October". Should this be done now and there can be a new RM to discuss whether or not Gaza should be replaced by "Hamas", "Palestine", "Arab"? AncientWalrus (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source(s) for this would be great AncientWalrus (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netanyahu declared "war" and described it as a "long and difficult war".
Meanwhile, the page title is more biased than Netanyahu's far-right Zionist regime. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel formally declared war against the Palestinian militant group Hamas on Sunday (Washington Post
The Israeli government formally declared war Sunday on Hamas militants in Gaza (Voice of America)
Israel has formally declared war on Hamas (CNN)
Let's do a quick survey of news outlets:
Outlets that use a term in the article body:
Outlets that only use a term in headlines, or haven't picked a term at all:
  • Financial Times: "Israel-Hamas conflict" in headline, but uses the term "war" in body copy (source)
  • Politico doesn't seem to have chosen a term yet either; "attacks in Israel", "outbreak of violence in Israel" (source), "Hamas’ surprise weekend attack on Israel" (source); doesn't seem to use either "war" or "conflict"
  • Stratfor doesn't seem to have picked a term either
  • Axios (website): "Hamas attacks", "Hamas attacks on Israel" (source), no term for the overall conflict
  • New York Times: "Israel-Gaza War" in headline but not body copy (source)
  • CNN: "Israel-Hamas war" in headline but not in body copy
I support moving to "2023 Israel-Hamas war", which seems to best reflect sources, though sources are not yet unanimous and we may want to wait. DFlhb (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already voted otherwise somewhere much further up but given RS usages I would now also support "2023 Israel–Hamas war". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat: I'm pretty sure that Israel is also at war with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which holds several Israeli hostages, so saying "Israel-Hamas" is not quite accurate.VR talk 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but it is what reliable sources are using for now. Given how quickly this topic is developing I honestly don't have a huge preference between Gaza–Israel/Israel–Hamas/Israel–Palestine as they all have valid arguments for them, I'm fine with any title that uses "war" rather than "conflict". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of "widespread sexual violence"

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

It'd be helpful if you specified the text you wanted changed and provided a reliable source that supports your proposed change. XeCyranium (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Widespread sexual violence and massacres of Israeli civilians have been reported." The citations do not mention any reports of "widespread sexual violence." One article mentions the woman discussed above, the other cites statements by American politicians speculating that sexual violence would occur. 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by another commentator, both articles are void of any, let alone widespread sexual violence."
Proof that the body was dressed: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU
Proof that the deceased female Israeli wore such outfits regularly: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi8DSsnfuZoR_0BsRt0sU7ex66XFy9rJCpxA&usqp=CAU 41.47.21.14 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
she was not a soldier but a german citizen attending a party 2A02:6680:110B:9A00:C4B1:4809:B0E2:1AD2 (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Proof that the body was dressed"
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU center image which is a still from the video of her body in the pickup truck which clearly shows her bra/top pulled up over her breasts. Notice how high up in the shoulder blades the bra/top straps have been pulled --straps that usually meet in the middle back. In that image (and more visibly in the video clip), her bare breast is visible from the side. The image also shows her miniskirt seemingly split up the rear --likely not the original state of even such an immodest dresser as the victim. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: Hey, The Telegraph source documents a woman of German citizenship being paraded naked, "The naked body of a woman was paraded in the back of a pickup truck." (...) "Some in the crowd which included youngsters spat on the woman's body." This counts as sexual violence specifically sexually humiliation, her names was Shani Louk, although she was not alive when she was being paraded. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee: That sounds like one case of sexual violence, but I still don't see support for the claim of numerous cases. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: Perhaps then a better wording is available, or more citations to be necessary. The one does document substantial sexual violence. Des Vallee (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it's pretty misleading. Most people would assume that sexual violence would refer to sexual assault or rape against a living victim. This would more accurately be described as desecration of a body rather than wartime sexual violence 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual violence is not limited to being alive, necrophilia as an example is considered a form of sexual violence, despite the affected individual being dead. Likewise mutilation of a body for sexual purposes is also considered a form of sexual violence, and the given source describes her body as mutilated. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee: That may be true, but Sexual violence does not include anything about necrophilia or other post-mortem examples, and generally seems to imply that the victim is alive (or that the killing is part of the violence). This could be a problem with that article, but I agree with the IP user who commented before that the average reader would assume that we are talking about living victims. Renerpho (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, it wasn't "sexual violence" when they dragged that male Israeli commander out in his underwear, they were literally just caught with their pants down. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an appropriate joke to make. Have some decency.
    Also, have you seen the video of the woman being captured by Hamas militants? There's literally a massive pool of blood in her vaginal/anal region. 100% this woman was raped. I'm too sickened and nauseous to search for an article confirming it was rape, so it's not necessarily valid for the article, but here it is. Obviously not for the easily disturbed, you've been warned:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FVUxvp6Ah0 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we arguing what is and isn't sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources call the specific instance being referred to sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources say there has been widespread sexual violence or say there has been sexual violence? That is what matters not editors arguing over what constitutes sexual violence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I agree in principle. I think the question has been whether a source that doesn't use the exact term "sexual violence" or "sexual assault" can still be used. To answer that, we must agree what the term actually means. I would lean no in this specific case, because there doesn't seem to be clear consensus that this is synonymous, and thus would be WP:SYNTH. Renerpho (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer here is that it is an emphatic no. No reliable sources mention sexual assault. This seems to be a fog of war situation, and also many people "defaultly" believing that a naked body of a woman is somehow definitive evidence of sexual assault (it is not). 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone Mention the various images of violence against Israelis and at Israeli women? The are crimes and brutality. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGF3hJOLXn/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGRHwMIzVO/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyHSu-ZIAUG/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyI3Ju0rkUL/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyIzHMYLIE2/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/p/CyIZ1muONBH/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== your tellking me this isnt violence? also these articles: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/missing-israelis-viral-post-shows-pics-of-men-and-women-kidnapped-by-hamas-4461651
https://english.jagran.com/world/israel-gaza-under-attack-hamas-palestine-tel-aviv-military-operation-operation-iron-swords-benjamin-netanyahu-london-celebration-metropolitan-police-10105820 Azz205 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.foxnews.com/world/videos-hamas-brutality-toward-israelis-eerily-reminiscent-isis-tactics Azz205 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Violence doesn't equate sexual violence. That's the issue here. There is no evidence of any sexual violence just because women have been taken prisoner. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cye1k60kz23o source? Azz205 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tablet magazine is reporting that women at the music festival massacre site were raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends. That one source may not be enough, but other media outlets are probably investigating. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends" is such an explosive claim that, if true, would be widely covered by international sources.VR talk 01:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

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

Do you have any constructive suggestions, rather than SOAPBOXing? The article is sourced to credible news outlets like CNN, Al Jazeera, and The Times of Israel. Of course information will change and update. Wikipedia, luckily, is perfectly capable of updating as the information does. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no sense in fighting this. It is inevitable. It's a major event. It will undoubtedly evolve. Andre🚐 01:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be agressive. I don't agree either, but I don't need to belittle others to get my point through. Stay kind. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Doesn't a major event that has repercussions and echoes around the world deserve an article? Dl.thinker (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about a subject that is leading to a large number of deaths and is likely to incite further deaths, I would think an encyclopedia ought to wait for the dust to settle. We currently live in a world filled with misinformation which has caused so many problems. We are WP:NOTNEWS. An encyclopedia should at least attempt to wait long enough to gain a more full view of facts and analysis. That is, yes there are repercussions and echoes around the world. So, let us be responsible and not contribute to those repercussions. Let us report when we have a fuller story to document. We should never be part of any echo chamber on any side. But as others have said, it's a waste of time to remind editors that this is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSOR Borgenland (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the last time that policy was correctly cited. Your explanation certainly doesn't indicate this is a correct cite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We would be derelict in our duty if we failed to have this article and keep developing it as the war proceeds. Waiting until "the dust has settled" is an empty, unhelpful cliché. Who gets to decide when the dust has finally settled? Some random person on the internet? I have heard countless criticisms of Wikipedia over the years, but if we did not have an article about this war, that would bring on the most devastating criticism by far in the past 22 years, and I would agree with that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not violate WP:NOTNEWS, which has four restrictions. There is no original reporting by Wikipedia editors. This is not routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. This is not Who's Who type of content. This is not celebrity gossip. Those are the only things that NOTNEWS precludes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, factual reporting in RS is mostly repeating what they have been told by an involved source. I can read a newspaper for this. And then read it tomorrow and get a different set of 'facts' and then.... It's not what I use an encyclopedia for. No, we do not wait for one random person. (Did I suggest something so silly?) We form a consensus that RS are using primary sources from all involved with expert analysis tying it together. Wikipedia has no deadline. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree but it is always the same with these breaking news things, nothing to be done, the article will develop and eventually settle down. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first major, rapidly moving event that is covered on Wikipedia as it happens. We have done this from the first day, and will doubtlessly continue to do so. The earliest edits at World Trade Center/Plane crash were quite erratic, too, even though they came from some of the founders of the platform. Renerpho (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a current event. Cwater1 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza-Israel or vice versa?

