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 38.23.187.20 (talk) at 22:09, 10 October 2023 (→‎Deadliest terrorist attack in Israeli history?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 7 October 2023

Template:RM protected

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Move the article to 2023 Israel–Hamas war. See the extended explanation at the bottom. Fuzheado | Talk 21:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict → ? –
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]

  • Too early, we don't know where this will lead yet. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we need to wait for this is to take it's true form. But for now its just extreme tensions, not a all-out war. Snekaer (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps wait a bit for sources to come in that it is an all-out war, otherwise Wikipedia could be pre-emptive enough to make it be widely reported as an all-out war, and from there become an all-out war. Kleinerziegler (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, no need to escalate the situation ourselves. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point 72.195.236.88 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Renerpho (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point Catchphraseman (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Renerpho (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a bit. Note per NYT, "Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, a military spokesman. He told reporters that the military was not yet calling the events on Saturday a "war," even though Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, had already done so in an official statement." Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shall we move this to Hamas invasion of Israel on the lines 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. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This would violate WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE. Ghost finders (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect because Israel was, according to both the Israeli and Hamas government, invaded by Hamas. Both parties agree that this was an invasion. 66.210.172.66 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamas is not a country. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier See 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia Parham wiki (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, conflict/war is more appropriate. The invasion will consist of only a part of this entry. The scope of this entry consists and will consist of the entire conflict, even if it goes beyond Hamas’s invasion and into an Israeli invasion of Gaza. 2600:6C5A:44F0:2840:E0D3:58A8:5771:A49B (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamas's invasion of Israel is only part of the war between them, therefore, this page needs to reflect that reality. The Hamas's invasion does merit its own separate page. There is a page for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and separate page for the Russo-Ukrainian War. Lewis150 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 - hamas isn’t a country
    2 - This invasion isn’t even completely done by hamas but several armies. If “invasion of anything” Gaza invasion of Israel would be more accurate The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Great Mule of Eupatoria
    Yeah you may be right about it not needing to be a country, however you are saying it like the knesset were chilling at a tea party and then Gaza attacked. The conflict in Ukraine was localised, with 2 Russian backed separatists poking at ukraines side for 8 years before Russia decided to no longer hide the proxy war, while in Gaza the relation with Israel and what it had done to the population is terrible, they have had wars before. Comparing the Palestinian population in Gaza who have reach a boiling point and fed up with the disgusting treatment of the people while casting them under the blanket of hamas to an oligarchy invading a sovereign country to restore and old empire is not so cute The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Great Mule of Eupatoria Russo-Ukrainian War exists. But formal Invasion is defined in Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Similarly, Gaza–Israel conflict exists. This is about the major escalation by Hamas rather than the daily clashes. And if Israel attacked Gaza and jts citizens so did Hamas. They too were not having tea at the Palestine tower. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this 96.250.98.141 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now despite the "we're at war" comment, the media is still referring to it as a conflict, so it's still the WP:COMMONNAME. There isn't anything to gain by rushing to rename something that isn't widely used yet. It's also controversial to name it after Palestine when it's specifically Hamas that the issue is with. Waiting is the best option in my opinion.
    JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There's no real point in pretending the conflict is something it doesn't seem to be at this point. Catchphraseman (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This scenario always happens, and the answer is always to wait. Dege31 (talk) Dege31 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Gaza-Israel war - both sides have acknowledged this to go beyond just a simple operation and rather a war. RamHez (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that this should not be called a war with Palestine as this currently has nothing to do with most of Palestine (i.e. the West Bank). So 'Gaza' is correct, although IMO not really a war unless it lasts for a week or so Fig (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... Six-Day War 75.104.88.113 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. 41.109.187.110 (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shaan Sengupta, there are sources saying invasion:
    103.241.226.129 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially support. i think the article should be name “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” or at least an article about the operation should be created. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the State of Palestine even involved? They gave an ambivalent statement on the matter as far as I can tell, and titling the article as such if they are not in the war would be serious disinformation Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - conflict still the most commonly used term by external sources Xyphoid (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamas would not doubt be claiming that it is in response to some previous invasion by Israel and by this logic it would be never ending invasions and counter-invasions of each other. Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since 1948, ongoing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier Russo-Ukrainian War and Russian invasion of Ukraine both article exists. Whats going on since 1948 is a conflict. But this is a major escalation (won't call it war as advised above). There are articles on conflicts going on since 1948. There is a difference in both. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If one renames Israel-Palestine conflict (the whole thing) as Israel-Palestine war, then this is just a part of that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but not relevant to here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support this, it seems to accurately describe this situation rn - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps but are sources calling it a war? Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The words Invasion and war are different. They dont have same exact meaning. Since sources are calling/not calling it a war that's why I suggested Invasion. Because this is what it is. Shaan SenguptaTalk 12:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources are calling it (naming it) an invasion? Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier I never said sources calling it. I said that's what (invasion) it is. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier Anyways, sources say that Hamas has invaded/incursed/attacked Israel.
    There are many more. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with the term invasion if it would be an official proposal. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we procedurally close this for now as WP:SK #6. S5A-0043Talk 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too early to tell how the situation will evolve, and whether "war" is the right terminology to use. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - This does seem likely to turn into a war, but in that case the proper title would be 2023 Gaza War in line with precedent from 2014 and 2008, or if the conflict widens beyond the Gaza area, then we will have to see what RS call it. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be called the Gaza War, when the initial attack and the first couple days of killings happened in Israel? 50.170.15.214 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — 2023 Gaza war exists. An article for the attack should not be voided. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Will be deleted shortly. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been redirected to this article. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally predict that there will be a separate article on the surprise attack. I'd wait until more coverage develops for it though because of WP:TOOSOON. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Israel declared a state of war because of the Islamist intrusion. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Gaza War Israel said it is a war and title would be in line with the previous two Gaza wars. EkoGraf (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such a title is too limiting since the attacks on Israel (especially the incursions into Israel by militants) including as our article say territory that is de jure Israel, are generally considered a key part of the conflict/war as they are more significant than any attacks on Israel for a long time. The previous 2 Gaza wars primarily involved fighting within Gaza. Perhaps things will change over time, but we can only go by how things stand at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The PLO or Fatah aren't involved as far as I know, it would be very disingenuous to call this a "Palestine-Israel War". ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fatah and the PLO have no trademark on "Palestinian". One side of this conflict is obviously and widely referred to as Palestinian. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Hezbollah has now started in the clashes so it's not localized to Gaza. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too early. PLO or Fatah are not supporting as yet so calling it Palestine−Israel war is not right at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If anything, it would be a Hamas-Israel war, since the PLO and the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank don't appear to be joining in. The extent of Hezbollah's involvement appears to be a generic statement of support for Hamas (just like Iran), but they don't appear to be involved in the attacks at this time, so the proposed move is to the wrong page. I would support 2023 Gaza War, however, for these reasons and for those given by EkoGraf. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chiming in to say I've been seeing CTV News use "Hamas–Israel war" in their headlines on TV. Rowing007 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No instead we should title it Gaza Israel war 2023. Tesla car owner (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not an improvement. That said, 2023 Gaza-Israel War may be warranted soon. If not already. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Palestine", because the West Bank hasn't been involved. Gaza's got its own political system for a long time. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think "Israel" would need to be in the title (e.g, "Gaza–Israel"), as much of the fighting has occurred on Israeli territory. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense for me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. There has been an official declaration of war by Israel. This is a full-on war not a simple conflict. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: conflict remains the most commonly used term in external sources. It is a part of the Gaza–Israel conflict which has been ongoing for a long time, see for example Military operations of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It might get to the stage of the Gaza War (2008–2009) or the 2014 Gaza War, but we must not rush. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information - There are two contentious issues here, probably the result of a rush of editors new to editing current events articles. This requested move is about a specific title, and not about the general observation of whether this is a war or not. The question being asked is whether "2023 Palestine−Israel war" is the right title. Secondly, titles of articles are generally goverened by WP:COMMONNAME which states, "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." There is a lot of WP:OR or personal reflection on a war-related title here rather than citing sources. Until mainstream news sources start using a "war" label consistently, you may find staying with the current name more prudent. Looking at this list may be instructive: List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. This is all to say that breaking out a new discussion section just around the "war" label may be useful, because expressing all those opinions into the mix of this RM just makes it more confusing for all. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaza is enclaved and supported by Palestine Pooqn (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaza is internationally recognized as an exclave of Palestine, but has been controlled by a separate entity (Hamas) since 2007. Hamas caused the attack, not the PLO, and conflating both here would be disingenuous. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Palestine Israel War. Strongly support Gaza Israel War. Gaza is only a part of Palestine and does not include West Bank. However this is still a war as Israel has entered a state of war. Ecrusized (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support calling this a war since it is one, but I'm not sure about that specific title. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Support: I believe it would be more appropriate to change the article's name to 2023 Israel Hamas war since the war is not happening in the West Bank. EloquentEditor (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Hamas isn't the only Palestinian group participating in this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is the main belligerent and initiator of the conflict/war/invasion. Gaza is more of a geographic term, and it is ruled by Hamas. Hezbollah is supporting Hamas' operation with air strikes but has not inflicted direct land-based warfare against Israel. Along with that, the fighting in the West Bank are as a result of Hamas' operation, and are insurgencies that could not be considered a deliberate, organized military operation. Dark Energy9 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Support for 2023 Gaza War. A Palestine War would imply that it has the support of the entire PA including whatever passes for its entire military structure. Borgenland (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the fighting yet has took place on Israeli areas, not Gaza. 2001:1970:50E1:E300:0:0:0:139D (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. We don't know how long this conflict will last, or how much it will escalate. No need to hurry. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Far too early to make a call on what to call this.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is way too early. I would like to note that it doesn't really matter what Netanyahu calls it, it only matters what reliable sources refer to it as, and at this point they are not using the term war other than when quoting the prime minister. Agree that the "gaza-israel" part should be changed however. Yeoutie (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Support Hamas-Israel as the parties involved. Yeoutie (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Call it what it is: Hamas attacking Israel and Israel defending itself. