Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Title discussion following RM close

@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)

As the reliable sources which Fuzheado quoted show, usage of "Israel–Hamas" is far more common than "Hamas–Israel". Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was the rationale. For reference, the RM close and the list of the reliable sources can be found here - Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

Just noting here that the LA Times has said that reports of sexual violence have "not been substantiated". Unsure how that fits in - we don't necessarily have to buy the LAT's editorial judgement, and even if we do, they're not saying they believe such reports are false or weren't made, just that they couldn't confirm them - but it is notable to some extent. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Regardless of the comments above, the cited sources[1][2][3] 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)

  @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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  @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)

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)

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)

https://www.foxnews.com/world/videos-hamas-brutality-toward-israelis-eerily-reminiscent-isis-tactics Azz205 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cye1k60kz23o source? Azz205 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

This source also claims that RFK Jr tells the truth about vaccines which is, shall we say, disputed. Brian Dell (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm going to be bold and move the 2006 page. Bremps... 03:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

It should be done alphabetically, that just makes more sense. BlueOcean02 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

I closed the requested move with this same rationale - we should go by what reliable sources (in this case, news sources and not books) call the conflict. You can find the analysis here where the vast majority of outlets use "Israel-Hamas." - Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4 - Fuzheado | Talk 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

We are not talking about a regular Palestinian army, are we? Borgenland (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The majority of international RS are using "militant", NYT, WAPO, Reuters. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

the only acceptable term in this instance is militant. Azz205 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

this is correct, the only correct work is terrorists. Mark28482 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Terrorism" is an extremely loaded label and should be avoided where it can be (see [4]). It has been contentious for a long, long time among experts. See here[5], here[6], and here[7] 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)

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)

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)

• 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".

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do you have a source supporting that second statement? eyal (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

Don’t even bother, these dudes will do anything to distance Hamas from their obvious barbarism. HailSatanLightbringer (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Did I mention the massacres specifically at all? He also claims it wasn’t against the IDF when many of the targets were The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria By your faulty logic, nothing can be "unprovoked" because there is always some historical antecedent. For instance, Nazi Germany was "provoked" by the European powers due to the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. If we pursue that logic, we cannot truly hold anyone accountable for committing atrocities because someone else always "started it". Users who can't put forth a serious argument or counterargument should recuse themselves from this discussion. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t even know if I’m supposed to be on the talk page, every day I get told aboout 14 new Wikipedia policies but I’ll say this: is the 20 year old harsh treaty in any way comparable to what Israel has done to Gaza in the same period? I’m not just talking about hamas like people try to put in my mouth, I’m talking about the strip in general The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That comparison is irrelevant because the example I gave merely serves to illustrate a point, which is that anyone can deny accountability by claiming that they were provoked by someone else. The PA in Gaza can launch any attack on Israel and claim that it was provoked by years of occupation or this or that event; literally, they can cherry-pick the most convenient event to justify their attack. And we would of course have to accept it as a statement of motive, but we cannot accept at face value that something was "unprovoked" just because a justification was provided. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo correction: "cannot accept at face value that something was "provoked" just because..." 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Global South so I'd say yes. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also make more sense to mention blocs instead (EU, NATO etc)? Mellk (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Turkey's reaction seems to be distinct from that of its NATO partners. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

  @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)

Here is one of refs [8] mentioning it as the "the deadliest attack in Israel in decades". My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• @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)

  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)

  @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)

  OK, that's fair. I apologize, I misunderstood what you were asking. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  @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)

  @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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

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)

Proposed article split for the initial attack?

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Unproductive discussion; Wikipedia is not a forum. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) This suggestion is the most POV suggestion I've ever seen on wikipedia Abo Yemen✉ 13:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC) After reading this comment, I dare you to condemn these attacks. Mark28482 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC) @Mark28482 I won't condemn the attacks. You have no right to change my political opinions Abo Yemen✉ 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC) do you feel the attacks were justified and acceptable since you refuse to condemn them? Mark28482 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC) @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) @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) @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) You're saying that the Re'im music festival massacre was justified?! Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC) 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) We don't condemn, we report what independent reliable sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC) @Selfstudier exactly Abo Yemen✉ 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC) 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) "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) 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) Please re-read the policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) OK AntiDionysius (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) its because wikipedia is owned and promited by anti semites, therefore they try to protect and shield terrorists, terrorist sympathizers and apologists and protect them at any cost if the targets Jewish and/or in israel. make no mistake, wikipedia is an extremely political and morally bankrupt resource and should be viewed as such. Mark28482 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Who precisely do you think Wikipedia is "owned" by? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Maryana Iskander -- an arab. Mark28482 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Incredible. Both incorrect, and deeply offensive! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Iskander does not own Wikipedia. She is the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation, which is run by a 16-member board owns Wikipedia's physical infrastructure but does not direct its day-to-day running or determine its specific policies. I am extremely confused as to what her ethnicity could possibly have to do with anything. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC) you asked, i told you, and i did not say anything about whether that is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing. that offends you, calling terrorists what they are offends you, but what has happened in israel does not offend you? i dare you to condemn the terrorists attacks publicly to prove you are not a terrorist apologist and sympathizer Mark28482 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) I didn't ask you about her ethnicity. You brought it up unprompted. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC) 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) They're all Palestinian nationalist militant groups; some are also Islamist or communist. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC) 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)