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

Not sure if there's a standard here. I believe it's up to editor's preference. KlayCax (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think we should go with alphabetical order unless a different order clearly predominates in RSs. That's what we do in bilateral relations articles (e.g. Germany–Israel relations rather than Israel–Germany relations). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and move the 2006 page. Bremps... 03:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is handled by WP:AND: "It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang. If one concept is more commonly encountered than the other, it may be listed first, as in Electrical resistance and conductance. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such as Relegation and promotion) should be redirects." LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to ngrams, "Israel-Gaza" is far more common; infinitely so in the case of "Israel-Gaza conflict". BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be done alphabetically, that just makes more sense. BlueOcean02 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

condemn of labeling word "militant" for palestine

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

We are not talking about a regular Palestinian army, are we? Borgenland (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of international RS are using "militant", NYT, WAPO, Reuters. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the only acceptable term in this instance is militant. Azz205 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is correct, the only correct work is terrorists. Mark28482 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel was entirely founded on the back of terrorism and ethnic cleansing, Mark. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house with very thin walls. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is not true at all, and regardless, what does that have to do with the kids murdered today? Are you holding them accountable for the alleged (and untrue) crimes of their grand parents and great grand parents? What kind of sick mind do you have? Mark28482 (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Terrorism" is an extremely loaded label and should be avoided where it can be (see [6]). It has been contentious for a long, long time among experts. See here[7], here[8], and here[9] for example. None of that is to make a value judgement on the actions of Palestinian militants in this, or any, conflict. It is just such labels don't provide any utility or add anything to the discussion except to bog it down. Yr Enw (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate section for names

Daveout[10] it is convention on wikipedia to have a separate section for names (its often called "etymology"). I would respectfully keep the names section separate from the background section.VR talk 04:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Daveout No offense, but you are wrong. Firstly, as both VR and I pointed out, terminology sections are extremely common for conflicts with many and/or disputed names, such as Vietnam War. Secondly, they are not just trivia no one cares about, they are important for orientation - especially for new readers who may know only one of the possible names; more importantly, their inclusion in the middle of the background disrupts the reading flow and is distracting. And you are currently in the minority for wanting to remove the section, as it was there before you edits, and your change was opposed by at least two editors. Perhaps a compromise would be possible? For example, having the "Terminology" section as a sub-section of the "Background" section instead of in the middle of the background? (BTW, though I restored the section this time, I won't start an edit war over this; I would prefer if we could just talk about this). Applodion (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your compromise effort. But man I honestly don't thint it's necessary to highlight those nicknames. They're propaganda terms made to boost morale and make govs look good. Like Israel's "protective edge" (cringe) and Russia's "Special operation" (super cringe). Furthermore they're still there, before the terms actually appear on the text. And even without this "glossary" it's perfectly possible to understand what is being talked about without them all together. User7681 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And please, if you're editing more than typos on your comments please make it clear with a note and a new signature (or other method) like as follows. User7681 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [Edited]User7681 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im Daveout, just commented with my alt account. But there's no problem disclosing that. Cheers. User7681 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daveout As I said, I won't try to restore the section again, but I find it kinda telling that your main argument for opposing the section seems to boil down to "I don't like it". Just saying. Applodion (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want me to compile a list of MAJOR wars that don't have "etymology" sections and compare them with those who have it?. Boy, you're in for a treat.... User7681 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I could list all the major wars that have a section for names; btw, you got reverted by yet another editor. So perhaps your view is indeed not common sense. Applodion (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I really find that awful. I'm happy to be in the dissenting minority. Anyway, kudos for your win. Keep it cool and nice, my friend. See ya✌️ –Daveout(talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map

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

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

@Ecrusized: What's your deal? I update the SVG map and you...don't like it and overwrite it? -- Veggies (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veggies: No it looks great. I was already in the process of uploading a file based on the module changes as well. Ecrusized (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank

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

At the moment, RS media outlets are reporting it hand-in-hand with the events in and around Gaza. If sources explicetly state its not linked I have no objection to removing it. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this, 7 deaths in a short time is not usual but the connection is not obvious and the WB is otherwise quiet. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actions in the West bank should count into this crisis. Its just primarily in and around Gaza. The WB and norther israel-lebanon border could also be counted at being connected with the Gaza-crisis. Poles Ragge (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now both WB and Lebanon should be included, unless RS say otherwise.VR talk 20:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fronts are connected: Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank, all part of the Iranian strategy, headed by the Quds force, to encircle Israel and make a multi front war on her. אסף טל דורון 317 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Palestinian attacks

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

They have specifically taken over military bases and captured soldiers, so that is not a correct assessment. And "unprovoked" is the overstatement of the ages. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamas militants gunned down civilians intentionally. These attacked were not against the IDF - they were trying to kill Israelis whether they were soldiers or not. TiltonHilton (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned. Their targets are mainly military and directed at the IDF but there have been civilian casualties (Re’im massacre). This isn’t just hamas though, basically all of Gaza is invading with various militias so it’s best not to put the blanket of “hamas” over all of them, which is what the IDF is doing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I understand Hamas interviews they seem to insist that there are no civilians in Israel, only settlers, which they say allows them to attack them. Borgenland (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale, whatever people think of it, is that all Israelis have served in the IDF and are eligible for call-up as part of the reserves, so therefore "all Israelis are soldiers". For what it's worth, Israel considers all men from 18-60 that they kill to be "terrorists" so Israel does the exact same thing. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TiltonHilton it would be actually appropriate to call these attacks "cowardly" with attribution and probably in the reactions section. For example, "X condemned the attacks as 'cowardly'."VR talk 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Unprovoked” surely they just attacked Israel out of the blue, surely Israel had not done anything the Palestinians to warrant all of this The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These people hate Palestinians and think that Israel should "get rid of them", so of course they do things like ignore the entire history of the conflict. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and what did those music festival goers do to provoke Hamas? Were they firing missiles into Gaza in between DJs? Beating up Palestinian children in the moshpit? 2604:3D08:7F7D:54C0:99EB:132D:7DCC:B5B (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Latin America in the Western World?

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

Global South so I'd say yes. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it also make more sense to mention blocs instead (EU, NATO etc)? Mellk (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey's reaction seems to be distinct from that of its NATO partners. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huntington makes a distinction between "the West" and "distinct civilizations intimately related to the West", with Latin America being a part of the latter; but says that in general researchers consider that the West has three main components (European, North American and Latin American). Compare Western world#Latin America. I suggest we circumvent the issue, by either following Mellk's suggestion, or to simply use the three components mentioned by Huntington, and say "most countries, including European, North American and Latin American nations and India". Renerpho (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not getting into the most controversial aspects but I personally would disagree with the edit. In a geopolitical sense, which is the relevant context here, Latin America is mostly treated as a part of the global south and not of "The West(ern World)". And look at the list of major non-NATO allies, they're obviously not only Western countries Major non-NATO ally#/media/File:American major non-NATO allies.svg . Inteloff (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" countries called for de-escalation

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

@Vice regent: No objections from me in principle, under the condition that you add a reliable source that says so (the Wikipedia article you mention does not suffice, and neither would any form of WP:SYNTH). This is not obvious. And please remember WP:1RR. Renerpho (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho: Why do we need a RS for that? We are summarizing RS's here. Do we have an RS that "Most countries condemned Hamas" (as stated in the lead), even though its fairly obvious they did? VR talk 00:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one.[11] If you have something similar for what you want to add then go ahead. Renerpho (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source says "widespread" condemnation, and doesn't use the word "most". I'll replace the word.VR talk 21:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a RS for that? -- We need RS's for everything. You can summarize RS's, but you have to cite them somewhere; or there has to be consensus that a statement is obvious, in which case you don't need an explicit citation. But going ahead and doing your own statistics on the list we have compiled here is WP:OR. This list is not an independent summary of RS's. If you find a similar, independently created list in a RS then you could summarize that. Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current text says "Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Nigeria called for de-escalation", that is quite problematic as dozens of countries have called for de-escalation, not just these ones.VR talk 21:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deif message

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

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

Deadliest terrorist attack in Israeli history?