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for following wikipedia’s unbiased policy, huh 78.171.44.45 (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — As others have already said, it is too early to call it a "war", in terms of usage of that word in reliable sources and also the scale of the conflict. Yue🌙 17:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Israel has declared a state of war. What is happening is more unprecedented than the 2006 Lebanon War (yes, "war"!) I'm perplexed why people insist on calling it the clunky title it has now. -- Veggies (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Thus far the war does not involve Palestine at large. Gaza is only one of the Palestinian regions and Hamas is only one of its organizations. (That said, I would prefer a less clunky title than the current name.) AbbotOfLeibowitz (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except Hamas isn't the only org involved in this war Abo Yemen✉ 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's too early to call it a war, and too early to tell where the conflict is going to go. - RockinJack18 18:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah agreed. Barring official declarations of war by both sides, naming something a war is best done in retrospect a few weeks or months down the line. Hard to call where this conflict/invasion will go. Unfortunately my gut does think this is going the direct of war, but we don't know that yet, and the sources aren't really supporting it yet. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Israeli-Palestinian war. "War" because Israel itself has called it as such. "Israeli-Palestinian" because this already involves Gaza, and Palestinian militants in the West Bank have been regularly clashing with Israeli troops.VR talk 19:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support It's obvious by now its a full blown war.Weatherextremes (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, but it'd be good to have this discussion again at a later time. Most reliable sources still call it a conflict, and until that changes (and therefore so does the WP:COMMONNAME) I'm reluctant to support a page move at this time. Wikipedia has a lot of power when it comes to article titles, so it's important to be sure of these things. Deauthorized. (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Palestine" is both POV in this context and also inaccurate, as it reflects a war between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that currently is not underway, and/or a war between Israel and the land comprising the former Palestine Mandate, which it now controls, which is nonsensical. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Comments made which state that we do not know where this will lead and the main news are referring to this under this nomenclature. Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This case is not like the previous Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. It has a much larger dimension, with a high number of deaths on both sides in only one day. Israel has declared a state of war; and, in addition, it is taking place beyond the Gaza Strip and the surrounding area. Salvabl (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - too early to tell if this is a COMMONNAME or if this is even a war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support move to 2023 Gaza-Israel War. Proposal seems to be in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Sources describe it as a war between Gaza and Israel, and this seems accurate to describe it as such. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon - pretty obvious we may well get there, but there's no reason to jump the gun. Retswerb (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it a considered a war yet? Cwater1 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's definitely becoming more large-scale with the expansion of Hamas controlled area in Israel because of the Hamas offensive and the large Israeli strikes in Gaza, so it's more of a war than just clashes at this point. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative as 2023 Gaza-Israel War. It is almost certainly a war at this point, but fighting is still localized around Gaza and doesn't exactly warrant being referred to as "Palestine-Israel"/"Israel-Palestine", at least until we start seeing action around the West Bank. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    News sources do not call that, as wikipedia editors we can’t simply give events their names as it’s a violation of WP:OR. 78.171.44.45 (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all sides declaring as such. Ultimograph5 (talk)
  • Support as Netanyahu has declared that Israel in state of war and Hamas invasion of Israel is a good idea. As some part of West Bank is under Israeli Occupation while Gaza Strip is unitedly under Hamas Control. Lionel Messi Lover (talk)
  • Oppose any move for now but support 2023 Gaza-Israel War should RS start calling it a war. (ps: strongly oppose any title that includes "Palestine" since Fatah (e.g. half of Palestine) is not a belligerent in this conflict) Dan the Animator 00:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose War against whom exactly? Where is the declaration of war and who made it? Why are some so anxious to call this an official "war"? The ink isn't even dry on the story. Perhaps an encyclopedia should follow and not lead? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As previously stated, not all of Palestine is directly involved in this conflict, just Gaza. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A state of war has been acknowledged by governmental entities. This is a war between two de facto states, regardless of anyone's position, and is therefore unambiguously such.
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: Still too early to be calling this. (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL) Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment War has been declared, but isn't this only the Gaza half of Palestine? To my understanding, they are under separate leadership. Bremps... 00:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of Information Capitalized War as in American Civil War or lowercase war as in Syrian civil war? Bremps... 15:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is not enough information to support this change as of now. I'm open to revisiting the subject as more information appears in RS to justify calling it by the proposed name. For example, how much non-Gaza Palestinian involvement have we seen shown in sources? AlexEng(TALK) 01:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially Support Israeli has decarded a state of war and newspapers are reporting the declaration.[1] Israeli does not recognize Palestine and, therefore, cannot and has not declared war against Palestine. Lewis150 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We still hgavent received the official and de facto military reaction from West Bank, Fatah and PLO (even though one or two members of PLO seems to have involved in conflict, not all) therefore how can we say it is Israel-Palestine when half of Palestine yet still haven't involved?Eventually, West Bank will get involved too but I can not state in this course how will they get involved in. But wake me up when clashes start to occur inside and around West Bank. Cactus Ronin (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait -- User Veggies brought up the 2006 Lebanon War, but that lasted for 34 days, and is called a war in most reliable sources (and by both parties and most neutral observers). There is no minimum for how long a war can take, and we don't know yet how long this conflict/war will last, but most sources still call this a conflict. If we eventually decide to move, I agree with Dantheanimator's reason to prefer 2023 Gaza-Israel War (and to strongly oppose the currently proposed move). Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PrimaPrime's alternative 2023 Gaza War may be even better. Renerpho (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However the war is not taking place in Gaza, it is in Israel. For now at least. 2001:1970:50E1:E300:0:0:0:139D (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly support the removal of "October". The year is enough. Renerpho (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed the order: It should be 2023 Israel−Palestine War, per WP:AND. The current article title doesn't follow that guideline either. Renerpho (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I just struck my "wait" vote, and commented again below to explain the change. Renerpho (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Until farther development. See where it leads and if it's materialize. Mathsquare (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on what this article ought to be called, but apparently a reminder of policy is necessary: we don't decide facts ourselves. We describe things as they are described by sources. The only factor in naming this article is what sources are calling it. Don't !vote based on your own opinion of whether it should be called a war. That's original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, can this be closed as a "no"? This will allows users to open a new move discussion with the word "war" but without the word "Palestine". Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not necessary. If we find that there is consensus for a move to any of the alternatives, the closing user can choose to move to that. I also don't think it would be a great idea to start a new move request immediately after this one has been closed, at least not if the consensus is to wait. Renerpho (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unless an actual declaration of war is made, we should probably wait until either the conflict ends, or a month from now, whichever is earlier.
    @Animal lover 666: Please don't forget to sign your edits.[2] Renerpho (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears now Hezbollah is involved making it more than an Gaza-Israel conflict. Completely Random Guy (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Israel incursion, inline with articles like those listed at 2023 Nablus incursion, 2023 Jenin incursion; it is both accurate and takes into account that this has now spread beyond Palestine with the intervention of Hezbollah. BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about the missile attacks on other israeli cities & the air bombardment of gaza? This article’s name needs to cover all scopes of the war 78.171.44.45 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2023 Arab−Israeli War since it is more than just Palestinian forces now GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Its a war between Gaza (Hamas terrorists) and Israel nation. So we should title the article as Gaza Israel war 2023 or just Gaza Israel war. Whoever saying it's not war, should read speech of Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, he said "We're at war". Its an unprecedented terrorist attack on the country. Source - [ https://abcnews.go.com/].
  • Oppose for now. The conflict is recent, media coverage hasn't generally referred to it as a 'war', and Palestine as a state hasn't been militarily involved as of yet. Best to wait for official Palestinian pronouncements and/or further developments. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To anyone suggesting an alternative name, please try to cast a support !vote with the suggested alternative name instead of an oppose !vote. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too early, let the dust settle for a few days and reliable sources will have a clearer understanding that we can use.Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed title is somewhat erratic because it resembles a war between a geographic region and a state. It's like New England–Massachussetts war. However the actual name is also erratic. While it is possible to name a war after a region, e.g. Gaza war, we can't name it Gaza–Israek war as well for the same reason. Hamas–Israel war isn't good also becaus there are several more groups involved. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Palestine is the common name of the State of Palestine and it doesn't refer to a geographic region (at least in our case) Abo Yemen✉ 12:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The security cabinet of Israel has officially declared and referred to the conflict as a "war", thus it is now officially considered such. SlySabre (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WAPO< "Israel’s declaration of war, a mostly symbolic formality, would allow the government to enact a wider mobilization of military reserves and compel the government to identify specific wartime objectives, raising the specter of a ground invasion of Gaza." Anyway, what counts is not what Israel says but what most sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's too early for that. NoNAja (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Too Soon - It is not November yet. Cwater1 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all of Palestine is participating, just the Gaza strip. Andro611 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    btw Hezbollah isn't in Gaza Abo Yemen✉ 18:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - it's difficult to say what history will think of this conflict. For now, I think the current title is best. A year from now? Who knows? --B (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Declaration of war was approved so it makes sense to call this a war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any title that conflicts Hamas and Palestine; they are different entities. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative: Many news sources and experts are calling this a Third Intifada. It should be moved to such under WP:COMMONNAME. AmericanBaath (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as this is being called a war and even the Israel PM approved the declaration of war on Oct 8 Efuture2 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 2023 Arab−Israeli War. Israel has declared a state of war. Major Israeli officials (president, PM etc) say that the country is at war. However, it is worth considering and labeling the second side of the conflict. It is the Palestinian Arab factions. But it is not a Palestinian state. PLATEL (talk) 21:41, 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]
Strong Support - 2023 Gaza-Israel War. Teutonkahmun (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 2023 Gaza-Israel War. There's been numerous conflicts where war was NOT declared, and with similar casualties, that have been called a war. The Football War, for instance. Lisanicolas (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It should be classified as a war now 76.67.100.214 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "2023 Gaza-Israel War" or "2023 Hamas-Israel War". Arakui (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It make sense about the attack occurred outside Gaza, so the second choice won't fit. The first choice also fair, but there was attacks outside the Palestine regions (Southern Lebanon). The third one might be fair as the Palestinian side are all Arab. I have no choice. Toadette (let's chat together) 18:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can add new suggestions if you want to Abo Yemen✉ 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: 2023 Arab–Israel War seems the best title right now. All the Palestinian territories are involved as well as Arab operatives in Lebanon. There has been a(n informal?) declaration of war and the violence/mobilization is on par with previous wars in the region. natemup (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 palestine war: Nope, because its focused on Gaza, not Palestine as a whole. Also vague.
2023 Palestine–Israel War: See the above.
2023 Gaza–Israel War: better.
2023 Arab–Israel War: Yes, let's drag ethnicity into this.[sarcasm]
Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