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)

"Casualties section", with cited source in accordance with WP:V. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

We should include United States under armament support. Military aid has already went to Israel from the United States. [9] FellowMellow (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Template:Infobox military conflict does not include field "suppliers". My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Selfstudier I ask for others to come forth, and discuss the matter with us. רם אבני (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@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)

Independent reliable sources that support the proposed text, those don't appear to be forthcoming atm. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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, though Egypt had declared they warned Israel of "something unusual, a terrible operation" 10 days prior to the attack. Israel denied this had occurred." 24.63.171.94 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

References

 Not done This is just rumor-mongering. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Those rumors directly contradict the subject matter. 24.63.171.94 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

@WeatherWriter Respectfully, that argument is fallacious. There is a distinction between a body and its constituent parts, as there is a distinction between political parties and the state. For example, if a politician were to participate in an anti-government protest, as happens regularly around the world, it would be confusing and erroneous to claim that the government was protesting against itself.

I have seen no RS that claim that the Lebanese state has materially supported the Gazan groups involved in this conflict. Riposte97 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Iran in infobox?

Should Iran's alleged involvement be mentioned in the infobox? While Israel has accused Iran, Iran has denied involvement[11]. 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)

@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)

@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)

@Vice regent: Not to my knowledge. The latest U.S. and Israeli estimate says that Iran was not involved.[12], [13] Ecrusized (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

its an opinion blog. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Your point? -- Frotz(talk) 23:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are generally considered unreliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as estar8806 pointed out, the WP:RSEDITORIAL policy states:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Fuzheado | Talk 02:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, because hundreds of RS's say it is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed.VR _talk 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion." Shouldn't all major aspects of the invasion be discussed?

"The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly?" The connection is that Hamas took prisoners as bargaining chips in a possible prisoner exchange. Whether that prisoner exchange happens or not is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that 100+ Israelis have already been abducted for a particular goal.

Except for that last sentence (which we can drop if you like), all the other sentences are about events that happened before the invasion, hence appropriate for "background".

But the most important thing is that dozens of RS treat this information as relevant background to the war. So I don't understand why you're going against them?VR _talk 00:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I saw you moved the content to "Palestinian reaction" section. This really isn't the right place at all, as of the above 10 RS I quoted, only 1 is based on Palestinian sources. And none of this is a "reaction" given that its covering events preceding the war.VR _talk 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Hamas say Iran is involved?

XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[14]? 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)

?? There is MASSIVE news coverage from all quarters that Iran is involved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [15]. 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)

im not the one accusing anyone. Tell him to AGF. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I replied to AtypicalPhanom's comment, not yours. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.([16]". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR _talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack, 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)

@XavierItzm: Iran's supreme leader (and there is none more senior than him) has denied Iran's involvement[17]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'd say the opposite. We don't really need these minor details on Wikipedia at all. It's only worth mentioning if it's widely covered and analyzed by reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with Jprg1966; the sentence is fine as-is. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. [18] [19] Walt Yoder (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria I added it and I'm not American Parham wiki (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Aftermath effects are already taking place it’s not like adding it will do considerable damage such as people thinking the war is over as its being covered across the news very heavily, I don’t know what to do but I think it’s a good idea Bobisland (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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: [20]https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/09/incendiary-weapons-heed-calls-strengthen-law MarkusDorazio (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

I agree. I think this would help stop this from spreading. MarkusDorazio (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

sources? we don't accept original research as a source here Abo Yemen✉ 11:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Are you by any chance trying to push a particular WP:POV? Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

Counting individual tanks and other weaponry and equipment from videos and tallying them would probably constitute WP:OR. Bremps... 00:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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."

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

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

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

I propose the following to avoid labels altogether, as, no matter how you phrase it, including both "prisoners of war" and "hostage" in the sentence makes it clunky: "Israeli soldiers and civilians, including children, were captured by Palestinian militants and taken to the Gaza Strip". Yue🌙 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

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. 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. Observer1989 (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[21], here[22], and here[23] 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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

Even Israelis have been selling weapons to Palestinians[24], so little can be concluded from them simply having American weapons. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

Hamas-Israel truce?