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

@Undescribed A terror attack is an attack carried specifically on civilians of a certain country / or people, in order to hurt or kill them.
Usually careied by extremists, intended to slaughter civilians, *to promote their agenda / ideals*, and literally "Installing terror onto the streets".
A declerance of war, is a country attacking another, and attacking the other's *military*, to seize land, and control the population. Not to slaughter them.
Usually in order to hurt the other side, and win specific things such as a complete control over the country, a weakening of the country, seizing specific land (See nagorno-karabakh), and more.
A WAR ON TERROR / WAR INCLUDING TERROR, is a war in which a terror organisation/entity, such is Hamas, is involved. Hamas slaughters civilians and innocents to promote his political agenda, and is controlling a certain amount of land (See Gaza Strip), and is, de facto, a country.
And when a large scale armed conflict, and with two entities fighting from their controlled areas, it's war.
When at least one side is using violence, mass murder, and yes, literally, "Terror", on the other side, it's a war including terror.
Again,
The terms are broad, blurry, and general, yet usually when the term "War on Terror" is used, it's specify a terror organisation, involved in a large-scale, armed conflict, consisting of two different entities, usually fighting from their controlled land (Usually); in which the terror organisation uses its arms to kill innocents of the other side, to promote their political agenda/Ideologies.
An example for a war including terror, is WW2 and the Holocaust. When Nazi Germany invaded several countries (War), and used its power and reasources in order to enslave, starve and slaughter population they regard as enemies of theirs (Thus promoting their political agenda with murder: Terror), such as Jews, Gays, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Communists, etc.
  • NOTE: The difference between a war and a military operation, is that a war is usually a large-scale armed fight, while an operation is a smaller one.
  • NOTE: Again, the terms are broad, in some cases even refrencing the same thing, and in some cases meaning two completely different things.
רם אבני (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to define terrorism by it's intentions have mostly failed. 9/11 needed new narratives to explain it as terrorism. It was different from any previous suicide attacks. After 9/11, there were numerous similar suicide attacks against US and pro-Western targets worldwide in places as obscure as Bali. The comparison to 9/11 is simply a statement about the impact this is likely to have on Israeli society and especially young people. There is no universal definition of terrorism. Hostage taking is terrorism. This isn't complicated. Ben Azura (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of refs [12] mentioning it as the "the deadliest attack in Israel in decades". My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jprg1966 Yet it is factual. And therefore somebody needs to find a source who tells that, link it, and re-write the fact that it's the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history. רם אבני (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why it is still relevant is because I was thinking about adding the statement to the article, but wanted to first get consensus on whether it constitutes a "true" terror attack like 9/11 which it has been compared with by multiple sources. If I just add it without discussing on the talk page first it will probably be removed. Isn't that what the talk page is for? Determining what information is relevant to an article? Undescribed (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Undescribed Not sure, yet I support you in adding said statement.
    Maybe the 9/11 part can come as a side note: "(...) It is the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history; regarded to be "Israel's 9/11". רם אבני (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's fair. I apologize, I misunderstood what you were asking. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't want to jump the gun on adding said statement, even if it is reliably sourced. This is a very high traffic article at the moment. I've even found sources claiming this to be the "second-deadliest act of terrorism in world history after 9/11". Even with a reliable source this seems like a rather controversial statement, no? Undescribed (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's difficult to weigh. I think with multiple RS, you could put it in the "analysis" section: "XYZ sources asserted it is the second-deadliest terror ...". I would avoid putting in the lead, though. That's my 2 cents. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Undescribed Well, you can certainly use a refrence of the amount of dead in each major terror attack. Possibly there's a table in Wikipedia of the deadliest terror attacks. Not that I know of.
    Controversial? Definitely not. If it is the second-most killed terror attack in the world, by amount of dead, then it is.
    You cannot argue against the amount of dead people.
    And when we're refrencing "the terror attack", we of course mean the suprsise terror invasion, who killed 700+ Israelis, and started said war (Which is the subject of the article).
    And not regarding specifically the war, but the attack that started it.
    (Which by the way should be another article) רם אבני (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think that is the main dilemma at this point. This article needs to be split with a standalone article focusing on the initial attack. Thats another reason why I'm so adamant about adding statements about it being "the deadliest terrorist attack ever in: xyz". This article is about the supposed war now, not a single attack. This type of statement should be added to the article about the attack that started the war, not in the war article itself. Just my two cents. Undescribed (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Undescribed May you please create a discussion on spilitting between the terror suprise attack and the war?
    (Which probably still for now counts as a continuing terror attack, since some Kibbutzim, Cities and areas still has Hamas' terrorists lurking around.
    When they hault from lurking around the gaza envelope, (Not to be confised with the gaza strip), and in Israel, then it'll probably be counted as the END of the terror attack, and then just a war.
    By "hault" I mean be killed by the Israeli military, or escape to areas that are safe for Hamas' people.)
    Sorry to put the responsibility on you, it's just 5:15, and I really wanna head to sleep.
    Thanks! רם אבני (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @רם אבני: And just like that, someone already removed the statement about it being the deadliest terrorist attack. What a surprise lol Undescribed (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The terrorist thing is well understood by now, we apply this label in WP voice if the balance of reliable independent RS is using that descriptor. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was removed after it was agreed in the discussions, then it may be griefing.
    I suggest we open a discussion on applying protection for the article, in order to prevent griefers. רם אבני (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source calling it a terrorist attack:
https://www.jewishagency.org/
More importantly, this is the deadliest attack against Jews in a single day since the Holocaust:
https://www.jta.org/2023/10/08/israel/was-hamas-attack-the-bloodiest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaust
https://www.timesofisrael.com/was-hamass-attack-on-saturday-the-bloodiest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaust/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/worst-massacre-of-jews-since-the-holocaust/ar-AA1hVS0R
https://news.yahoo.com/deadliest-single-attack-jews-since-115911584.html
https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/worst-atrocity-since-holocaust-jewish-leaders-back-retaliation-20231010-p5eb3v 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article split for the initial attack?

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

I think it would make sense to have one eventually, but wouldn't it be a lot of the same information already in this article? Is there enough to differentiate it? --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean assuming this escalates to a full blown war on terror, which unfortunately seems to be the case, I think that there is already enough information for at least a basic article for now, and it will certainly be expanded in the future. We already have multiple articles on the attacks related to this even such as the October 2023 Hezbollah strike, Re'im music festival massacre and Battle of Sderot, so why not have an article on the initial attack as well? Undescribed (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, split already. Clearly the initial attack is already an entity on its own vis-á-vis the new conflict. XavierItzm (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support splitting between the War and the Invasion / largest terror attack in Israel's history.
The suprise terror attack is a large scale invasion, and the War is a RESPONSE to it.
and it's still occuring. (We can regard the end of the invasion, when the last of the invaders be killed or escape into a safe area for him.)
Has somebody spit the article? I just don't know how, and I don't find another article. רם אבני (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American English?

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

As I understand it, MOS:ARTCON does, though it lists some exceptions. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC) (edited LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
It should all be in the same variety of English, with exceptions for quotes, titles of sources etc. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Mule of Eupatoria

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

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

I will wait for both videos to surface on mainstream news websites, for now I get it being reverted. Flow of new information makes citing more difficult because it’s localised to these specific websites for now The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria
On a somewhat different topic, you added this edit stating "Important to mention in the civilian casualties" and adding in claims of such as "200 civilian casualties" in wikivoice. I was unable to find this verified in the ABC news source you linked, which you added with the title "198 killed in Gaza." I also fail to see why this would be included separately from the already mentioned and attributed statement "The Palestinian Ministry of Health led by Hamas in Gaza reported Israel had killed at least 400 Palestinians in gunfights and by airstrikes, including civilians, 78 children and 41 women." KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the error and cited the relevant sources. I included this in the section because it seems to revolve around the civilian casualties of the war as opposed to military The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria
There is already mention of civilian casualties with attribution and using newer figures: "The Palestinian Ministry of Health led by Hamas in Gaza reported Israel had killed at least 400 Palestinians in gunfights and by airstrikes, including civilians, 78 children and 41 women." The new links you added regarding "198 casualties" appear to be old versions of the Ministry of Health statistics, without differentiation of civilian or military casualties nor citing "Israeli bombardement of civilian targets" as the cause of the casualties.
The new sources you cited also reference the Ministry of Health, rather than state the casualties in their own voice, and you are editing with wikivoice.
Per your cited ABC source: "Palestinian Health Ministry says at least 198 killed, 1,610 wounded in Gaza in Israeli retaliation after Hamas attack."
Per your cited Business standard source: "The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza says at least 198 people have been killed and at least 1,610 wounded in the territory in Israel's retaliation after a wide-ranging Hamas assault into Israel."
Per your cited EconomicTimes source: "The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza says at least 198 people have been killed and at least 1,610 wounded in the territory in Israel's retaliation after a wide-ranging Hamas assault into Israel. The toll came as Israel has carried out a number of airstrikes in Gaza and has clashed with gunmen at the border fence around the coastal territory." KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria
Instead of breaking 1RR, and removing FV tags linked to this talk page without discussion, can you go on talk and achieve consensus for your obviously contested claims in the lead that have been raised by both me and @BilledMammal? Again, see WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I’ve already undone my girlboss reverts for the limit I am allowed for this page (though I messed up by accidentally undoing the entire page to a previous version which I am trying to get around). I have removed the loosely or ambiguously sourced claims in my edits, while getting better citations others The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria
The contested claims include considerably more. The entire section is contested and has been removed by both me and @BilledMammal, which you have elected to reinsert. Please self-revert the section to comply with 1RR and wait until you have achieved consensus, especially for a contentious claim in the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do that if it hasn’t been reverted already. Apologies for the late response, I was drawing white cheeked terns The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And common terns too. Edit 12:56 is already reverted and the claims of edit 12:59 seem to have been changed so it looks to be sorted The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Are you being sarcastic? Based on their actions they are just as terroristic as Israel. Using the blanket statement of “terrorist” over Palestinians is the justification they have been using to shell and target Palestinian civilians for the past 16 years. Label the terrorists as terrorists, not every Palestinian fighter that ever existed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sarcastic, attack the argument, not someone personally. the argument you proposed here are null. those who carried out these attacks were Palestinian terrorist groups. you try to change the subject and blame others to justify this, and none of that is relevant to this request.
additionally you try to change the meaning of my statement by putting words in my mouth, nowhere did i say any blanket statements over Palestinians, i pointed out that those who carried out the terrorists attacks are in fact terrorists. Mark28482 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you’re aware of what you’re arguing about. If the militias are to be completely labelled as terrorists, then so should Israel because both of their actions fall under the definition of terrorism, only difference is Israel has been doing it on a far bigger scale. If you are talking about individual events like the re’im massacre then of course the perpetrators are terrorists committing terrorism.
“ change Palestinian militant groups[e] to Palestinian Terrorist Groups to reflect what they are under the definition of the word. the current usage of the word causes several problems, being apologist and justifying what happened amongst them. It is important to use the correct words in these cases, and they are terrorists by every single definition of the word” doesn’t seem to specify the terrorists that carried out the acts, unless I am missing something The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what you said has nothing to do with the fact that those responsible were terrorist groups. you keep saying other people are bad and have done bad things. that is not what this request is about. go ahead and make a request for such changes but this is not the place. i do not wish to argue with you any further, you keep attempting to change the subject and justify what has happened to fit your rhetoric which is not impartial in this situation and you should recuse yourself from further editing and contributing this article because you are unable to maintain a impartial view. you have strong personal beliefs that affect this and trying to justify what has happened which is not appropriate. Mark28482 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referencing your initial statement of renaming Palestinian militias “terrorists”. If you don’t want to argue that’s up to you queen, first you mention the renaming them all then you’re talking about specific massacres and now I’m trying to justify what happened (justify what? The uprising or the massacres, I’m not sure what you’re talking about sweetie)
In short:
label the entire Palestinian militias as terrorists? No
label the specific militants that perpetrated massacres as terrorists? Yes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call me names. I understand English isn't your first language, and you don't understand the English words that are being used here which makes it very difficult to explain this to you. I have never spoken about militias anywhere. My request stands, please rename the Palestinian militant groups that orchestrated these attacks to "Palestinian terrorist groups", because these attacks are by definition terrorist attacks. Please don't bring anything else into this argument and please don't attack me personally or call me anymore names. Mark28482 (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t called you any names (unless “sweetie”, “queen” and “bestie”, are insults I missed out on) and yes I do struggle a bit with understanding some wordings, as long as the specific perpetrators of the massacres are referred to as terrorists it should be correct The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion is the most POV suggestion I've ever seen on wikipedia Abo Yemen✉ 13:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this comment, I dare you to condemn these attacks. Mark28482 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark28482 I won't condemn the attacks. You have no right to change my political opinions Abo Yemen✉ 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you feel the attacks were justified and acceptable since you refuse to condemn them? Mark28482 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark28482 judging by the fact that the Israelites have been doing the exact same thing to the Palestinians for decades, then yes i do feel that the attacks were justified and acceptable Abo Yemen✉ 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark28482 i can use the same argument against you as most arabs (not talking about the governments) consider Zionists as terrorists Abo Yemen✉ 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark28482 also Wikipedia is a neutral website. I edit the same articles as the israelis do without showing my personal/political opinions or getting into racial discussion (like what you did here) or removing sourced information because i dont like what it says Abo Yemen✉ 18:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that the Re'im music festival massacre was justified?! Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't condemn, we report what independent reliable sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier exactly Abo Yemen✉ 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Manual of Style, we generally avoid phrases like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" except when directly attributing them. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