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

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]
  • Oppose So far only the Gaza Strip is involved. --Synotia (moan) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    as @Parham wiki said, Hezbollah is not in Gaza Abo Yemen✉ 14:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor is Iran. -- GreenC 15:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the Gaza strip is de facto controlled by Hamas politically and militarily. Other military organizations should be considered at the same level as Wagner in Russia's Invasion of Ukraine, and the Hezbollah are aiding Hamas' operation with air strikes, with not nearly as much military involvement as Hamas. Iran, while supporting the conflict, is not at all directly involved at the moment. Dark Energy9 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but as 2023 Gaza–Israel War. This is a war, and it is being recognized as such by the media. --(Roundish ⋆t) 15:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose title as proposed, but support 2023 Gaza war or 2023 Gaza–Israel war. “Palestine” in this case is inaccurate, as it seemingly implies the West Bank/PA is involved when they simply put are not. For now, it’s just Hamas in Gaza. The Kip 16:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that means you support the renaming of the article; you should change it to "Support 2023 Gaza war or 2023 Gaza–Israel war." without the oppose Abo Yemen✉ 17:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it stands today, this is war with Hamas. Hence, Hamas must be in the title. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Atm, NYT is running its live commentary as "Israel Gaza conflict", WAPO/AJ as "Israel Hamas conflict", Guardian as "Israel Hamas war", AP/Reuters as "Hamas attack" so nocon there either. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support War was officially declared by Israel for the first time in 50 years so it is a war. Someone Not Awful (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it should be something more like "Gaza-Israel War" or "Hamas-Isreal War" instead since the conflict is only between Gaza and Isreal and does not include either the West Bank nor the government of the State of Palestine? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a rename to "2023 Gaza-Israel War", but Oppose a rename to "2023 Palestine-Israel War" - I support changing the conflict part of the name to war and removing "October" since this is the most significant conflict of the year there and could extend past this month. However, I think that changing "Gaza" to "Palestine" is unnecessary and overly exaggerates the extent of the conflict, since only the Gaza strip has been involved so far. It if extends outside of Gaza, then it can be changed to Palestine. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 19:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a rename to "2023 Gaza-Israel War" per declaration and above comments.Spilia4 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "2023 Gaza war" would be more appropriate محرر البوق (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to 2023 Gaza-Israel War. My preference is 2023 Hamas-Israel War due to the declaration of the war being officially towards Hamas. Moreover, "Palestine" perceives that all Palestinian parties, such as Hezbollah, have an active role in the conflict. Unlike the invasion of Ukraine, Hamas is more widely known than Putin, let alone the United Russia party, and considering on an ancillary note the lack of UN member status for Palestine, and attributing the war to Israel and Hamas as the two primary belligerents through nearly all the sources previously stated (as well as others including CNN, CNBC, Deutsche Welle, Chinese State Media, the WSJ, and ABC Australia), I'd say that Hamas is the best belligerent in the title. Given Hamas' governance over Gaza, though, I'd say that Gaza would be an alternative if Hamas is not suitable for inclusion in the title, hence my first sentence. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Hamas is most definitely the main belligerent. Dark Energy9 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative move to 2023 Gaza War. Multiple sources refer to this as a war and this title adjusts to the current location of combats avoiding to decide between Hamas or Palestine. A lot of reports warn that Israel will start a land invasion of the Gaza Strip, but it is too soon to assume that other fronts will be openned. In case of that, there will be time to find another name. Anyway, I strongly support to add war and remove October from the title. The current escalation is more comparable in the number of casualities and impact to the Six-day War rather than to the May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes. Basque mapping (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the title 2023 Hamas-Israel War or similar. Seems that the conflict hasn't escalated to the West Bank yet and has been mostly Hamas and other smaller aligned groups against Israel.LordLoko (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering if the name shouldn't be "2023 Gazan–Israeli War" instead. As my explanation, I want to point out that names of conflicts usually have adjectives. For example, ongoing conflict in Europe is described as "Russo-Ukrainian War" or "Russian-Ukrainian War" instead of "Russia-Ukraine War". And the same goes to most of wars in history.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is clear that both parties recognize this conflict as a war. I'd prefer a move to 2023 Gaza War. TheInevitables (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Since Israel has declared a state of war. Johnson524 21:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now since decleration of war has been officially issued. ♦ jaguar 22:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it's clearly a war, both sides are calling it that. Also, Israel has now formally declared itself in a state of war. I would support move to either 2023 Israel−Palestine War or 2023 Gaza War. GWA88 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as Israel has outright made a declaration of war, though I also think that some of the alternative names suggested here would be viable as well.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ~ HAL333 23:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as both sides are calling it a war. Strong Oppose to "2023 Gaza War" because fighting is taking place in Israel as well. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johndavies837: would you support moving to the title "2023 Gaza-Israel war"?VR talk 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support page move to 2023 Palestine−Israel War, as per the recent formal declaration of war. Deauthorized. (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deauthorized: would you support moving to the title "2023 Gaza-Israel war"?VR talk 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd rather have the page moved to 2023 Hamas-Israel War as Israel declared war on specifically Hamas, not Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Bottom Text (talk • contribs) 01:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Struck per Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA. — MaterialWorks 14:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with modification' -- it should be the '2023 Hamas-Israel War', per the above comment. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. With Hezbollah involved, this goes beyond Hamas. Mihibo5 (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support "2023 Gaza War" or '2023 Hamas-Israel War', but not "Palestine−Israel War" at this point. One should realize however that other sides (like Hezbolah) are likely to join. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They joined Abo Yemen✉ 13:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as either 2023 Gaza war or 2023 Gaza–Israel war. It's been two days now. Both sides have made statements calling it a war, and multiple major media sources are referring to it as a war. — N2e (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as 2023 Gaza-Israel war or Third Intifada. An official declaration of war is being signed, it's hard to call it anything else. 64.43.152.30 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Struck per Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA. — MaterialWorks 14:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conflict is too vague. Insurgency, intifada, invasion, massacre & war are much better descriptors. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "2023 Gaza-Israel War"; the problem with having October in the title is that this could easily last well beyond October.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current title incorrectly uses a minus sign (−) instead of a dash (–). For the proper symbol used, see Gaza–Israel conflict. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "2023 Gaza–Israel war" seems reasonable enough to me and I think it would be worth closing this RM sooner rather than later at that, given there's obviously no consensus for anything else and that in all recent votes there has been complete WP:SNOW support for both removing the "October" and for changing the "conflict" to "war". It looks vaguely silly for Wikipedia to be avoiding the term "war" whilst every notable source uses that. It's hard to summarize the result of a RM whilst events are changing so quickly after all- would be quite easy to move it to 2023 Gaza–Israel war for now and be open to a future RM changing that to something like Palestine–Israel if the core area of the fighting spreads. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the Lebanese Hezbollah is also a part of this war and Lebanon shares no borders with Gaza Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is- the title being "2023 XXX war" is not controversial; there's no full consensus on what the XXX should be but a decent amount of support for the "Gaza-Israel" status quo. As a result a quick move to "2023 Gaza-Israel war" would be better than the current title and there is no controversy about dropping the "October" and changing the "conflict" to "war", and still leaves the possibility open of a future move depending on the spread of the conflict ("2023 Palestine-Israel war" might end up more appropriate depending on the scale of Hezbollah intervention) Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah that's basically almost everyone here in this discussion Abo Yemen✉ 14:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you include them? they aren't very involved in the land-based fighting. Between 2023 Gaza–Israel/2023 Hamas–Israel War and something else that includes Hezbollah—like 2023 Arab–Israel War or something—there's not very many easy ways to convey in a title that Hezbollah is involved, and using the term "Arab," or something of the sort, as the term for the side of Hamas, is far too easily-misinterpreted and disingenuous. The main belligerent is Hamas; Hamas rules over Gaza; so something with the term Hamas or Gaza would be ideal. Dark Energy9 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I already voted above, so this is just a summary of my current position. I would like to add a reminder that the first option does not follow the WP:AND guideline, which asks for entities to be listed in alphabetical order in such cases. That is, it should be 2023 Israel–Palestine War, not 2023 Palestine–Israel War, should that option be chosen. It is my impression that a consensus is forming to make some move, and I have struck my vote to "wait" that I gave earlier. I am uncertain what the best option would be, but I definitely support that the word "October" should be removed, any typos (minus vs. dash symbol) corrected, and I now weakly support the word "war" in the title. Renerpho (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chessrat: Was this intended as a reply to Abo Yemen, or to my comment? Maybe move it accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, there was evidently an edit clash. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All good. :) Renerpho (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "2023 Israel–Palestine War" All the major news sources in different languages and different sources call it a war. I have seen WP:RS call it Hamas-Israel war but as far as I understand the Palestinian Authority has stated it has received a declaration of war too and there has been fighting in East Jerusalem as well, meaning the West Bank is also involved. There's also Iranian and Hezbollah notable involvement too. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 2023 Israel–Palestine War. That's really what this is, as of the moment. -- GreenC 15:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This war is only in Gaza. Arab–Israel War and Palestine–Israel War is technically wrong.--Sunfyre (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    so this means that you support "2023 Gaza-Israel war" Abo Yemen✉ 16:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Gazan–Israeli War
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) Changed my view Wiki6995 (talk) 18:24, 10 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]
    That's precisely and exactly why I am in opposition to the change. Lunaroxas (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about 2023 Gaza-Israel conflict? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 10 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]
@XavierItzm: would you support "2023 Gaza-Israel war"?VR talk 12:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:Yes, of course. 2023 Gaza-Israel war OK. XavierItzm (talk) 13:55, 10 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]
Edit: to follow WP:COMMONNAME, it should be Hamas–Israel War (2023). Dark Energy9 (talk) 21:02, 10 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]
  • Support 2023 Gaza-Israel war - Gaurdian is saying it's a war. UNICEF has mentioned it as a war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this "This vile enemy wanted war and it will get war" :Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Gaza-Israel war, at least for now. This has been declared a war, and numerous sources have stated that it is a war. As of right now, however, only Hamas seems to be involved. If that changes (like the PLO or Hezbollah declaring war, or major fighting moves outside the Gaza Strip), I would support a move to 2023 Palestine-Israel War. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Gaza-Israel War. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Palestine-Israel War Dont deny the obvious. It is a full-scale war. The current title is extremely biased and ignores numerous Palestinian and non-Palestinian insurgent organizations that have joined the war. Fighting is occuring in West Bank and various parts of occupied Palestine. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:17, 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]
  • Suport 2023 Gaza-Israel War Ultimograph5 (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – in response to multiple requests, I made an uncontroversial formatting correction to the page title (changing Gaza–Israel to an en dash instead of a hyphen). This should not affect the RM. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We don't yet know what this is. Give it a bit of time. WonderCanada (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - War has officially been declared. IJA (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 2023 Gaza-Israel War, length of time does not indicate the status of a conflict, declaration of war indicates that the article should be moved. Plifal (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose "Palestine-Israel war", mildly oppose "Gaza-Israel war". "Palestine-Israel war" isn't the WP:COMMONNAME, and is a bad NPOV violation because it misstates the participants in this conflict, laying blame on uninvolved parties. The war declaration was against Hamas:
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]
@Chessrat: I agree that RS seem to use all three of those combinations and its not yet clear which of them, if any, are used by majority of sources.VR talk 12:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Gaza-Israel war per others above.VR talk 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using the term "war". For example, 2023 Gaza-Israel war or 2023 Gaza war would be ok. Wikisaurus (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The RFC wording was changed half way through? Theoretically this means that all the !voters prior to that should be pinged and avised to reconsider their votes. Actually, I think the original wording should be restored, it is bad practice to change an RFC question after replies have been made.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Given the speed of progression of events, I don't think it makes sense to consider the earliest votes as being relevant at all, given that the earliest discussion happened before the declaration of war even happened. This RM has now been open for three days and events have developed massively over the course of those three days, and whoever closes it needs to bear that in mind. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not for editors to decide whose vote is relevant and whose not. Maybe a completely new RM will be needed as a result. The closer will decide it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Name the article, "The Simchat Torah Massacre". Hat599 (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for possible name change, but suggesting more alphabetical name: I do not see the logic of using "Palestine" before in title. If there is going to be name change, then I would bat for 2023 Israel–Palestine war or "2023 Hamas–Israel war/conflict". I would cite WP:AND for this statement for my proposal.
  • Support 2023 Hamas-Israel war per DHlfb; Strongly Oppose 2023 Gaza-Israel War and 2023 Palestine-Israel War. The war is very specifically between Hamas and Israel, not the Palestinian Authority. Even framing the war as being between "Gaza" and Israel is misleading and implies collective responsibility for the actions of Hamas by all Gazans - that is embedded with bias. FlipandFlopped ツ 17:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT A MOMENT, ERRORS ARE BEING MADE Many people are expressing opinions, which is fine. Almost nobody is following WP-COMMONNAME even though they cite it. While putting "2023 (something)" might be a Wikipedia tradition, it fails WP-COMMONNAME. If Wikipedia wants to keep it's ways then maybe "Something (2023)" might be barely acceptable.
BBC, Sky News, CBS, CNN, Al Jazeera, Channel News Asia, New York Times and PBS all use Israel-Hamas War or Israel-Hamas war. CNBC uses Israel-Hamas conflict. Nobody uses 2023. Based on this information, the Wikipedia title should be Israel-Hamas War or Israel-Hamas War (2023) with a possible referral link to "not to be confused with....and list other Israel conflicts with Hamas or Gaza.
But if Wikipedia wants to be weird, then go ahead with lots of made up names and go ahead violate WP-COMMONNAME 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Factchecker 0001 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The war is no longer just isolated with gaza with clashes in the west bank, golan and northern israel also reported. We should update the name to reflect this reality. Scu ba (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2023 Arab–Israeli war since it is part of the same spiral of violence. Dl.thinker (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended summary of RM close