@KiharaNoukan: you added:

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

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)

This is a very fair point. For now I've tagged that sentence with , 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)

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)

Ah, that clarifies things, thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense.VR _talk 16:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@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)

References

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Already being discussed above. Section here Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

https://www.mediaite.com/news/cnn-reporter-confirms-gruesome-decapitations-at-kibbutz-attacked-by-hamas-shot-executed-heads-cut/ Chabadtzke (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"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)

Is this a request for this to be included in the article? AntiDionysius (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Israel preparing for "months long ground campaign" in Gaza

A recent report which is important.[25] Ecrusized (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have updated the section with RS. parqs (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced war crimes text

This edit restores content I removed because it fails verification in the cited source. The sources do not allege war crimes by Israel in the current war. This needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

  Not done - A source is needed and also on the Israeli_casualties_of_war#Regular_conflicts. The 1948 war says 2,400 civilians died in that war. Doing the math, Per Palestine: 925 killed and Per Israel: 1,200+ killed, it equals 2,125. Doing math is enough, a WP:RS claiming it is the deadliest in terms of civilians' deaths since the 1948 War of Independence is needed. Thank you for the suggestion by the way. Cwater1 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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.[26], [27] Ecrusized (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: Ah, I see it now. [28] -- Veggies (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Bracketed answers are in bold

[3.04] Mr. President, can you tell what Bibi asked you?

[0:37] I get up this morning and started this at 7:30, 8:00, my calls, Hamas terrorists...

Full video transcript is here for your reference: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/biden-delivers-remarks-israel-attacks-191712456.html Seven Train (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Added the subtitles. Thank you. FunLater (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

He is 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Syria

Just as a heads up, I have placed Syria in the infobox after it exchanged artillery fire with Israel a few hours ago.[29] Ecrusized (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It does indeed appear to be Palestinian groups cooperating with Hezbollah according to SOHR. [30] I will remove Syria for the time being. Ecrusized (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good question. This says that Palestinian fighters penetrated the Gaza division headquarters at Reim. But no, it was not just 1000 Hamas men, but several thousand. According to reports by IDF, they killed 1,500 Hamas fighters in Israel. Yes, the Hamas fighters formed a number of small groups. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Of course, otherwise we are dabbling in this sensationalism like news articles titled "Americans killed!" when all the aforementioned Americans are dual Israeli citizens (in many cases permanent residents of Israel), it is far more appropriate given the context of Palestinian vs. Israeli to list them all as Israeli first and foremost, or in any case dual Israeli-American. There is a big political motive behind this, to list them as solely American in order to involve the USA on behalf of Israel, perhaps militarily. We need to be honest and state the factual info as per sources, and not omit this important distinction.User6619018899273 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cristi767 I second this solution. It provides additional information and avoids the confusion feared above. Riposte97 (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I assume that all people who appear in table Foreign and dual-national casualties are also counted among "1,200+ killed" [in Israel] in the infobox. Do not see a problem here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Check above: #Discussion following RM close. Yue🌙 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

 Fixed Yue🌙 22:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate Comment with citation 161.

Under 10th October, comment says "Reporters brought to the scene saw no dead babies". [161]. Source 161, The Telegraph article makes no such claim at any point. It does state "dozens of dead civilians were found" and that "Hamas killed babies and children in a massacre discovered by Israeli soldiers".

This comment should probably be removed as the citation does not show this to be true. If another source can be provided, then it needs to be updated. Tankcomdestroyer (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tankcomdestroyer Unless I'm missing something, citation 161 doesn't mention dead babies because the statement it is backing up also does not mention dead babies. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 22:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Under Timeline, Israeli Response, 10 October. Second sentence: "Reporters brought to the scene saw no dead babies.^[161]." The source does not mention or infer or imply that reporters did or did not see dead babies. Tankcomdestroyer (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah the citation numbers have all shifted. Its 147 now? Heres the link anyway: citation in question Tankcomdestroyer (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be calling this the 2nd Yom Kippur War?

Think about it, this is the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war. Hamas specifcally chose this day to attack Israel, hence, it should tbe the 2nd Yom Kippur War. Mr. Bobie (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Whilst it's quite possible that such a name will take off in the future, no sources are currently using that term so it would not make sense for Wikipedia to start using it. We follow what other sources use, rather than inventing new terms. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mr. Bobie: A logical idea, but Wikipedia only says whatever reliable sources say about the subject. Thus, the title of the article is whatever the majority of sources are calling it. (That's a slight simplification, but the central idea is what matters here). Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The recent title change is explained above; in a nutshell, Wikipedia bases its titling on what reliable sources are calling the topic. Changing the title to the Second Yom Kippur War would be new coinage by Wikipedia, and that's something to avoid. Yue🌙 23:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Same reason why aren't calling the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the "Russo-Ukrainian War"? Mr. Bobie (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be the Russo-Ukrainian War, which has been going since 2014. The invasion is a part of the wider war, and only began in 2022. Bremps... 00:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think 2nd Yom Kippur war is better as the current one seems bad as it implies only Hamas took part in the war rather than multiple groups Bobisland (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning but disagree with your title choice. Not everything is "Part 2: Electric Bugaloo". Yue🌙 01:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (4)