AntiDionysius (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i believe by the definition of the word, especially the massacre at the concert for peace, was in fact terrorism. i don't believe the term should be avoided because it hurts their feelings. words have definitions and means and should only be used appropriately. Mark28482 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to propose a change in the Manual of Style you are welcome to do so in the relevant place. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the attacks of September 11th 2001 are called terrorist attacks here on Wikipedia. the attacks in Israel (including a massacre at a peace concert) are not called terrorist attacks. would you be so kind and explain the difference and why the term is appropriate to be used for one, but not the other. Mark28482 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about whether to describe the attacks as terrorist attacks. It is about whether to describe people and groups as terrorists.
There is also a difference between ongoing events and past events, and in the level of contention likely to be generated when discussing Al Qaeda versus Palestinian militants. ----AntiDionysius (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the organizations involved are designated as terrorist groups by the following:
Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
They were the following groups: Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Democratic Front and Lion's Den
Denying that those are terrorist organizations is ethically and morally bankrupt. Mark28482 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware they are defined as terrorist groups by those states, yes. That's the point of the bit about attribution above. You could say "Hamas, which the US classes as a terrorist group". AntiDionysius (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which the entire free world classes as a terrorist group. but this argument is ridiculous. there is never going to be an agreement, someone will also be on the wrong side. do you think the nazis looked at themselves as the bad guys? as a hate group? they justified themselves but it is still universally understood that they were the bad guys. Mark28482 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that pages about Nazism on Wikipedia do not include any text saying "these were the bad guys". We trust readers to make such judgements on their own. We also trust them to make judgements about this ongoing conflict on their own. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not if you are unable to use the correct words because you are afraid it might hurt someones feelings. words have meanings and we use them, thats how we communicate. Mark28482 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK AntiDionysius (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one cares about people's feelings here. YOU don't care about how the Palestinians feel and I don't care about what the Israelis feel Abo Yemen✉ 11:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue about who’s the terrorist, go elsewhere because this is wikipedia. Both sides committed war crimes, although personally i think it’s entirely israel’s fault 78.171.44.45 (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank, a blanket term of "terrorist" would be incorrect since this coalition of militants come from different ideological groups and therefore it would be presumptive to declare them all a label of an exactly same M.O. Johnny Conquest (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of hostage execution

There seem to be growing evidence of intentional execution of bound civilians, both at the rave and in various kibbutzim and settlements. I'm newish to wiki so I'm not sure where this would fit in. Doombrigade (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Casualties section", with cited source in accordance with WP:V. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't edit, would it be possible for someone else to add?
Source:
https://twitter.com/GLNoronha/status/1711504185756180962?t=4p-_wbWe_ewuHMVI5YWxzQ&s=19 Doombrigade (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate infobox "Casualties and losses" for initial attack and subsequent war

Once the sourcing is available, can the infobox support two "Casualties and losses" entries, one for the casus belli (including both the initial attack and its direct defensive response outside of Gaza) and the other for the subsequent war itself (including both the immediate retaliatory strikes in Gaza and any ground incursion there), or will we have to wait until they are separate articles? -- ToE 10:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shani Louk

Shani Louk, whose near naked body was paraded in Gaza, was a German tourist not a German-Israeli national. No source says that, yet it keeps being changed back. Inviting the editor responsible Borgenland to explain their rationale for adding incorrect and unsourced material. WCMemail 10:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recall there was a dispute regarding Dual Nationals. Furthermore, in the absence of a specific notability (standalone article), outing her full name in this page could constitute a WP:MEMORIAL violation. Borgenland (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/07/middleeast/israel-gaza-fighting-hamas-attack-music-festival-intl-hnk/index.html:
CNN has confirmed the identity of the woman as Shani Louk, a German-Israeli dual national. CNN has reached out to her family for comment but has not yet received a response. Borgenland (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was also cited at the tail end of the credit card. I suggest you read the entire thing fully before making such unfounded conclusions. Borgenland (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can see now that you have a source, that information wasn't in any article that I'd checked. My intention was to add the Business Insider source, which for some reason got lost in my edit. Hence, my invitation inviting you to explain your actions. From the same CNN article:
So CNN is contradictory, the other source simply quotes CNN, so it would appear to be A) circular and B) somewhat unconfirmed.
Also WP:MEMORIAL states:
This incident and her identity is being reported in multiple news sources. Your interpretation of that policy appears flawed but I didn't actually make it an issue. I can imagine the pain her family is going through, so had no intention of disputing it. WCMemail 11:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to speculate but since the mother appears to be based in Germany, she would probably be identifying the victim as German first. Borgenland (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shani Louk and her mother moved from germany to israel and are indeed dual-citizens of israel and germany. She was not a german tourist. "Die Welt", a german news channel, wrote about her in this article. Her mother also made a public statement to the german news channel "Bild". They're referenced in the "Welt" article. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you know why her mother gave that video appealing for help in finding her daughter, in German? And not say, Hebrew or English? Because it was meant to appeal for German political support and deceive a bit the public into thinking she was an innocent German tourist murdered. As I mentioned in the next discussion, dual citizenship is very common as most Israelis have it, especially with European countries, either from ancestry, family ties, many have retained or were given 'back' their citizenship from ancestors who were expelled. It is illogical, and in my opinion decietful, to mark each fallen Israeli with their dual nationalities. User6619018899273 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Nationals

Do not include under the 'c' bracket in the infobox under Israel casualties, the nationalities of dead civilians or soldiers if these were dual Israeli citizens. A huge segment of the Israeli population is dual national, that is the nature of the country since many immigrated to Israel or have close family ties abroad or have 'regained' their citizenship to some European country their ancestors were expelled from. As well, any Jew can claim Israeli citizenship. Do include their nationalities if they were not dual citizens, otherwise this is highly deceitful and misleading information. These dual citizens served in the IDF, lived in Israel, in many cases studied in Israel, they were 'more' Israeli than German or French. User6619018899273 (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It should not and does not matter to any country if their citizen has a dual citizenship, or is strictly a citizen of their country.
I am a dual citizen of switzerland and croatia. I got my dual citizenship last summer. I was born, raised and lived in switzerland for my entire life, YET if i would be killed, injured or lost in any conflict inside switzerland or as a tourist in another country, i would've be counted as a croatian casualty. If i would be kidnapped, it would be in interest of croatia to help me. Now, as im a dual citizen of switzerland and croatia, i would be counted as a casualty of both countries. If i will be kidnapped, it will be in the interest of switzerland AND croatia to get me to safety.
Dual citizens SHOULD be counted, no matter how much time they spend in any of both countries. Poles Ragge (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Deserted island" Netanjahu quote may be wrong

See https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56101/did-netanyahu-recently-say-we-will-turn-gaza-into-a-deserted-island — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appgurueu (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bias

Topics have been attached to See also retaliatory reactions carried out by Palestinians against the occupying Israelis. Although they are old events, they have been attached, but only attacks by Palestinians and no attacks by Israelis have been attached, just to shade the reader. To make it seem that every historical attack was carried out by Palestinians Baraa.an (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also is for similar events, so it makes sense that those are attacks against Israel. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that too. However as long as you have the sufficient citations then the Israeli attacks on Gaza during the war can and should be included. Civilian casualties in Gaza are barely mentioned in the news anyways The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party involvement

@My very best wishes: Thanks for removing the United States from the infobox. I also think that Iran should be removed. Infobox is for belligerents and no third party has been militarily involved in this conflict as of yet. Ecrusized (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should include United States under armament support. Military aid has already went to Israel from the United States. [13] FellowMellow (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, why should we include armament support in section "belligerents"? Selling or providing arms does not means someone being a party in a war. There are many suppliers to both sides. In addition, we only have one small paragraph on the page about USA moving ships. They move ships all the time, that does not mean to be at war. I am also not sure that Iran should be included at this point, but we do have strong RS saying that it has been almost certainly involved in planning and preparing the operation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The u.s is currently providing arms, not “selling”, adding arms supplying to infobox of belligerents is standard for Wikipedia war info boxes Bobisland (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream media has also reported the warships were moved in support of Israel, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/us/politics/israel-aid-pentagon-us-hamas.html and there was already a talk page to reach consensus on the issue Bobisland (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"adding arms supplying to infobox of belligerents is standard for Wikipedia war info boxes". No, such info might be present on some pages, but this is not a rule. See Russo-Georgian War, Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc. If USA starts firing "tomahawks", then it will have to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox military conflict does not include field "suppliers". My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I meant standard as in culturally in wikipedia, there are no rules against it and it can be found across Wikipedia war infobox articles, unless your saying since there is no mention of it in guidelines it shouldn’t be allowed? Bobisland (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That field of the template is reserved for combatants. Placing something else to this field is wrong. One must change the template by including new field for suppliers in a proper place if there is a consensus for including such field. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kibbutz of "Sufa Beheri"

This article mentions a kibbutz named "Sufa Beheri," which redirects to Sufa, Israel. Sufa does not appear to have ever been referred to by this two-word name on the Internet prior to the outbreak of war on Saturday. While it would be rather tedious to navigate the cited fourteen-page liveblog from The Guardian to determine the exact source of this apparent discrepancy, a cursory search of the term and common sense leads me to suspect that somewhere along the line there was a mis-transcription of the names Sufa and Be'eri in succession, causing somebody to amalgamate them into a single placename. This invented name has since been parroted by a number of "reliable sources." Have not taken any action as I am not sure what policy dictates here; created my account just to address this. Please advise. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinpointed the conception of the term "Sufa Beheri" to page 12 of 14 of the cited Guardian liveblog, in an apparent transcription from blogger Bethan McKernan of an Israeli television broadcast. It's mentioned that seven communities had come under Hamas control, but only six are named, granting further credence to the theory that the two names have been amalgamated into one here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SaintPaulOfTarsus
Thanks for pointing it out, I've separated the two locations. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, @KiharaNoukan. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack?