The decision has been made to move the article to 2023 Israel–Hamas war. There are three major questions to resolve here, based on WP:COMMONNAME as used by WP:RS and the sound reasoning of those particpating in the move discussion – 1) Is "war" the common term being used to refer to this event? 2) If so, what do reliable sources use as a term to refer to the event? 3) Do we need a year as per WP:NCEVENTS? Addressing these individually:

  1. WAR: The requested move was initiatited shortly after the article was started. The RM conversation was then affected by Netanyahu informally saying, "We are at war," [3] and not long after that, the Israeli cabinet made an official declaration of war [4], leading to yet another direction in the RM discussion. Therefore, in evaluating the RM, we must remember it is not a straight vote, as WP:RMNOMIN says to evaluate arguments, "assigning due weight accordingly." The consensus clearly went towards calling this a "war" as an article title.
  2. TERM: As shown in the analysis of sources below, the overwhelming majority of English news outlets use "Israel-Hamas war" as of 20:00 UTC, October 10, 2023. Some news outlets are inconsistent, such as the NY Times and Al Jazeera. "Israel-Hamas war" is not only what Wikipedia:Reliable sources use, but news outlets focusing on the constituents rather than the geographic entities makes sense. The war is not with "Gaza" per se, but with the militants of which Hamas is the most prominent. There were a number of novel and new titles suggested by Wikipedia users for the conflict that don't appear in any reliable sources (using Arab, Palestine, or Gazan, for example). This is a reminder that using any of these when news outlets are not is not consistent with WP:NCEVENTS and would be considered original research.
  3. YEAR: The consensus leans towards including the year given the responses. The actual Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) policy also says, "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." There have been enough conflicts between Israel and Hamas over the years that "easily" does not accurately describe this scenario. (Additionally, Wikipedia already has an article titled Gaza–Israel conflict, which describes events from 2006 onwards, so using the year for this article helps distinguish it from that one.) We can always revisit this later if the opinion changes.

Conclusion

Given the above, the title 2023 Israel–Hamas war is the one appropriate at this given moment. As the situation and facts change, so might the title of this article.

Anaylsis of reliable news sources on the war naming issue

  • Israel-Hamas war
  • Hamas-Israel war
  • Israel-Gaza War
    • NY Times (sometimes) - [20]
    • BBC News - [21]
    • Al Jazeera (previously) - [22]
  • Other or indeterminate
    • NPR - [23] (war with Hamas)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzheado (talk • contribs) 21:11,10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Shouldn't it be in alphabetical order, as "2023 Hamas–Israel war"? See 1948 Arab–Israeli War, 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, Gaza–Israel conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Arab–Israeli conflict. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:06, 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]
  • Regardless of the comments above, the cited sources[24][25][26] clearly don't support the claim of "numerous cases of sexual violence against Israeli women", so that claim should be removed unless a different source can be found to support it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Des Vallee: I see that you've removed the "not in citation given" tag. Could you please explain which part of the source you believe supports the claim of "numerous cases of wartime sexual violence"? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: Hey, The Telegraph source documents a woman of German citizenship being paraded naked, "The naked body of a woman was paraded in the back of a pickup truck." (...) "Some in the crowd which included youngsters spat on the woman's body." This counts as sexual violence specifically sexually humiliation, her names was Shani Louk, although she was not alive when she was being paraded. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Des Vallee: That sounds like one case of sexual violence, but I still don't see support for the claim of numerous cases. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: Perhaps then a better wording is available, or more citations to be necessary. The one does document substantial sexual violence. Des Vallee (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it's pretty misleading. Most people would assume that sexual violence would refer to sexual assault or rape against a living victim. This would more accurately be described as desecration of a body rather than wartime sexual violence 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual violence is not limited to being alive, necrophilia as an example is considered a form of sexual violence, despite the affected individual being dead. Likewise mutilation of a body for sexual purposes is also considered a form of sexual violence, and the given source describes her body as mutilated. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
The Times is describes the situation at the festival by Re'im thusly: People were shot at point-blank range, survivors tell of women being raped then killed. That people were raped is a bit less explosive, all things considered, than the fact that 260 civilians were intentionally killed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:55, 10 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]

I DIASGREE - CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC, Channel News Asia, New York Times, Sky News are all going against this and using reverse order. They are using Israel - Hamas War or Israel-Hamas war. Wikipedia should not make up its own language. 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker 0001 (talk • contribs)

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 [27]). It has been contentious for a long, long time among experts. See here[28], here[29], and here[30] 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]
i disagree, the actions under taken that day are by definition terrorist acts. there is no argument about it, only from terrorist apologists and sympathizers. are you one of them? Mark28482 (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My views, as are yours, are irrelevant to how we frame articles. You can disagree all you like but we don't edit Wikipedia on the basis of our personal feelings. You can disagree, but academic scholarship takes precedent over your (or my) opinion. Yr Enw (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following sentence, back by two WP:RS, is added to the article and timeline article appropriately.
In the afternoon of October 10, President of the United States Joe Biden announced that "Hamas has set a goal of killing Jews".[1][2]

I think it's fairly clear that the use of "militant" is safe to use, as tons of WP:RS use it as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:50, 10 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]
Do you have a source supporting that second statement? eyal (talk) 13:18, 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]
Don’t even bother, these dudes will do anything to distance Hamas from their obvious barbarism. HailSatanLightbringer (talk) 20:48, 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]
Yes, Chile for example is a OECD country. I don't like the term western myself though. I prefer developed. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woa, of course Latin America is the West, culturally and geographically. Looking at the Wikipedia page, it is striking how the entire argument that it is not relies on… references to Samuel Huntington’s work! Paragraph after paragraph of material "explaining” why it is not the West all rely on Huntington. I should edit that page and bring other perspectives. In the meantime, for the purposes of this page, yes, Mathilda, Latin America is part of the West. XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 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.[31] 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]
    • @Makeandtoss: and @Iskandar323:. Do you agree with the summarization?VR talk 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. There should probably be no individual statements or quotes in the lead at all. It's already far too bloated and a long way divergent from the summary-style form it is meant to take. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree. The three sources that have cited excerpts from his 10-minute statements have taken different sentences, but all of them have focused on his references to the occupation, which the summary above omits. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A middle ground would be "Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join the fight against the occupiers." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm ok with that and I'll post that.VR talk 21:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest terrorist attack in Israeli history?

