Jump to content

Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Exjerusalemite (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 20 November 2023 (→‎casualties: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Videos

This article should include more videos of the massacres, including testimonies of survivals and Captive Hamas Terrorists. Captive Hamas Terrorists Hamas Terrorists videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzZ0at_G74k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFVAOPSgwYo

Opening sentence must include the phrase "terrorist attacks"

The first sentence of '9-11 attack' article is "The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[d] were four coordinated Islamist suicide terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States in 2001." This article should have a similar opening sentence. "The October 7 attacks, commonly known as 10/7, were multiple coordinated large scale Islamist terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel in 2023." Later, it can be mentioned that there are countries who deny it was a terror attack, and also to mention a disclaimer, that these countries are biased against Israel.

Vivian Silver

"Among those believed to have been abducted was Vivian Silver," her Wikipedia page says she was killed. ? MoshiachNow (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Sadly, she was confirmed dead a couple of days ago.
Can an EC editor update the article? ShamsiSideUp (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Information with reference!

@Alaexis, You reverted my edition and commented by "this article is about the October 7 incursion; the casualties in Gaza should be in 2023 Israel–Hamas war". If this is right, did the Casualties stated in the article happen at that particular day? Of course No. In fact these casualties is the sum of casualties over many days, so the Casualties of the consequences should be mentioned as well, or you should state the actual numbers of casualties of both sides at that particular day. Dr-Taher (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the casualty numbers refer to the initial incursion into Israel. If they don't, please let us know and it will be fixed. The scope of this article is the 7 October operation into Israel by Hamas. The casualties during the invasion of the Gaza strip should go to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. Alaexis¿question? 20:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly biased sources

Using an Israeli news source which second-hand quotes vague "Israeli authorities" for the estimate of civilian casualties is wildly irresponsible. At the very least, it's an editor's duty to define that this fact is according to Israeli authorities, as it does on the casualties section for the Palestinian fighters. 2A02:8086:D03:F880:8107:CEE5:60B8:8BA4 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and article name

It claims that 1,200 Israelis were killed, the numbers have been updated again and it is now back to 1,400. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/07/middleeast/palestinian-israeli-deaths-gaza-dg/index.html Also this article barely mentions that this was a terror attack and hamas was motivated by genocidal antisemitism/racism. It isn’t just political. 2601:46:C800:3FBF:6131:9EDD:90A0:FB03 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article 12 days old doesn't prove "updated again". Zerotalk 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz, which is publishing all the names of those killed (1177 so far), said "Approximately 1,200 Israelis, civilians and soldiers were killed" just a few hours ago. Zerotalk 05:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli occupation

Israel has not occupied Gaza since 1967. They completely pulled out in 2005. There has not been an Israeli presence in Gaza for 18 years. 205.214.170.119 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of civilians Palestinian

The facts and figures regarding the total casualties of civilians in Gaza are not mentioned and just an old number mentioned also casualties regarding infants and children must mentioned accordingly. 203.215.178.158 (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab world survey

The arab world for research and development survey described "Palestinians living in the West Bank overwhelmingly answered that they supported the attack to either an extreme or “somewhat” extent (83.1%.)" was done by a consultancy agency working for the Palestinian government (so Hamas). A mention of this/disclaimer would be great as the source is heavily biased. The question asked in the survey (original document: https://www.mivzaklive.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Public-Opinion-Poll-Gaza-War-2023-Tables-of-Results.pdf) is in table 27: How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th? ExNihiloScientia (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with what has been said, it is necessary to specify that this institute is linked to Hamas. In the interest of neutrality and transparency, I also propose to transcribe word for word the question that was asked in this opinion survey and to remove the references to "attacks on Israel", which come from Israeli media and were not explicitly stated in the original question. Adding that primary source https://www.mivzaklive.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Public-Opinion-Poll-Gaza-War-2023-Tables-of-Results.pdf would also be beneficial to the reader, in my opinion.
@Homerethegreat coucou ;) I also notify you as you are the author of this paragraph, any thoughts? Wikihydro (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[for clarity] *a consulting agency that has worked for Hamas regularly. I could not confirm whether this study specifically was directly for Hamas. This does not change what has been said about bias, though, as the agency is clearly pro-Hamas ExNihiloScientia (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this article called "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood"?

Operation Barbarossa
Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Overlord
Operation Market Garden
etc

Why not call this by the name of the folks who planned it? vap (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion either way on this specific article, but we follow COMMONNAME policy on Wikipedia, which doesn't necessarily defer to whoever begins or executes the offensive. For example, the Attack on Pearl Harbor is not Operation AI, the Battle of the Bulge is not the Ardennes Offensive, and the Dunkirk evacuation is used rather than Operation Dynamo. -- Veggies (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vapblack: The article used to be named "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", but a long requested move discussion back in October, which involved 71 people with 178 comments decided to rename it. The closing user stated, "See below significant opposition to any rename; however, arguments in favor of some rename were very strong. The title that received overwhelming support is the one chosen and will serve as the highest and best title." So, that is why it is not named "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
will an article be renamed to whatever a majority agrees on? vap (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a new discussion occurred, whatever the consensus is (not necessarily majority is) is what the title could be renamed to. You can see WP:VOTE to learn more about it. Hope this helps Vapblack. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2023

2023 Hamas attack on Israel2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – This current title of this page is a potential misnomer and needs an adjustment both for WP:PRECISION and WP:ACCURACY. The attack involved, at the current count, five groups, led by Hamas; the current title could be interpreted as pertaining solely to Hamas. This RM is, first and foremost, a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, since the infobox on the page clearly lists five involved groups. From an WP:NCE perspective, it is more accurately descriptive, and it follows a road already travelled by pages such as US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021). In terms of sourcing, this more precise language is used by numerous WP:RSP, including the NYT, NPR, ABC, VOA, Al Jazeera and Washington Post, as well as the Times of Israel and HRW. Since this is a descriptively titled page, and "Hamas-led attack" is clearly supported, and more precise (where "Hamas attack" lends only ambiguity), it is the better option and would eliminate the current grey area with more precise, unambiguous terminology straight from the WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Your arguments were convincing. Parham wiki (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the sake of accuracy and precision. Looks to be used in enough sources that those two can be prioritized, even if later in the discussion it's proven to be less common. estar8806 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

casualties

"At least 400 casualties were reported in Ashkelon, while 280 others were reported in Beer Sheva, 60 of which were in a serious condition" -- this is incorrect. the number of 400 is the number of wounded patients treated in Ashkelon, not a number reflecting casualties in Ashkelon. The other numbers don't appear in the referenced articles, also probably reflecting people treated in hospitals in beersheba. the attackers did not reach ashkelon and beersheba, which are major cities. i have already pointed out this error in the past--Exjerusalemite (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]