Calling it a "terrorist attack" or "one of the deadliest terror attacks" is a clear violation of WP:TERRORIST. This is something that is heavily debated on both sides; the allegation that this is "terror" is just the Western/Israeli position. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:5531:710D:B763:9D95 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to violate WP:FORUM but how is killing 260 people at a psytrance rave not terrorism? Somebody please explain! Synotia (moan) 20:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is terrorism by every definition of the word, the people who claim otherwise are terrorist apologists and/or terrorist sympathizers. Mark28482 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok kahanist 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think your attempts at 'insults' work here? this isn't social media IP. mind your language or you'll be IP blocked AbiquiúBoy (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how is blowing up a marketplace full of civvies "defending yourself"? Amazing how Israel supporters can never answer those kinds of questions. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are correct, that would simply mean both sides have conducted acts of terrorism, in theory. Denying the acts of Hamas as terrorism has no grasp in reality. How can you think intentionally raping, killing and systematically executing BOUND civilians, is beyond me Doombrigade (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Raping and executing bound civilians cannot be explained even in theory as having a military goal, like "Hamas was shooting rockets from there".
What are you going to say, that there was an IDF airbase inside them? It's so obviously barbaric that I can't think of a pretense for an excuse. Synotia (moan) 06:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no, this is by definition a terrorist attack. it targeted civilians, brutalized, raped, humiliated and murdered people who had nothing to do with the ongoing conflict. denying this fact makes a person complicit in what is happening and makes them a terrorist sympathizer and a terrorist apologist. Mark28482 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please use reliable independent sourcing to clarify rather than your personal opinion. WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is not my personal opinion, this is the definition of the word and complexly neutral use of english words. what do you think is an "opinion" Mark28482 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A statement without reference to any sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my source is the Wikipedia article itself that clearly states. do you refute that this was a terrorist attack? you already refused to condemn the attacks because you claim they are justified? Mark28482 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First WP is not a source. Second, As it says at the top of this page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay, you clearly have personal opinions and personal biases concerning these terrorist attacks. i recommend you recuse yourself from this discussion as you are unable to contribute in an unbiased way. Mark28482 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another statement of no value. I recommend you stop making them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is my final warning in good faith, if you refuse to add to this discussion i will report your violation of ethics. Mark28482 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I made my position clear. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mark28482, I suggest you read WP:PETARD. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still have no reliable sources. I second SelfStdier's recommendation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In looking objectively at this issue, there are reliable sources citing to these acts as terrorist acts. See Woman abducted by terrorists recounts harrowing experience | CNN. Also, by definition, terrorism is defined as "the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective." See Terrorism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Given this definition, and the reported accounts from reliable sources, the use of the term of terrorism to describe the taking of hostages for political purposes does not seem exaggerate the use of this term and I would support its use in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, sadly the person above was not looking for reasons or justification or an explanation, they are just contrarian and most likeley terrorist apologists and/or sympathizers. Mark28482 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TERRORIST "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli tank and vehicle losses in the infobox

@Stephan rostie: I have reverted[14] your edit which stated that Israel had lost "a number of" tanks and vehicles because it consists of a weasel statement (How many?). Furthermore infobox is not to place to add every single detail about the article. It aims to be a brief summary of the key facts. Please see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Ecrusized (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecrusized Regardless. You don’t have any right to revert it per WP:1RR. I am assuming a good faith and giving you a chance undo your revert before reporting your violation. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan rostie: "I am assuming a good faith and giving you a chance undo your revert before reporting your violation." I have been on this website long enough to know that's not how things work. Are you not willing to discuss this issue at all? Ecrusized (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to being able to revert such as vandalism or disruptive edits Bobisland (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green

What does green mean? Is it the battlefield, Israel reclamation, or is it something else? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (5) // Please add a sentence that was agreed to be added in a discussion.

contribs)

Please change: "On 7 October 2023, Palestinian militant groups[e] led by Hamas launched a large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel from the Gaza Strip, breaking through the Gaza–Israel barrier and forcing entry via the Gaza border crossings, into nearby settlements in Israel and military installations. Hamas called it Operation al-Aqsa Storm. It is the first direct conflict within Israel's boundaries since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[31][32] Hostilities were initiated in the early morning with a rocket barrage against Israel and vehicle-transported incursions into Israeli territory, with several attacks on surrounding Israeli civilian communities and Israeli military bases. Some observers have referred to these events as the beginning of a third Palestinian intifada.[f] For the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel formally declared war.[34] An Israeli operation launched in response has been called Iron Swords by the IDF.[35]"

To: (Change is bolded)

"On 7 October 2023, Palestinian militant groups[e] led by Hamas launched a large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel from the Gaza Strip, breaking through the Gaza–Israel barrier and forcing entry via the Gaza border crossings, into nearby settlements in Israel and military installations. The conflict is considered to be the deadliest non-state terrorist attack in Israeli history, and one of the deadliest terrorist events worldwide.[Link][Link2] Hamas called it Operation al-Aqsa Storm. It is the first direct conflict within Israel's boundaries since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[31][32] Hostilities were initiated in the early morning with a rocket barrage against Israel and vehicle-transported incursions into Israeli territory, with several attacks on surrounding Israeli civilian communities and Israeli military bases. Some observers have referred to these events as the beginning of a third Palestinian intifada.[f] For the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel formally declared war.[34] An Israeli operation launched in response has been called Iron Swords by the IDF.[35]"


This is basically adding back an edit from 11:21, 9 October 2023‎, which has been griefed. Said change was agreed to in the discussion: "Deadliest terrorist attack in Israeli history?" Thank you in advance! רם אבני (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Jewish News and World Jewish News doesn't strike me as reflecting a balance of reliable independent sources, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wall street journal
CNBC
BBC
Politico
The Free Press
Here are more. When adding the change, please refrence these too, and filter what you deem reliable or not. Yet this amount proves major newspapers regard this terror attack as "Israel's 9/11" due to it's enormous amount of murdered, kidnapped, and videos full of pride of Hamas in killing, which are spread across social media. רם אבני (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ is an opinion article, I checked the next two and couldn't find anything to support the proposed edit so I gave up. Please show sourcing that contains the text you are proposing. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for adding an opinion article, I didn't notice. Excuse me for that.
Here is a list by the 'German online platfrom specialized in data gathering and visualization' about the deadliest terror attacks worldwide.
When we add this terror attack to this list, it becomes the 5th. The dead count is still unknown, but Israel is reporting 800+ dead, and since the terror attack is still going on, more may sadly be added.
It's 5th. There for it is "one of the deadliest terrorist events worldwide." as said in my edit request.
About the "deadliest non-state terrorist attack in Israeli history", the Re'im massace (part of this terror attack) is already listed as first in death toll, in the Wikipedia article "List of massacres in Israel".
If this doesn't suffice, please tell me and I'll go look in more resources. Thank you for your time. רם אבני (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not as yet in statista and putting it in "by hand" would be OR. Also WP is not a source. You might have better luck if you search for sourcing without the terrorism label. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier I ask for others to come forth, and discuss the matter with us. רם אבני (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@רם אבני: I don't understand why there is so much pushback over this. In the latest media figures, they are saying at least 1,200 deaths and I'm sure that will sadly continue to rise. Based on the latest information, assuming this does in fact constitute a true "terror attack", wouldn't that constitute this as the 2nd deadliest terror attack in world history after 9/11? The Camp Speicher massacre in 2014 killed at least 1,095, which would rank it 3rd deadliest. The numbers speak for themselves, what am I missing here? Undescribed (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent reliable sources that support the proposed text, those don't appear to be forthcoming atm. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (5)

Please change "Some Arab League countries such as Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and non-Arab countries like Iran and Pakistan" to "Some Arab League countries such as Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and non-Arab League countries like Iran and Pakistan" This would make clear that they're referring to countries that are not part of the Arab League, rather than bringing up a non-settled debate about whether or not Iran and Pakistan are Arab countries, which is not the point of the sentence. Blueeyedmaiden (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 20:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon in infobox

@WeatherWriter: The attack from Lebanon today wasn't done by the Lebanese state or the Lebanese Army. It was conducted by Palestinian Islamic Jihad[15] and the retaliatory Israeli strike killed a Hezbollah fighter.[16] Ecrusized (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for that! That reference and info needs to be added as Al Jazeera reported 2 soldiers died in the infiltration attempt, not from the shelling. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gap in explaining the intial blockade

"The Gaza Strip and Israel have been in conflict since the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and Hamas gaining control of the Gaza Strip after elections in 2006 and a civil war with Fatah in 2007. The Gaza Strip has been under an Israeli and Egyptian blockade since 2007, leading Human Rights Watch to call the strip an "open-air prison"."