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

@Undescribed A terror attack is an attack carried specifically on civilians of a certain country / or people, in order to hurt or kill them.
Usually careied by extremists, intended to slaughter civilians, *to promote their agenda / ideals*, and literally "Installing terror onto the streets".
A declerance of war, is a country attacking another, and attacking the other's *military*, to seize land, and control the population. Not to slaughter them.
Usually in order to hurt the other side, and win specific things such as a complete control over the country, a weakening of the country, seizing specific land (See nagorno-karabakh), and more.
A WAR ON TERROR / WAR INCLUDING TERROR, is a war in which a terror organisation/entity, such is Hamas, is involved. Hamas slaughters civilians and innocents to promote his political agenda, and is controlling a certain amount of land (See Gaza Strip), and is, de facto, a country.
And when a large scale armed conflict, and with two entities fighting from their controlled areas, it's war.
When at least one side is using violence, mass murder, and yes, literally, "Terror", on the other side, it's a war including terror.
Again,
The terms are broad, blurry, and general, yet usually when the term "War on Terror" is used, it's specify a terror organisation, involved in a large-scale, armed conflict, consisting of two different entities, usually fighting from their controlled land (Usually); in which the terror organisation uses its arms to kill innocents of the other side, to promote their political agenda/Ideologies.
An example for a war including terror, is WW2 and the Holocaust. When Nazi Germany invaded several countries (War), and used its power and reasources in order to enslave, starve and slaughter population they regard as enemies of theirs (Thus promoting their political agenda with murder: Terror), such as Jews, Gays, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Communists, etc.
  • NOTE: The difference between a war and a military operation, is that a war is usually a large-scale armed fight, while an operation is a smaller one.
  • NOTE: Again, the terms are broad, in some cases even refrencing the same thing, and in some cases meaning two completely different things.
רם אבני (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • It is generally described as a terrorist attack in most RS, but the question is legitimate, see e.g. here. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: I originally removed this comment because I did not see a reference to anything that's actually been included in the article. The phrase "deadliest terror attack in Israel's history" is not in the article. So I did not see the relevance for including it on the talk page here, especially since the topic is one that could easily slip into forum-like discussion. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one of refs [32] 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]
    @Selfstudier Please define clearly "balance of reliable independent RS" and who is the arbiter that is going to decide whether the threshold has been met. Thank you. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 22:09, 10 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]
I'd support an article split, especially given October 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip also exists. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood used to exist as a standalone article before being merged into here; it could easily be revived. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The initial 24-48 hour incursion into Israeli territory is particularly notable, as part of this larger unfolding war. Loksmythe (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. We already have split this article into the initial attacks like Re'im music festival massacre, Battle of Sderot. Likewise, we already have articles on the Israeli response: Jabalia camp market airstrike. Is the proposal here to merge Re'im music festival massacre,Battle of Sderot etc into a single article? If so, I don't think that's a good idea either as these were individual events and different locations.VR talk 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the Yom Kippur war, it seems like most of the material is in the main article with only a few notable events/battles having their own article. Like for that war we don't have a separate article called Israeli response to Egyptian offensive. Likewise, for 2006 Lebanon war we have a separate article for the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid but we don't really have an article for the Israeli response to that, the response is covered at the main article.VR talk 18:37, 10 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]

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]
What sources are you using to support the claim that both of their actions fall under the definition of terrorism? eyal (talk) 13:30, 10 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]
I can't see how you can edit this article without POV bias when you have expressed the belief that the mass murder/rape of israeli civilians/children on internationally recognized israeli territory is justified. I'd say the same thing for the same reasons about someone editing The Holocaust while expressing the belief that the the nazi's had the right idea with the whole "jewish question" thing. No reasonable person can can justify the murder of children.
With that being said; the wikipedia policy on contentious labels specifically states that calling an organization or person a terrorist group/terrorist is to be avoided unless there is widespread use of that term in reliable sources. There is not widespread use of that term in reliable sources when referring to Hamas as a terrorist group or referring to the individual actors as terrorists. However, the policy doesn't specifically state that you can't apply the term to actions. It doesn't state that you have to have widespread reliable sources calling an attack a terrorist attack. There's at least one NYT article calling this a terrorist attack.
This is definitionally terrorism. It uses violence and fear to achieve political (palestinian statehood/a one state solution with palestine as the one state) and ideological (islamism) goals. If 9/11 was terrorism, and we have widespread agreement in reliable sources that this is "Israel's 9/11" (I've seen that a LOT recently, though I suppose you could argue that it's not widespread enough), then I don't see how you can justify not labelling this terrorism. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:11, 10 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]
your accusation have no merit, i very much care about civilians but that is not the topic of this conversation. feel free to start a conversation about that and we can discuss it. imagine we are discussing if a rook is a strong chess piece and like an animal you run in, foaming at the mouth, screaming that i dont care if the knight is a strong piece, too? makes no sense. you are a terrorist apologist and sympathizer and you will get what you deserve. Mark28482 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following the discussions here about the use of the word "terrorist" and the strong pushback has been very eye-opening and quite frankly appalling. In the past 72 hours, I've witnessed countless world leaders, experts and intellectuals condemning the terrorist attacks by Hamas. Why hasn't anyone already compiled a list of references to those condemnations? Are we waiting for some special arbiter on what is/isn't considered terrorism? I'm not a wiki contributor, but the disparity in the language used describing 9/11 and this attack is glaring. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 22:01, 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]
They're all Palestinian nationalist militant groups; some are also Islamist or communist. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is objecting to the description "Palestinian militant groups". There is even a category for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_militant_groups Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 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]

I've tagged the quote as "disputed". If al-Jazeera is the only translation using a provocative phrasing, we should not be highlighting it. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:59, 10 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. [33] 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?

There are multiple other sections on the talk page about how to use the word "terrorist" in the article; this one has more heat than light. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israeli tank and vehicle losses in the infobox

@Stephan rostie: I have reverted[34] 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]

This comment appears to be referring to an image which is no longer in the article; and is thus moot. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:16, 10 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]
@Selfstudier
I too don't understand your pushback.
We already established that it is one of the deadliest terror attacks, by comparing it's deathtoll to the deadliest terror attacks that happend in 1970-2020.
and here are independent reliable sources that support the proposed text:
CNBC
BBC
The Free Press
If we do a vote, this is 2 yay to add, and 1 nay.
This amount of sources satisfies the sentence.
And yet, I would agree to move said sentence to a split article from this one, regarding the terror attack. רם אבני (talk) 16:23, 10 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[35] and the retaliatory Israeli strike killed a Hezbollah fighter.[36] 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]

 Not done The article cannot explain every detail of the past 20 years of history in the region. The wiki-link to Blockade of the Gaza Strip is sufficient for this article. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:15, 10 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]

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]

 Not done It is mentioned in the article, and there is a stand-alone article (which you linked to) with more details. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:53, 10 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 [37]. --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[3], though Egypt had declared they warned Israel of "something unusual, a terrible operation"[4] 10 days prior to the attack. Israel denied this had occurred[5]." 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. ^ Magramo, Kathleen; Yeung, Jessie; Renton, Adam; Upright, Ed; Berlinger, Joshua; Sangal, Aditi; Andone, Dakin (10 October 2023). "US President Biden: Hamas attack on Israel is "an act of sheer evil"". Israel at war with Hamas after unprecedented attacks. CNN. Archived from the original on 10 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023. People in Israel lived suffered "pure unadulterated evil" at the "bloody hands of the terrorist organization Hamas, a group whose stated purpose for being is to kill Jews. This is an act of sheer evil," Biden said Tuesday.
  2. ^ "عاجل" (Post on 𝕏). 𝕏 (in Arabic). Al Jazeera. 10 October 2023. Archived from the original on 10 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023. {{cite web}}: Text "بايدن: حماس وضعت هدفا لها وهو قتل اليهود" ignored (help)
  3. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231007-sirens-heard-as-dozens-of-rockets-fired-from-gaza-towards-israel
  4. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
  5. ^ https://nypost.com/2023/10/09/israel-ignored-warning-something-big-was-coming-egyptian-official/
 Not done This is just rumor-mongering. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those rumors directly contradict the subject matter. 24.63.171.94 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention a large swath of news outlets have reported the very same thing. 24.63.171.94 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 [38], 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]

It seems obvious to me that the "order" referenced is the order for a "blockade" described in the previous sentence. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:51, 10 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[39]. 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.[40], [41] 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]
Not only is that a "blog", the phrase "Yom Kippur" is only used in the headline. This doesn't mean anything and should not be in the article. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:50, 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]
The Hamas attacks civilian locations with no military activity of any type (beyond the protection of said locations, which at times is arguably military). They, in turn, use civilian locations for their terrorist purposes in the Gaza Strip to prevent the IDF from attacking their terrorist supplies and the terrorist leaders. Israel always considers this when deciding what to attack, but is frequently forced to attack civilian locations which the Hamas (and other terrorist groups) use as their headquarters or storage facilities. Animal lover |666| 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from MOS:TERRORIST, here is the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-attack-israel-us-opinion-divided  :
"The attack also inevitably revived demands for news organisations to follow the White House lead and call Hamas terrorists, not only because of the nature of the killings but because the US, EU and UK governments have banned the group.
Kenneth Roth, the former head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, criticised the White House stance.
"It is not helpful to use the term 'terrorism' in a war when the White House only ever applies it to one side. Better to remind both Hamas and the Israeli government that humanitarian law makes it a war crime to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians," he said. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.VR talk 14:16, 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]

BTW, I've also added the Israeli POV to that section. I had previously not done that, that was my mistake. I've added that many of the prisoners were convicted of terrorism in Israeli courts and that while Palestinians view some of the prisoners as heroes, Israelis view them as terrorists.VR talk 15:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, this info is sourced, exactly as I said above. This is not an issue. And yes, painting Israel in a highly negative light (it seems we both agree about it) is not a reason for removal. The reason for removal is different: such info (whole big subsection) is hardly relevant for the Background. This page is about Israel-Hamas conflict and Gaza. The included text is about some generic Palestinian prisoners, not Hamas members (that would be more relevant). In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion. Such info can be provided in a relevant section about prisoners exchange (if there will be one), not as a part of the general Background about this conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hamas say Iran is involved?

XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[42]? 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 [43]. 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.([44]". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack,[1] whereas another, less senior Irani officer said Iran doesn't, and yet our article is not as exquisitely clear as you propose being clear regarding Hamas. Please consider being just as exquisitely clear on both counts. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm: Iran's supreme leader (and there is none more senior than him) has denied Iran's involvement[45]. So the lead can firmly say that "Iran denied involvement", although we can mention the rest of the nuances in the body. Do you agree?
Also I think you misinterpret the source above. Safavi said "We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood", notice the present tense of "support". The probably interpretation here is that Iran is praising the attack, we can't interpret Safavi as saying that Iran materially supported the attack.VR talk 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that reference is a good find: straight from the horse's mouth! Yes, of course it should be included, also. I don't think we should paper over the conflicting statements. XavierItzm (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that another editor completely nuked the section with this edit, eliminating numerous sources and statements; I'm not sure how all the refs lost are brought back to the article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've questioned that decision below. It looks like it was collateral damage from trying to edit through an edit conflict, but they've yet to respond to a ping. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Adviser to Iran's Khamenei expresses support for Palestinian attacks: Report". Alarabiya News. Agence France-Presse. 7 October 2023. Retrieved 9 October 2023. "We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood," Yahya Rahim Safavi said at a meeting held in support of Palestinian children in Tehran, quoted by ISNA news agency.

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]
Looks like a spin-off Misinformation in the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict needs to be created. Abductive (reasoning) 20:13, 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]
I agree with Jprg1966; the sentence is fine as-is. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:13, 10 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]

The article currently says Airports in southern and central Israel were closed to commercial and private use, while Ben Gurion Airport[128] and Ramon Airport remained operational. It's not clear what airports would supposedly be closed; Ben Gurion and Ramon are the only airports in Israel with regularly-scheduled commercial traffic. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While a few sources attribute a statement about the closures to Israel Airports Authority, I'm not seeing it. And a (partial) closure of some private airstrips doesn't seem particularly relevant. It might be better to say something like While Ben Gurion Airport and Ramon Airport remained operational, many foreign airlines canceled flights to Israel. [46] [47] Walt Yoder (talk) 17:46, 10 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]

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]

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]

You could move it after the line "The day was regarded as the deadliest for Jewish civilians since the end of the Holocaust.". Names section doesn't make sense. Ben Azura (talk) 15:08, 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]
@DRIS92: Is there a reason you overwrote a bunch of changes to the lead in this edit, including the reference thing here and some other tweaks? Your edit summary indicates that this may have been collateral; are you willing to self-revert the relevant portions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:45, 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: [48]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]

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]
Looks like an article Misinformation in the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict will need to be created. Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 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]
The way I see it, it's the complete opposite - for example under "Reactions in Israel" there are quotes from ONLY two sources - the most left-most arab-party member of the Knesset, and the most left-most newspaper Haaretz, both of which are small and unreliable Shovalis (talk) 18:15, 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]
Why no mention of how the babies' heads were CUT OFF by Hamas murderers?
In the news reports from I24NEWS, the reporter states how babies heads were cut off by sick Hamas terrorists.
https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/1711718195025821976
BEYOND HORRIFIC: 40 Babies & Children Murdered, BEHEADED In Kfar Aza - YWN 204.128.182.16 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
these sources are clearly biased and i've seen the video on twitter and there are no chopped-off heads shown Abo Yemen✉ 17:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Invaded" and "attacked" are not terms of ambiguity. The (implied) changes wanted by the IP editor should not be made. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you by any chance trying to push a particular WP:POV? Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:12, 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]
In this quote from an article by Bruce Hoffman, this is called a war crime:
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/israels-war-hamas-what-know
"However, at least according to what is being reported, Hamas and PIJ fighters have committed and are still committing a vast array of what can only be described as war crimes. The reports of executions, sexual abuse, civilians being pulled from their homes, and other depredations will not go unpunished by Israel." 2A02:14F:1EE:2038:0:0:9E5E:2A16 (talk) 13:36, 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

There is an existing section for discussing article title changes; however, IP editors can not participate in those discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

Disagree, Not every language has the same title translated in their languages. But many are similare.
English: October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict (for reference)
Italian: Conflitto Gaza-Israele del 2023 (Gaza-Israel conflict of 2023) (same as in english)
Dutch: Gazakrigen 2023 (Gaza-war of 2023)
Spanish: Conflicto israelí-palestino de octubre de 2023 (Israeli-palestine conflict of october 2023 (the same as in english))
Afrikaans: Gasa-Israel-konflik van Oktober 2023 ( Gaza-Israeli conflict of october 2023( again, same as in english))
German: Angriff der Hamas auf Israel 2023 (Hamas attackmon Israel in 2023)
French: Attaque du Hamas contre Israël (Hamas Attack against Israel)
Croatian: Napad Hamasa na Izrael (2023.) (Hamas attack on Israel 2023)
Serbian: Izraelsko-palestinski sukob (2023) (Israeli-palestinian conflict 2023)
These languages are either ones i can speak (german, english, croatian, serbian and french) and those who are similare to those who i speak and on the same language tree (dutch, italian, afrikaans and spanish).
9 languages, 8 excluding english,
NONE of these 9 have the word "Invasion" in them. The word "attack" is similare but not the same as a invasion.
The definiton for attack i found from WikiDiffis:
Noun
(
en noun
)
  • An attempt to cause damage or injury to, or to somehow detract from the worth or credibility of, a person, position, idea, object, or thing, by physical, verbal, emotional, or other assault.
The definiton of Invasion:
English
(
wikipedia invasion
)
Noun
(
en noun
)
  • A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.
As of the time of my writing, we do not know why Hamas exactly attacked Israel (motive). Some speculate that it is because of the Israeli-Saudi peace agreement that was in the talks before the war and that broke down because of it. If attack or invasion would be better is another discussion.
But for those 9 languages, none used "invasion" as you claim (to be fair, they are 9 out of 48 available languages).
Also, how is the "October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict" inaccurate?
  • It happend in October of 2023 (when?)
  • Its between Gaza and Israel (who?)
  • Its a conflict (what?)
It's a good name to have for this article. It says When it happend, what happend and who is involved (primarily).
If you think invasion or attack is more reasonable, then say it. Don't just say "because other languages have it that way". Poles Ragge (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israel threatens Egypt to attack any humanitarian aid going to gaza civilians from rafah crossing

Israel threatens Egypt to attack any humanitarian aid going to gaza civilians from rafah crossing: https://twitter.com/aja_egypt/status/1711701305679331699

two Egyptians were reportedly injured by israeli bombardment of rafah crossing: https://www.almanar.com.lb/11024928 Stephan rostie (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[QUESTION] Why are material casualties (tanks, armoured vicicles) not inclouded in the casualtie box?

They were added in the beginning but were removed, why? It's a important information (in my opinion). Without tanks and vehicles listed, it can be misinteprented that israel didn't loose any Armour. Poles Ragge (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The info might not be available yet, but if you find a source you may be able to add it. AitvarasVienas (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info might not be available? There were litteraly multiple vidoes last saturday (begin of the crisis) of a israeli tank burning and some vehicles captured by Hamas fighters/terrorists.
There are plenty of sources in form of videos of these, made BY Hamas terrorists/fighters, published all over the internet.
Also, due to the protection of this article i can't edit anything at the moment. Poles Ragge (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

Under "Analysis", in the section: "They predicted the PLO's further decline if the status quo held. Citing the Israeli intelligence failure, which some observers attributed to the incumbent government focusing more on internal dissent, the judiciary reform, and efforts to deepen Israel's occupation of the West Bank, some commentators criticized Netanyahu for putting aside the PLO and popping up Hamas,"

"popping up Hamas" should be changed to "propping up Hamas"

Godstar23 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Well spotted. Thanks! --AntiDionysius (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the conflict name

There is an existing section for discussing article title changes; however, IP editors can not participate in those discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

in Israel we call this conflict the iron swords war so please change the name of the topic 91.205.154.117 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an ongoing discussion about changing the article name further up this talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They call it the Palestinian Genocide in Gaza, it should be called that. 24.63.171.94 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of "hostages" in the lede - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (4)

Change "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants to the Gaza Strip" to "Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants and transported to the Gaza Strip" or to "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip".

The sentence is grammatically awkward in its current form, and the use of the term "hostages" to describe soldiers captured in combat is questionable in my view. Moreover, Wikipedia does not use this term to refer to Palestinians held in Israeli jails and prisons. More importantly, reliable sources are drawing the distinction:

Al Jazeera: "The Israeli army has acknowledged soldiers and commanders have been killed and prisoners of war have been taken."