Change the name of this article from "2023 Israel-Hamas war" to "The October War" Woofrr (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's something that ought to be avoided, because a) that would be a term invented by Wikipedia (which we try avoiding), and b) there have been several wars that have started in October (counting the Yom Kippur War!), so it would not be specific. Bremps... 00:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Bremps is correct, we only use names used by reliable sources. Right now, they're calling it the Israel–Hamas war. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Syria as a Belligerent

Today fighting picked up in the Golan Heights between Israel and Syria, should this conflict be considered a part of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War or just that of the greater Arab-Israeli Conflict. I believe that it is the breach of Israeli airspace was a result of the invasion by Hamas and Syria should be added as a belligerent on the side of Hamas. USA1855 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

USA1855, if you can provide two or three reliable sources that specifically call Syria a belligerent in the war itself, then it should be added. We try not to come up with answers to questions like this ourselves, we let the sources decide. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Background- pov

in the lead paragraph, descrining the background against which the Hamas attack was launched it leaves out the murders of Israeli people such as 2023 Huwara shooting only refering to the settler violence in reaction, this violates WP:POV. "The crisis represented a tipping point in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which followed a violent year that saw increased expansion of Israeli settlements and Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians, clashes in Jenin and at Al-Aqsa mosque, which killed almost 250 Palestinians and 32 Israelis;..." 2601:14D:5081:72C0:1578:99D9:C358:9B7E (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

should say- The crisis represented a tipping point in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which followed a violent year that saw the murder of Israeli civilians, attacks against security personel, and reprisals including the increased expansion of Israeli settlements and Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians; as well as clashes in Jenin and at Al-Aqsa mosque, which killed almost 250 Palestinians and 32 Israelis; 2601:14D:5081:72C0:1578:99D9:C358:9B7E (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC) 2601:14D:5081:72C0:1578:99D9:C358:9B7E (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why isn’t the first paragraph moved above the infobox?

It seems like a good lede Bobisland (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

They're side-by-side on desktop. Is this a mobile issue? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

yes I’m on mobile Bobisland (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it be better to place it as the lede or will that look bad for desktop? Bobisland (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

above infobox* Bobisland (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation 151 about the Kfar Aza massacre is paywalled

Here's a free article.

It claims 40 babies were murdered with some being beheaded. Please add that, too.

Please change the wording of "reporters found no dead bodies" to "sources cannot independently confirm the report"

https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/hamas-terrorists-murdered-40-babies-including-beheadings-says-report-2fdcCmtBjFvAcCCf5MDwKU 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Paywalled sources are allowed and there is nothing wrong with them. See WP:PAYWALL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

I suggest that it be renamed the "2023 Israel-Palestine War", as it is more accurate. Rawkstar777 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Please see the recently requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4#Extended summary of RM close for why this title was chosen. - Fuzheado | Talk 02:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be renamed Israel-Palestine war?

Given the amount of civilian casulities on the Palestinian side, it's pretty clear that Israel is not just fighting Hamas, but the Palestinian people more broadly. Calling it the Israel-Hamas war biases it towards the Israeli propoaganda POV. Also, Hamas isn't a country. Jingle38 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Please see the recently requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4#Extended summary of RM close for why this title was chosen. - Fuzheado | Talk 02:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

The defaultsort is currently "Gaza−Israel conflict, October 2023". That doesn't seem appropriate, given the change in title. Kk.urban (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Can someone make a quick article about the Israel-Syria strikes. It's getting much attention in the last few hours.

Requested move 11 October 2023

2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Gaza War – Consistency with 2014 Gaza War and because Hamas isn't the only Palestinian militant group involved in this war. Charles Essie (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of "hostage" in the lede

Further up, I posted an edit request.

I do not want to belabour the point or be impatient, but I think the language should be changed to be more encyclopedic, to match RS, and for internal consistency with other Wikipedia articles about armed conflicts (e.g. the article about the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine describes military captives as prisoners of war, not as hostages).

Is this the appropriate forum to raise the issue and establish consensus regarding a change? I am still learning the ropes here on WP so apologies if I am out of line -- WillowCity (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli’s use of white phosphorus

Multiple videos show white phosphorus being dropped into villages and towns. 74.96.7.109 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)