There should be an explanation of what led to the blockade. The fact that Hamas is a organization that his stated and only purpose is the destruction of Israel. Winning in elections by the people of Gaza. Meaning pretty much declaring war on Israel. Very important information that should be stated, I think. 62.0.58.19 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of militants killed in Israel

@PrimaPrime: The source you have added which quotes IDF says that "military killed more than 400 Palestinian terrorists in southern Israel and the Gaza Strip". This is not just the number of those killed in Israel. Also this was published yesterday. So the real figure is likely to be much higher than 400. Ecrusized (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an idea of how to address the overlap (or of course, a better source) I'm all ears. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have already placed it if there was any source for it. I also don't like merging Palestinian and Israeli estimates into one. Ecrusized (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they should probably be disaggregated, especially the Lebanese one as well. To account for the imprecision, the Israeli claim could be written as "hundreds" rather than an exact number. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanese casualties are still too few compared to Gaza's (6). Separating it will create undue weight in the infobox. If Hezbollah enters the war however it should be separated. In a manner similar to the casualties listing of the Yom-Kippur War article. I'm not a fan of adding weasel statements like "Hundreds killed, per Israel". Because infobox style is meant to be brief and concise, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Additionally I believe Hamas and other groups will announce their casualties in a few days from now as has been the case in other Gaza conflicts in the past, like the 2014 War. Ecrusized (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes

How can there be a section named War Crimes, when it is a conflict and not a war? Thanks for explaining this to me. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better to think of it as "armed conflict" https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/armed-conflict/ Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel hasn't declared a state of war since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It's a war. kencf0618 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (6)

please add the information about the Be'eri massacre into the article. More than 100 people, including infants and elder women were killed there. It's almost 10% of the population there. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible truce talks

I am not sure if it is the time to include the possibility of the talks between the involved parties. But just saw here "Moussa Abu Marzouk" saying to Aljazeera of Hamas' being open to “something of that sort” and to “all political dialogues”. --Mhhossein talk 19:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey has expressed willingness for acting as the mediator [17]. --Mhhossein talk 20:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar is playing that role if anyone is. kencf0618 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting information available

Change "The attack, which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, appeared to have been a complete surprise to the Israelis." to "The attack, which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, appeared to have possibly been a complete surprise[1], though Egypt had declared they warned Israel of "something unusual, a terrible operation"[2] 10 days prior to the attack. Israel denied this had occurred[3]." 24.63.171.94 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also shin bet knew or arms smuggling Just last month. Not much of a surprise. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231007-sirens-heard-as-dozens-of-rockets-fired-from-gaza-towards-israel
  2. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
  3. ^ https://nypost.com/2023/10/09/israel-ignored-warning-something-big-was-coming-egyptian-official/

Hamas Fraud and economy

"An official in Gaza familiar with the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media, said that Israel promised Hamas a number of concessions. The measures included Israel raising the number of workers’ permits it issues for laborers in Gaza, expanding the fishing zone off Gaza’s coast and allowing the enclave to export more goods and import more equipment, he said." https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-crossing-protest-violence-palestinian-erez-8d1d3cd570f27e6470f23daef4337216

"The security establishment is working harder to bring new concessions to the Gaza Strip: increasing the quota of Gazan workers who work in Israel by 1,500 to 20,000 - the political echelon will have to give the green light to this. In addition, there is an intention to increase the export of fish and textiles from the Gaza Strip through the Kerem Shalom crossing , and expand the marketing of goods in the Strip." https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-08be6fab6c9fa81027.htm

"Hamas used the economy as part of its fraud scheme" https://www.calcalist.co.il/local_news/article/hykrhpxwt?ref=ynet

The Israeli policy was to improve the economy in the Gaza Strip for the purpose of preventing escalation and weakening terrorist factors, the terrorist factors that led to the harsh attitude towards the Gaza Strip from the beginning. Hamas itself could have invested budgets in the improvement of economy, but it was spent in preparation for an attack on the settlements of southern Israel, killing and kidnapping its citizens, in an effort to realize its worldview which aspires to establish an Islamist state in all the territories of Israel.(Hamas has made efforts in the past to prevent peace agreements with the Palestinians and the realization of the 2-state solution through terrorist attacks, including the explosion of its terrorists)

Hezbollah =?= Lebanon

Per the first part of the lead of Hezbollah, they are part of the Lebanese government. Earlier, Lebanon was added to the infobox, but that was quickly removed. Do we have a source saying this is only Hezbollah as a militant group with 0 support from the government party of the organization? If not, by definition, Lebanon should be added to the list of Belligerents, as part of the Lebanese government attacked Israel. Not adding it would violate the no original research policy as we (Wikipedia) would be determining that only part Hezbollah is attacking Israel, and not all of Hezbollah.

So in short, we must have a source stating only part of Hezbollah is attacking Israel to not violate the WP:OR policy and guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I'm not well informed on how much Hezbollah is integrated as a political party in the Lebanese government. In the past conflicts [18], only Hezbollah was used unless Israel had also fought the Lebanese Army. Ecrusized (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced a "total" blockade of the Gaza Strip that would cut electricity and block the entry of food and fuel, adding that “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly." Human Rights Watch called the order "abhorrent" and called on the International Criminal Court to make "note of this call to commit a war crime."

Which order? 94.246.228.132 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iran in infobox?

Should Iran's alleged involvement be mentioned in the infobox? While Israel has accused Iran, Iran has denied involvement[19]. Of RS, only the WSJ directly accuses Iran, while most RS are cautious in covering any allegations against Iran with attribution.VR talk 21:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: No I think. Also see Talk:October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict#3rd party involvement. Infobox is purely for belligerents and neither US or Iran has been directly involved as a combatant yet. Although both have possible provided some degree of arms support both during and prior to the conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized:, Iran may have provided arms support prior to the conflict, but has it provided any arms support during the conflict? Do any RS say that?VR talk 11:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Not to my knowledge. The latest U.S. and Israeli estimate says that Iran was not involved.[20], [21] Ecrusized (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Yom Kippur War usage

There was some talk about how there's not yet a reputable source calling this conflict the "Second Yom Kippur War". Here's an op-ed from the Times of Israel that uses the term: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/yom-kippur-ii/ -- Frotz(talk) 21:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its an opinion blog. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? -- Frotz(talk) 23:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces are generally considered unreliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we state this was terrorism in wiki voice?

The lead currently says:

Hamas' initial offensive is considered to be the deadliest non-state act of terrorism in Israeli history, as well as the second-deadliest event of that kind worldwide, surpassed only by the September 11 attacks in the United States

This takes as fact that the Palestinian offensive is an act of terrorism. While it is considered so by Israel, the US and many other countries, I think such an assertion is POV and requires attribution. (The assertion above is also inaccurate, because ISIL's Camp Speicher massacre has a higher death toll than all the total Israeli dead so far, which is around 900).VR talk 21:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because hundreds of RS's say it is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not any other official body. Thats POV.
At the very least one can Put a note that it was certain media or poticians. Eu/c explicitly did NOT say it. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s only “terrorism” if Arabs do to. When Israel does it Wikipedia editors will whitewash it and simply call it an “airstrike” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USA and the EU both recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. The fact many offical parties in various countries, along with the literal definition of Terrorism of the use of violence against civilians, leads me to accept the definition of the offencive as an act of terrorism Doombrigade (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change current to 2023 in lead

In line 10 on the lead, this following, "which took place almost exactly fifty years before the current attacks." I want to change the word, "current" to "2023" where it says, "which took place almost exactly fifty years before the 2023 attacks." Even though I met the qualifications, I wanted to check here before I try to edit this article. Cwater1 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, in my view. 2001:2020:347:8DDA:D148:5DB6:54C5:51A1 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good idea. And similar edits, that involve updating language like "current" or things that will age out, can be edited BOLDLY, in my view. But it's good that you sought input. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I made the edit. Cwater1 (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background on prisoners

I added a section on Palestinian prisoners, that includes the number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, Hamas statement that they abducted Israelis so they could exchange them, and Hamas' previous abduction of Gilad Shalit and the subsequent prisoner exchange. Most of the sources I used mention these facts in their own reporting of this conflict. Is there any issues with covering this in the background? VR talk 21:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing this claim by Hamas on the page is fine, but it does not mean we should include such large sub-section in "Background". As written, this sounds like a justification of the hostage-taking by Hamas. When the actual process of prisoner exchange will begin, we can include such info in the section about prisoners exchange. In brief, this is hardly relevant in that section and therefore reads as anti-Israel propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THEY Justified. Its the point (or one off) for crossing the strip to do so. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that by making such large irrelevant subsection in this place, we make the point that the vengeance/hostage taking by Hamas was just. To be clear, this info is well-sourced. It just should not be in that section right now. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not for us to OR. That is what the actors in the situation literally said and sourced by him above. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I just said above, this is not OR. This is merely an irrelevant information, clearly placed to paint Israel in a negative light. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: we can't exclude information from a page simply because it "paint Israel in a negative light" as wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We similarly wouldn't exclude any information that painted the Palestinians in a bad light. We state the facts.VR talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is information on Palestinian prisoners in Israel relevant? Yes, as various RS have covered Palestinian prisoners in the context of this conflict:

  • Al Jazeera: "Four in 10 Palestinian men spend time in Israel jails. Hamas says it wants to exchange captured Israelis for them."
  • CBC News: "[Islamic Jihad] said hostages would not be released until all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are freed, referring to Israel's detention of over 1,200 prisoners, mostly Palestinians, without charges."
  • The Economist: "Before October 7th Hamas held just two Israeli captives, plus the bodies of two soldiers killed during the 2014 war. Now it has scores of them, both alive and dead. Addameer, a Palestinian ngo, estimates 5,200 Palestinian prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, including more than 1,200 in so-called “administrative detention”—held without charge."
  • Washington Post: "Hamas already has said it seeks the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails — some 4,500 detainees, according to Israeli rights group B’Tselem — in exchange for the Israeli captives. The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has. Israel sees them as terrorists, but Palestinians view detainees as heroes."
  • BBC News: "Such incursions would give ample opportunity to capture Israeli officers and soldiers...According to the latest report by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, there were 4,499 Palestinians in prison on what Israel defined as “security” grounds in June. That number included 183 from the Gaza Strip. Several hundred more are being held for illegally being inside Israel."
  • Reuters: "The Palestinian Prisoners Association puts the number held in Israeli jails at about 5,250. If Israel agreed to releasing all of them, it would be a huge win for Hamas and other militant groups..."
  • Al-Ahram: (published on 9 october) "Since 1967, Israel has detained approximately one million Palestinians in the occupied territories, including tens of thousands of children. Currently, there are 5,000 Palestinians incarcerated in Israeli prisons. Among them, 160 children and around 1,100 detainees are held without charge or trial, according to a UN report."
  • NY Times "Thousands of Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons, many of them convicted of security offenses or involvement in terrorism. Muhammad Deif, the leader of Hamas’s military wing, cited the detention of thousands of Palestinian militants in Israeli jails as one of the reasons for Saturday’s assault."
  • Middle East Eye: "In Palestine, the fate of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel is also an important issue, increasingly so under the most far-right government in Israel's history. Over the past year, Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has sought to clamp down on the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. From limiting family visits to moving dozens of Palestinians to Nafha prison, widely considered to be one of the most notorious in the country, Ben Gvir has adopted a policy of making the lives of Palestinian prisoners incrementally more difficult. There are around 5,200 political prisoners in Israeli jails, including more than 1,264 administrative detainees, according to Palestinian rights group Addameer. Under Israel's discriminatory system, Palestinians tried in military courts have a conviction rate of 99.7 percent, while Israelis are very rarely convicted over attacks on Palestinians. About a quarter of Palestinian prisoners are held without charge or trial in a controversial practice known as "administrative detention"."
  • ABC News: "[ Mustafa Barghouti said 'Hamas is ready to release all the civilians, all the women in exchange for releasing 40 Palestinian women who are in Israeli prisons. I think it will be time to release the 5,300 Palestinians who are in Israeli prisons, including some who have been there for 44 years' "

So I think its fair to say that the issue of Palestinian prisoners is relevant to this topic.VR talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hamas say Iran is involved?

XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[22]? Besides the WSJ (not BBC as you erroneously stated), I can't find many sources that say Hamas said Iran is involved. In fact, Hamas has actually denied that Iran was involved (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed").

Therefore the claim that Hamas has linked Iran to the attack is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS required to have this claim in the lead.VR talk 22:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

?? There is MASSIVE news coverage from all quarters that Iran is involved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are spreading misinformation. Hamas claims Iran backed them.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets-attack-palestinians/card/hamas-says-attacks-on-israel-were-backed-by-iran-kb2ySPwSyBrYpQVUPyM9 AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He literally just answered that. Not very AGF of You to accuse him. On a restricted article. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and avoid speclative accusations.
The article you linked to is a reliable source. There is a similar article in the Times of Israel [23]. Unfortunately, neither of these articles appears to directly link to a BBC story. I think a direct link to an interview would meet a threshold for inclusion in the lead, as long as the language closely reflected what was in that report. Can we find that BBC story? --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im not the one accusing anyone. Tell him to AGF. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to AtypicalPhanom's comment, not yours. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jprg1966: there are no details in the Times of Israel article. What did Hamas say exactly? Also what about the interview in which Hamas explicitly denied receiving any support from Iran? (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed") VR talk 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's fair to say that there is a great deal of speculation on Iran's involvement, without a clear picture at the moment. This is reaffirmed by media statements attributed to U.S. intelligence officials. So in that context, probably best to leave it out of the lead and have a fuller description in the body of the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link is at the end of the sentence on the lead a Hamas spokesman said Iran gave support which is what it’s based on if another Hamas spokesman denies this then they can just be put side by side in the page but the wiki page is changing a lot and I haven’t checked on it I don’t know how it’s worded now Bobisland (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! The reference is wrong. Meant to repair a ref. to the BBC, but must have pasted in error. Apologies. Will fix in the next 5 minutes. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed it and pasted the correct BBC ref from an earlier version of the article. Again I apologize. What had happened is this: people had moved the BBC ref to the infobox, then deleted the content together with the ref, then modified main text and just prior to my intervention there was a call to a ref name that no longer existed!, so the ref gave error. I searched for a prior version that still had a named ref and pasted it and thought it somewhow was still the BBC ref because it did mention the BBC but alas! it was totally wrong. Again I appreciate being called on this inadvertent error and the proper BBC ref is now presented as intended. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that my fixing my error as described above resulted in a new section as to whether the removal of the WSJ citation was fair. I know I read and have access to an independent WSJ source (which was earlier in the article, added by someone else) which fully corroborates the BBC source.
So, I'd like to respond to VR who said: "WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS". I entirely disagree. I can provide additional sources such as the WSJ which say the same thing as the BBC. So please do not remove the current statement supported by the BBC unless (a) people fail to provide the sources (if you still require them) or (b) you can reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source says "A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel, saying it was a source of pride. Ghazi Hamad told the World Service's Newshour programme that other countries had also helped Hamas, but he did not name them." The wording here is a bit strange, and it also contradicts another source above. I see you added "Hamas said Iran assisted with its attacks". It might be more accurate to say "One Hamas official said the attacks were backed by Iran and other countries, while another Hamas official denied that Iran was involved.([24]". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation section has bias

The argument used behind the $6 billion dollar claim is fungibility. If Iran knows it is getting money for humanitarian purposes, it can repurpose existeing funds to back Hamas. Without adding this tidbit, the section is exposed to bias. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do our own analysis in articles. Find a reliable source that says this, and it may merit inclusion. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Along those lines, the section feels more like a WP:COATRACK than anything else—specific instances of bad info being given relatively WP:UNDUE weight based on sparse sourcing does not improve the article. As such, I've removed the content, and I would object to its restoration in the form that it was. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Casualties under Palestine section

The first sentence of the section is followed by an accidental repetition of "reported an unspecified...". Médecins sans frontières is linked twice, once in English, while the French name is written incorrectly lacking the accent, with the English mention possibly being a repeat of the same report from a different source. XeCyranium (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV

per somewhere above, the groups dont need idea logical caveats in this article. Yet we have "Th

The PFLP, another Palestinian socialist militant group, and the Lion..."s' Den 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the article as it is, I think it's informative and relevant to include this description. The paragraph begins by talking about DFLP, which is another left-wing militant group. I removed an earlier mention of "socialist" to describe PFLP in the lead of the article because none of the other militant groups had any ideological descriptors in that context. There's nothing wrong with describing the PFLP as a socialist group, if that's what they are. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airport closure

not true. There are literally commercial flights to georgia, europe and arab countries since saturday. In fact the former Just a few hours ago. Anyone can check it on flight radar. Further, El al have not changed plans. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic law 40

one can mention the legal grounds for the state of war, which is #40 37.252.92.97 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump / Biden

October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict#Misinformation:

"Soon after the Hamas attacks on Israel, former President Donald Trump and other Republicans tried to cast blame on Joe Biden because of the prisoner release deal with Iran; however, these funds under the supervision of the United States Department of the Treasury are used only for humanitarian purposes, and there is no evidence that they have had an impact on Hamas."

Does this piece of internal US politics really belong in an article about events in Israel and Gaza, if it has no direct impact? It's not misinformation about what's happening where the attacks and the conflict take place. To illustrate, this is of course making it into internal Swedish politics as well – who supported whom, claims about international aid and so on. But it would seem absurd to add it to this article. Similarly, since this isn't misinformation about the event but about US politics, it feels out of place. /Julle (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been wanting to say this too. Obviously I don’t want revert more edits to not violate Wikipedia’s policy, it’s just American editors trying to shove their partisan politics garbage into everything that is currently trending The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no strong opinion about it, but this is a pretty serious accusation (i.e. that the US President indirectly funded the attack by terrorists), and yes, indeed misinformation. This was also widely published. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t wish to revert the edit more, since that would violate Wikipedia policy, but this looks like downplaying the entire course of a war for some random unrelated Americans to shove their politics into every corner and topic that ever existed. Though the accusations are serious Trump hasn’t been president for almost 3 years, this is Wikipedia not redit The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is! But the facts that it is widely reported or strong accusations don't really mean it is key information about this topic, since it's arguably misinformation about something else. /Julle (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria I added it and I'm not American Parham wiki (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reverted again and I am specifically referring to the trump Biden catfight (not the entire misinformation section). It seems to be removed by another editor who cited the Wikipedia policy it went against The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

I really need to edit this article; I want to attempt to move this article from October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict to 2023 Palestine−Israel War because most of the media says it's a war and on the talk page there is many that comprehend that the article shall be labeled as a "war" so I need to have edit access to improve not just Wikipedia but the knowledge of the world. CostalCal (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. There is an active move discussion on this talk page, you may voice your opinions/support there if you wish. Deauthorized. (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject on war crimes tab

Shouldn’t the war crimes tab be intertwined with the Palestinian offensive and Israeli reaction? Seems it would be smoother for the wiki page Bobisland (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject on a possible new tab

The economic section of the reactions tab seems out of place, can we just make a new aftermath tab and add the economic impacts to it, although it’s small the events are current and we can build on it over time Bobisland (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the suggestion as "aftermath" seems to be a better umbrella to serve as a parking lot for other issues. The only question is when does the term "aftermath" apply as this is an ongoing event with things changing by the day. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: quote not found in source

Under 9th october timeline: "Human Rights Watch called the order "abhorrent" and called on the International Criminal Court to make "note of this call to commit a war crime." " - there is no mention of HRW in either (unrelated) source for this statement, which seems abnormally inflammatory and suspicious. Request removal of this by an approved editor unless a relevant source can be located. 2601:983:8080:90:E608:A8D0:39DE:283D (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post source says exactly that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-war-gaza-violence/#link-ZY5JY3JP4NCXXAK3JYNMMSRUEE David O. Johnson (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (2)

I suggest changing from "The blockade has caused significant economic hardship upon the Palestinians" to "The blockade has caused significant economic hardship within Gaza" as that is both more accurate and more consistent with English idiom. The phrase "caused... hardship upon" is not idiomatic and I suggest updating to avoid the awkward phrasing. Vegastrong (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks for your help. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Times of Israel?