Haaretz: According to Benn, "... Now this is first and foremost an attack against civilians, and for the first time we have dozens of military prisoners of war and civilians taken hostage in Gaza."[1]

"... The dozens of hostages and prisoners of war are perceived as a powerful bargaining chip that could prevent a much longer campaign."[2]

Forbes: Hamas Takes Israeli Soldiers, Civilians As Prisoners Of War

-- WillowCity (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/podcasts/2023-10-08/ty-article-podcast/its-unthinkable-hundreds-of-bereaved-families-hundreds-of-hostages/0000018b-0f94-dcc2-a99b-1f95030a0000
  2. ^ https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2023-10-08/ty-article/.premium/hamas-wanted-to-avoid-cash-for-restraint-trap-that-doomed-pa/0000018b-0bd1-dae9-adcb-abffca0a0000

Displacement figures

Maybe I'm missing something, but does it make sense that the infobox says the figures are "per Palestine", and then in that list there's "200,000 displaced", which is very clearly attributed to the UN in the source? There is no indication in the source that the UN is merely repeating a figure told to them by Palestine. Shouldn't this figure be in a separate list? Why have a list of Palestinian claims that isn't Palestinian claims? Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas using american weapons (which allegedly were sent to ukraine)

After Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, butchered its citizens and took hundreds as hostages, videos captured the horror and the celebration in Gaza. What was pointed out by experts was the flashing of American weapons, especially what they said were M14 assault rifles, in the celebratory videos.[1] US Congresswoman has called for an investigation into the source of US-made weapons used by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in the ongoing conflict in Israel.[2][3] Observer1989 (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This narrative includes some extremely loaded words: terrorists, butchered, horror without attributing the use of those terms to particular sources. There is absolutely no way this is going to get incorporated unless you neutralise the language. And, anticipating a potential counter-argument, I am not in any way saying the described actions are acceptable or justified. Yr Enw (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i understand. i just dont know how to whitewash terrorist inhuman acts properly.i prefer calling spade a spade.i am new to wikipedia.maybe ill learn from people here.thanks for the reply Observer1989 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding a contentious value-laden label that has not garnered consensus is not whitewashing, it's about how we present information in as neutral a manner as possible. Try to keep in mind:
1. On Wiki, we are not the arbiters of what constitutes terrorism, butchery, or horror. We report what reliable sources say, aiming to reflect the general consensus in media and scholarship as best as possible. So, you could say "X says Y is terrorism" (this is already included in the article) but you generally shouldn't interpret the acts as terrorism in your narrative yourself.
2. We have this policy on using such words and the general wiki policy on narrative voice while editing, in case these are helpful to consult.
3. If you disagree with the above, you can discuss a policy here or you can propose an alternative/change here. Yr Enw (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the info. ill review the policies.you have been helpful. i am only surprised that consensus is not to label this act of hamas as terrorism. i understnad the palestenian viewpoint of fighting against occupation altough its true i am biased here and believe it was a jew land first and babylonians,romans and muslims continously invaded and expelled jews from their historical land.muslims in addition to slowly changing the demography even bulit their own structures on top of their religious structure based on some claims by their prophet. its more like a clan war.i also do not fully agree with how israel treats palestinians tho but the problem here is that these specific acts carried out by hamas cannot be justified by saying they are just fighting because of occupation.these are inhuman acts.you either have to be soulless or a fanatic to do these kind of acts.i wont go into detail on what they have done but a civilized democratic world will always consider it terrorism.only islamic world will consider it justified fight for freedom. but in any case i appreciate you telling me about different policies of wikipedia. i will definitely read and learn from it. Observer1989 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The issue with the word "terrorism" specifically is probably best discussed elsewhere in those policy forums, but I will just say it has been contentious for a long, long time among experts. See here[49], here[50], and here[51] 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. It is perfectly possible to criticise, think immoral, criticise, oppose these actions without needing to use the term "terrorist". Yr Enw (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and it should probably be pointed out consensus against using the label just means it's better avoided because other terminology does the job already Yr Enw (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should never include anything Marjorie Taylor Greene says and it's ridiculous to even suggest to do so. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US military stopped acquiring new M14s almost 60 years ago and was replaced by the M16 in 1967 due to performance issues in Vietnam (although it was still standard issue for some units stationed in Europe and used in basic training until 1970) and sent/sold hundreds of thousands of them to other governments in the 1970s. I'd say that it's highly unlikely that any of the M14s seen in these videos we part of any recent military aid program to Ukraine (from what I can gather, only the sniper and marksman versions and small quantities of rifles for ceremonial purposes are still used outside of some law enforcement agencies). Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are an awful lot of M14s circulating in the world, including in use in Israel by the IDF; there are a thousand places these ones could've come from other than Ukraine, and there's no reason to believe Ukraine is an especially likely source other than the assertion of a politician primarily known for conspiracy theories (and with an obvious political interest in discrediting the programme of weapons transfers to Ukraine). Unless something new comes out, we shouldn't include this. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i apologise i didnt do a deep dive of the politician in question.i agree that she is known for her conspiracy theories some of which are extremely radeical so her pov is not considered neutral in any way.i also agree we need better sources to include this information.its just the ukranian president's (who himself is a jew) open support to nazis who faught against russia in ww2 and russias old allegations of ukraine today full of neo nazis gives this info of ukraine linked with anti israel/anti jew activities some consideration but unless we get better reliable sources its all consipracy theories. Observer1989 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "From India to Israel, US weapons being used to attack its allies". India Today. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  2. ^ "Did the weapons Hamas used against Israel come from Ukraine or Afghanistan? asks US Congresswoman". Firstpost. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
  3. ^ "'Hamas May Be Firing American Weapons': U.S. Congresswoman Makes Stunning Claim | Watch". Hindustan Times. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
Even Israelis have been selling weapons to Palestinians[52], so little can be concluded from them simply having American weapons. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, do not include it please. The entire world is using American weapons. This must be something much bigger than rifles. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas-Israel truce?

@KiharaNoukan: you added:

Gaza and Israel had recently negotiated a truce, mediated by Qatar, Egypt, and the UN on September 29.[1]

But I don't see anything about a 29 September truce in the source given. Are there any sources that say this?VR talk 15:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very fair point. For now I've tagged that sentence with [failed verification], but I would be in favour of removing it entirely. After a brief look I cannot find any sources that say it, and frankly this seems like the kind of thing I think we would have heard about. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the wording with a different source, truce is too strong a word, idk how important it is/was in the overall scheme of things. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that clarifies things, thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes more sense.VR talk 16:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Yes, it's in the Guardian Article I cited.
From Bethan McKernan, pg 14. "Hamas officials always say that they will respond to Israel “at a time and place of our choosing”. But the timing of this unprecedented aerial and ground attack has caught both Israelis and Palestinians completely by surprise. The two sides had just negotiated a truce, mediated by Qatar, Egypt and the UN, after three weeks of violence and unrest at the separation fence."
Beth cites another Guardian article stating "An uneasy calm has returned to the strip, and border crossings for workers to enter Israel reopened on 29 September after mediation efforts by the UN, Egypt and Qatar." I will reword to re-add egypt + UN and link to the "3 weeks of violence." I don't have issue with the word "mediation" since that term is also used. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Israel declares state of war after Hamas fires thousands of rockets and 'militants cross border' – live". Guardian. October 7, 2023.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (5)

{{subst:trim|1= The map on this page is wrong according to google maps and israel forces speech + the us supports israel and iran supports hamas, this info was on the page at the beginning but now its gone i want to add the supporters and change the map


The issue of Iranian involvement was discussed further up this talk page; it would probably be best to join that discussion if you wish to see it added back. As for the map, could you be more specific about what you think should be changed? --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article into 2 - One regarding the war, The other regarding the initial invasion and terror attack.

(non-admin closure) Already being discussed at Talk:October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict#Proposed article split for the initial attack? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mid its terror attack, and due to a high amount of dead, kidnapped, and injured, Israel declared war against Hamas.

The initial attack is regarded as one of the deadliest terror attacks. Therefore, it should have its own article.

While after the declarence, mid terror attack, began the war.

This article should talk about the war, while the other article should talk about the terror attack, that has theoretically ended or is still continuing at a low rate (due to terrorists still trying to invade, and murder Israeli-unrelated citizens, compared to a military against a military war) רם אבני (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Also it should be included in the article that it is one of the deadliest terror attack in both world and Israeli history. It keeps getting removed even though it is reliably sourced. I guess some people continue to be in denial that this was in fact a terrorist attack. Undescribed (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fatah and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

don't know why it was removed, while i do think that MEMRI is very partisan on Israel's side, they have proof from Al-Aqsa's own telegram channel that talks about how they attacked the Israeli Al-Taybeh checkpoint and military camp in the West Bank, and Al-Aqsa is basically a wing of Fatah, so that would pretty much give a reason for its inclusion. 177.83.128.215 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup request: "Possibly possible" that Ukrainian war focus could shift

One-sentence Ukrainian war subsection of Analysis section presently reads "It's possible the war could possibly draw focus from NATO assistance to Ukraine." IDK if this subsection warrants expansion, but there is certainly more material (e.g. Sen. Josh Hawley) one could add. Regardless, there's some obvious room for improvement here (I haven't edited enough for authorization to do it myself). Alousybum (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Does this apply to our own edits or just those of others? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only others.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitation of babies in Kfar Aza

A French journalist has revealed the existence of this (https://twitter.com/margothaddad/status/1711756690574479651). When it emerges on a better source than Twitter, it'll need adding to the article under the Palestinian war crimes section. I haven't found another source yet so putting this here in case anyone else finds one. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already being discussed above. Section here Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/kfar-aza-israel-village-hamas-attack-b2427446.html but
"‘When Hamas came they decapitated women and children’ an Israeli major in the village a few kiolmetres from Gaza, tells Bel Trew. The bodies are hidden so it’s impossible to verify, but it is clear much blood has been shed"
We can't add to war crimes unless a source mentions war crimes. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Die Welt" reports a interview of a woman who talks about a war crime by hamaz.