Why is the Times of Israel even being used as a source. It is not even close to being a reliable or balanced source. 2601:601:8582:8FF0:8CA0:5725:639A:86B3 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media Bias lists Times of Israel as a "High Factual" and "High Credibility" source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/ Hawar jesser (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 moment

The article currently reads Some analysts have described this war as "Israel's 9/11 moment". That's verifiably true, but I think it's a bit misplaced to have this in the "Names" section, which otherwise seems dedicated towards describing, well, names of the event rather than a comparison point. Is there somewhere we can move this, or is this already covered elsewhere? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing WSJ with BBC

@XavierItzm: Did you mean to replace a WSJ cite with a BBC cite? The WSJ reporting seems to just as well support the statement, so I'm a bit curious as to the reason for its removal (rather than simply adding the BBC cite alongside it). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk Please see full discussion on this above. Yes, I had pasted the WSJ ref in complete error, got called on it, I apologized, and my reply to the people asking me to fix my error is to place the BBC ref that I had originally intended. Please see full details above in the relevant section. Feel free to add the WSJ if you feel it complements the BBC. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Should have seen that before opening this up. Page is getting quite long. My apologies. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Phosphorus Claims in Warcrime Section

The claim is

"The Israel Air Force's use banned chemical weapons in Gaza. Based on the video that shows the munitions descending from the sky, it is clear using the white phosphorus bomb on civilians that is considered a war crime."

The sources provided show a white phosphorus attack in Syria back in 2018, NOT in Gaza in 2023. Not to mention the lack of proper possessive pronouns, and the editors Arabic contribution history...

The second source does not provide any evidence to substantiate its claims. Even if the linked video is from this conflict, there is no evidence that this is being used on civilians, and I find it hard to believe that such an atrocity would only have a single video to its name in this context.

HRW image used as FAKE proof of an attack: [25]https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/09/incendiary-weapons-heed-calls-strengthen-law MarkusDorazio (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added to the "Misinformation" section, as it is becoming a widespread rumor distributed through social media and state-sponsored media.
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/10/09/712401/israel-white-phosphorus-use-Gaza-bombing Hawar jesser (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think this would help stop this from spreading. MarkusDorazio (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IDF soldiers casuality update

The Israel Defense Forces names another 38 soldiers killed during fighting. This brings the official toll of dead IDF soldiers to 123 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-releases-names-of-38-more-soldiers-killed-in-gaza-war-official-toll-at-123/ Hu741f4 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISW

he started to publish about the war too

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-9-2023 שמי (2023) (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (3)

Change "Israel Air Force's has been reported to use banned chemical weapons in Gaza. Based on a video that shows munitions descending from the sky, it is apparent that the white phosphorus bomb are being dropped, which is considered a war crime." by removing it all together. See my post on it, it is misinformation, the sources spreading it are falsely using a photo from a 2018 HRW article, and a YouTube thumbnail from 2017.

YouTube thumbnail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C9f8Ff8M6E HRW Article: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/09/incendiary-weapons-heed-calls-strengthen-law

This is blatant misinformation, if you are unwilling to do this, at least fix the atrocious grammar from the non-English speaker who put it there. MarkusDorazio (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done in [26] AncientWalrus (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Economic Reactions Section

One of the problems with news papers is that they tend to print anything and seldom add context. So yes, the price of oil is up from where it was three days ago, but it's also down $5 from where it was just a week ago. If the situation develops to the extent that there's an oil embargo like in the 70s that has wide ranging economic consequences then of course that should be included, but including daily securities prices doesn't add anything to the article and also tends to be misleading.

Kind of the case and point for the irrelevance of this is posting that the price of gold increased by $20 or 1%: what does that add to the article?

What's more is that it's also WP:OR because it's attributing a price increase just this event where as for global commodities prices there are a range of factors.

The more full explanation of the oil price increase is: "oil prices rised as the prospect of a diplomatic deal between Israel and KSA which would include a lessening of production cuts decreased and fears about secondary sanctions on Iranian oil increased" but even then oil is still down 6% from where it was just a week ago and this article is not about daily fluctuations in commodity prices and what I wrote is WP:OR. 176.198.203.252 (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to mention in the infobox that the vast majority of the 900+ dead in Israel are non-combatant civilians

It's crucial information in understanding these statistics. Fewer than 100 of them are military-affiliated. This was a massacre against civilians in Israel.

This is especially necessary since it is mentioned that the 1,500 dead from Palestine were militants. 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source to back this up. I'm not disputing it, it's just how Wikipedia works. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is IDF spoksperson's update on national TV (Kan11) from 2.5 hours ago, stating the number of IDF casualties is 123. The general number of confirmed casualties is at the moment above 900.
https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1711651520628859274?t=fGmiSU3inGLE06gLRRtNFA&s=19 Doombrigade (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Numbers of Hamas casualties published by Israel

Israel claims that the IDF found more than 1'500 bodies that were Hamas fighters/ "Terrorists".

Please take with a big grain of salt as it was published by the IDF, that had a huge Bias against their enemy, Hamas.

As of time of my writing, Hamas did not respond to the claims. Poles Ragge (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:
[ Channel (Nationality/language) : Link ]
SRF ( Swiss/German) : https://www.srf.ch/news/international/angriff-auf-israel-israelische-vergeltungsangriffe-auf-den-gazastreifen
Times of Israel (Israeli/English) : https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-weve-found-1500-bodies-of-hamas-terrorists-in-israel/
Die Welt (German/German : https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article247911596/Israel-Liveticker-Rund-1500-tote-Hamas-Kaempfer-in-Israel.html
Der Stern (German/German) : https://www.stern.de/news/israelische-armee--leichen-von--rund-1500--hamas-kaempfern-in-israel-entdeckt-33898840.html
[Footnote: All of those reference the IDF] Poles Ragge (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The casualty figures are attributed in the infobox as "per Israel" and "per Palestine". If we include Hamas estimates, then we should also include IDF estimates. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to retain article neutrality

I've read across all of the talk page and seen obviously pro-Israel users doing everything they can to slant this article towards making the Palestinians look bad and Israel look good. From making the Gaza borders dotted lines implying the territory is disputed, pushing the use of obviously biased sources like times of Israel and calling this a terrorist act when war was declared. Is it possible to get a truly neutral admin to mediate here please? I would just like this to be a balanced article. 2405:DA40:435D:4500:48A5:963C:B249:C5A7 (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a concrete suggestion of an improvement you'd like to make to the article or anything specific that you'd like to cite as a reliable source or an example? I find Al Jazeera quite reliable. Andre🚐 08:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia protocol with contentious subjects like this. I just wondered if there was someone higher up the Wiki foodchain that might be able to adjudicate on additions to the article to make sure neutrality is maintained, if that makes sense. 2405:DA40:435D:4500:48A5:963C:B249:C5A7 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main examples in my mind is how articles relating to massacres committed by hamas are immediately labelled massacre and terrorism, but when Israel attacks 2 refugee camps it’s renamed to just “air strike” (see Shati camp masscare, which was renamed “air strike” even though the sources referred to it as a massacre). What part of bombing refugee camps isn’t considered terrorism? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter whether you or I think something is justified or horrible, it matters whether that term is described that way in the material. Please cite a specific source and then we can talk. Otherwise, WP:NOTFORUM. Andre🚐 09:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t really about opinions here, because the sources I cited for the air strikes referred to both the Shati and Jabalia refugee camp attacks as “massacres” yet it was all changed to “air strike”. I wonder if that wouldve happened if the Palestinians did it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a known systemic bias, just have to live with that. Need to examine the sourcing to see what's appropriate, not infrequently "massacre" articles get name changed when that is done. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas invaded the settlements? Or did they brutally murder and burn and strangle seven hundred people? What is this insanity?

I read the entry carefully. It's very embarrassing. In the entire first section it is not even accidentally mentioned that they murdered people in Israel. It doesn't say they shot babies. It is not written that they made a massacre. It is not written that girls were raped before they were murdered. All concepts are written in ambiguity: "invaded Israel", "breached the border", "there were attacks", "entered the settlements". Is this the English Wikipedia?! המבין (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make an edit request, please do so. Please supply reliable sources in support of any request. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sources? we don't accept original research as a source here Abo Yemen✉ 11:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas militants

not premised but is there proper proof that there were 1,500 bodies of hamas militants in Israel? you could write that Israel claims to have found 1500 bodies instead 1.178.117.172 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to news sources, the IDF claims to have found 1'500 bodies. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why no account of the documented rape in War Crimes section?

Sources :

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/israel-music-festival-massacre-eyewitness-account

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/h1jw11zfwt

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/inevitable-despicable-truth-behind-hamas-rampage/news-story/f5b3b46a49cce4054b345c386d93bb29

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/where-are-the-women-2/ Israeli women are fighting for their right to protect their children, protect their bodies, and sustain their lives. Women of the world who claim to care about global humanitarianism are watching terrorists burn Israeli girls alive, rip babies from mother’s hands, shoot children in front of their parents, rape women in the streets, and parade naked female bodies around Gaza — and they somehow can’t muster a word." 2A02:14F:1EE:2038:0:0:9E5E:2A16 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added this to the Militant incursions into Israel section. Once this is called a war crime, we can add it to that section as well. Alaexis¿question? 12:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk whether there is any basis to these allegations, has this been reported in any of the more well known news outlets? Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Title

Please note the title of this article is inaccurate and implies untrue content. The title needs to match the title of this same article in other Languages - "Hamas invasion of Israel" 2A02:8084:D002:A580:E5B9:38CC:C7DE:9468 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1179486551"