A woman reports in a interview of the murder of her grand mother. She got killed by hamas terrorists, who recorded her dead body and posted it on her grandmothers facebook account. Poles Ragge (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a request for this to be included in the article? AntiDionysius (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I would be inclined to go against its inclusion; not that it's not horrible, but it is one of a very large number of atrocities. The section on war crimes does not list individual cases, and I think that's a wise choice that should not be overridden without a very strong specific reason, given the hundreds (if not thousands) of potential entries on such a list. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can't include every death in this article, nor every newspaper article about a death. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Islamic Jihad active both in Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon

As documented by the article itself, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and its military wing, the Al-Quds Brigades, are active in both the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon, having launched attacks against Israel on both fronts. With this in mind, the way the belligerents are geographically divided in the infobox doesn't seem quite right. Even if the bulk of PIJ activity has come out of the Gaza area, Hezbollah is not this conflict's sole belligerent in Southern Lebanon. Not sure what the best solution is; one idea is listing PIJ twice, in both categories. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel preparing for "months long ground campaign" in Gaza

A recent report which is important.[53] Ecrusized (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes

This revert restores material that does not mention war crimes and the edit summary given is OR (editors opinion that these are war crimes). Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This material is well-sourced and describes actions that are internationally recognized as being war crimes. The material was removed by an editor whose explanation for the removal is OR (their opinion that it is not a war crime). parqs (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not my opinion, it's just not in the source, the source has to say it's a war crime or attribute someone as saying it is a war crime. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the section with a new sentence that contains sources for the events described in the paragraph as being described as war crimes, negating any OR concerns. parqs (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what parqs added might be WP:SYNTH that goes like this:
  • Palestinians are accused of raping Israeli women.
  • Rape is a war crime.
  • Therefore Palestinians committed war crimes.
Such an analysis needs to come from an RS (preferably an RS which is a recognized legal expert).VR talk 18:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the section with RS. parqs (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thai death count now at 18

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/i-just-want-my-son-families-of-thai-workers-in-israel-face-painful-wait-for-news 45.51.103.71 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UAE: appalled

Please add UAE reaction to Hamas attack, Muslim countries reaction summary might need tweaking. Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uae-calls-hamas-attacks-israel-serious-grave-escalation-2023-10-08/ 2.55.180.194 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasizing the severity of the situation in Israel

This article doesn't emphasize the uniqueness of this situation in Israel. Can we add the following sentence to the third paragraph in the article?

From

Hostilities were initiated in the early morning with a rocket barrage of at least 3,000 missiles against Israel and vehicle-transported incursions into its territory. Palestinian militants also broke through the Gaza–Israel barrier and forced their way through Gaza border crossings, entering and attacking nearby Israeli communities and military installations, killing at least 1,000 Israelis in the process according to Israel. Numerous cases of violence against Israeli civilians have occurred since the beginning of the conflict, including a massacre at a music festival that killed at least 260. Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants to the Gaza Strip.

to:

Hostilities were initiated in the early morning with a rocket barrage of at least 3,000 missiles against Israel and vehicle-transported incursions into its territory. Palestinian militants also broke through the Gaza–Israel barrier and forced their way through Gaza border crossings, entering and attacking nearby Israeli communities and military installations, killing at least 1,000 Israelis in the process according to Israel. Numerous cases of violence against Israeli civilians have occurred since the beginning of the conflict, including a massacre at a music festival that killed at least 260. Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, had been taken hostage by Palestinian militants to the Gaza Strip. This is Israel's deadliest conflict in terms of civilian deaths since its War of Independence in 1948.

--199.203.101.124 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map Discussion

@Ecrusized: In regards to the fighting in Re'im, I don't think we should use Twitter or primary sources to update the war maps. We need secondary, verifiable sources to cite. -- Veggies (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veggies: I also rarely quote Twitter, I did this time since it was from the IDF's official account. This clash was also reported on Israeli media.[54], [55] Ecrusized (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized: Ah, I see it now. [56] -- Veggies (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitling Biden's speech

Hi, I wrote subtitles for Biden's speech, but I'd like it if you could double-check some parts. What's between the brackets?

  1. [3:04] Mr. President, can you tell us what [name] asked you
  2. [0:37] I get up this morning [...] Hamas terrorists Thank you!

FunLater (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be called "Invasion by Hamas". Facts and evidence says something else.

It can't be called "Invasion by Hamas". Facts indicate that this country was established by few countries and as per UN regulation, Israel has occupied territory more than it was granted and UN recognise. Hamas is resisting the occupation and trying it regain control over it's own land. The Invasion was done by Israel by occupying Palestinian land that was granted by UN council.

The same scenario is going in Ukraine but resisting Ukrainian peoples are being hailed and the movement is being called with term "resistance" against russia. In ukarain milita mostly small groups of peoples are participating in wars alongside Ukrainians forces against russia. Here, In this scenario, Hamas is a milita mostly of Palestinian population that are resisting incursion and occupation of Palestine again israel.

The term "invasion" by Hamas or or with it's any ally name should be changed to "resistance" or more favorable and right term. 103.187.75.29 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance trying to push a particular WP:POV? Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syria

Just as a heads up, I have placed Syria in the infobox after it exchanged artillery fire with Israel a few hours ago.[57] Ecrusized (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This shows that the Syrian government is participating, but this is not official yet. There are Palestinian groups operating from Syria. Dl.thinker (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any Palestinian groups presence in Southern Syria but it could indeed be pro-Iran militia's like Liwa Fatemiyoun or Hezbollah. Nevertheless Syrian government is complicit with these groups and it's unlikely that they are acting without it's approval. In Lebanon on the other hand, Hezbollah acts independently from the Lebanese government, often entering into conflict with it. Ecrusized (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An artillery fire across the border is an act of war. But we do not really know who that was. Was it Syrian government or a group of rebels? Without knowing this we can not indicate "Syria" in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed appear to be Palestinian groups cooperating with Hezbollah according to SOHR. [58] I will remove Syria for the time being. Ecrusized (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli troops

Are there publications describing the Israeli forces that are usually deployed around the borders and those that were deployred on Saturday ? How is this possible no alert was given ? Ukrainians and Russias hold a 1000 km long front and annonce when they move forward by 100 m. Here is a a 15 km long border which was expected to be fully controled by IDF... RadXman (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a front line as in Ukraine. It was a security barrier and a surveillance system. They failed, see here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole subject of Israeli intelligence failure is much bigger. See Egypt’s spy chief said to warn PM of ‘terrible operation,’ Netanyahu denies it. See who their minister of national security was, see the political struggle in the country due to 2023 Israeli judicial reform, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I tried to find data.
That border is protected by Gaza division.
It consists on 2 brigades and 1 batallion which means 7500 soldiers.
They are assumed to watch Gaza.
That's not just a question of intelligence.
Where were they ? Hamas sent only 1000 men in total, many unarmed per pictures.
Kibbutz are reported to have been assaulted by 100 men max...
RadXman (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Israeli dual-nationals as separate

Israel citizens with dual nationality shouldn't be listed separately, i.e. Shani Louk (raised in Israel most of her life, resident at time of death, served in IDF, but born in Germany) should not be listed solely as a 'German national' under Israeli casualties. She was not a foreign tourist, but a permanent resident of Israel and Israeli citizen. Only people with non-Israeli citizenship should be listed as such (ex. the Thai foreign workers). Doing so, is inherently linked to political reasons to involve as many international Western powers as possible (USA, UK, Germany etc.). It has gotten to the point where IDF soldiers, who died in combat, are listed as 'British nationals' (in the case of Nathaniel Young as reported by BBC). Nobody sees how ridiculous this is? UK citizenship laws don't even allow its citizens to serve in a foreign military, and if an Israeli soldier (who happens to hold dual nationalities) is made a casualty, he/she should be counted solely as Israeli. Otherwise this is misleading information. If a non-dual Israeli American, British or German citizen was made a casualty, by all means list them separately. User6619018899273 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Also, the Foreign and dual-national casualties table should have some info about those with dual citizenship. For example we can have something like Americans (killed): 10 (2). Where 10 would be the total amount of American Citizens and (2) could be those with dual-citizenship. Cristi767 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would suggest to count/sum them in the both categories, i.e. a person would be counted as Israeli and British citizen, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist then edit and list them as both, in this case Israeli-British. What I see currently is only 'British' under the casualty section for people who are described as dual Israeli-British citizens in the news articles.User6619018899273 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetic order in title

Shouldn't we use alphabetic order for the title, 2023 Hamas–Israel war? This is the general practice for descriptive, and not proper, names in Wikipedia. For such version we have the argument of alphabetic order, while for the current one, well it's just arbitrary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have to make it clear that this is a TERROR ATTACK! It’s not controversial, it’s a fact and it’s so important. People gotta have the full, correct story. This is urgent!!! 2A02:14F:16E:8115:8DF2:9B75:30BE:C985 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We "have" to do nothing. We're a neutral encyclopedia, not a news source. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please change the mention of médecins sans frontières to the correct spelling as demonstrated here, under "casualties" in the sub header "causalities in Palestine". In addition the report from MSF is mentioned twice in said section, once as being from "doctors without borders", with both mentions being linked to the page for MSF. Please remove the second of the mentions in the text and simply move the cite to the first mention. XeCyranium (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XeCyranium:  Partly done: I've made the first two changes, I'm a little confused about the third one. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes. As for the third request I believe the sources for the casualties mentioned by MSF twice are referring to the same two people at the same hospitals, so only one mention is necessary. Given the vagueness of the BBC article I can't be certain but given they're referring to strikes on a hospital where one driver and one nurse were casualties I'm almost certain it's the same event. Also the second mention of MSF is still linked instead of being plain text. XeCyranium (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Aza, not Kfar Aviv | Israeli Casualties

It states "At least one civilian death was reported in Kfar Aviv," however the CNN article that was cited mentions Kfar Aza—not Kfar Aviv. - MateoFrayo (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1179555171"