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 46.116.188.197 (talk) at 13:36, 26 January 2024 (→‎Section about denialism of the attack: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The terminology used regarding the October 7th attacks

Along side the military campaign of Hamas to breach the security wall and take out several IDF outposts, the Hamas led attack included a massacre of 695 Israeli and foreign civilians, as stated in the article. They were not collateral damage, they were targeted explicitly during the attack with an overabundance of evidence and documentation verified by the majority of independent medias and news sources. The absence of the word "massacre" diverges from the Wikipedia standard regarding other similar violent attacks with mass civilian casualties. Either we remove the word "massacre" from articles about other similar attacks, like the Bucha massacre, or we insert it here to be consistent with a uniform standard. The word should be included in the title and/or the intro and when referring to the 695 civilian casualties resulting from the Hamas led attack. The term "massacre" is very commonly used by various independent English speaking medias and news channels. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/22/world/europe/beeri-massacre.html Thewildshoe (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ynet there was "immense and complex quantity" of friendly-fire incidents' which the IDF said it would not be morally sound to investigate. It looks like this 'friendly-fire' was in many instances deliberate as they didn't want any hostages taken back to Gaza. I think saying that particular number were massacred by the militants is starting to tread on thin ground. I think describing them as casualties of the Hamas attack is accurate though it covers this up somewhat. NadVolum (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are roughly 20 verified cases (the "immense and complex quantity" described by Ynet) of friendly fire deaths of both civilians and soldiers. There is no credible evidence to suggest intentional friendly fire. The theories running around this online revolve around misinformation like a false definition or interpretation of the IDF's "Hannibal Protocol" and sensationalist claims with no proof.
The massacre of hundreds of civilians in their homes, door to door, as well as the music festivel goers, is well documented including by Hamas member's GoPro cams and has also been independently verified by various international media investigations.
~20 civilians dead by friendly fire doesn't negate the fact that the remaining 675 civilians were massacred that day. Even if new evidence shows up that the number of friendly fire casualties doubles or triples. Even if 300 civilians died to friendly fire, that still leaves 395 civilians that were massacred by Hamas.
A massacre is a massacre. Wikipedia must have a consistent, objective use of definitions.
From a Haaretz article, following an official IDF statement: "The IDF estimates that 13 soldiers killed in the fighting in the Gaza Strip were shot after they were mistakenly identified as Hamas members", this is from December 12th, including soldiers that died from friendly fire after the October 7th attack during the ground incursion.
https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-12-12/ty-article/.premium/0000018c-5d0f-db23-ad9f-7ddf31a70000
Regarding civilian friendly fire deaths, which is the part that is relevant here, the known events are a tank shell killing 4 civilians being held hostage in one of the houses:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/22/world/europe/beeri-massacre.html
Only a handful of other individual cases are known, none of them show any intent to kill civilians or imply they were killed "deliberately" as you suggested.
If you want to claim that 695 civilians weren't massacred in their homes and in the music festival, or that the number of civilians that died by friendly fire is significantly higher or was deliberate, please provide credible sources to support this claim.
Thewildshoe (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just gave evidnce for 20 of them, are you saying the IDF massacred those? And the number might be 'immense' whatever that means except the IDF won't even estimate the number. Or do you want to rephrase a bit? NadVolum (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't give evidence for 20 of them, I gave evidence for 4 civilians killed unintentionally by the IDF, and up to 13 soldiers killed unintentionally by friendly fire.
This is a fact based discussion and there's no room for political biases. If you claim anything regarding "intentional" friendly fire, claims of masses of civilians killed by friendly fire or claims about the validity of the term massacre, provide credible sources for your claims. This isn't a place for political activism.
Thewildshoe (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please confine your contributions on talk pages of "extended confirm" articles to Edit Requests, as editors with under 500 edits are not allowed to commence talk page discussions such as this in articles for which those restrictions exist. While a year ago you received a notice indicating that such discussions are allowed, the rules have been tightened and that is no longer the case. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "massacre" is correct and the text should reflect that. The claim that Israel committed deliberate slaughter of its own people on 10/7 is at best a WP:FRINGE claim that has no bearing on this discussion.  Coretheapple (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those familiar with this material will know that the nature of events on this day is murky at best, and while some individual events have been characterized as "massacres" in RS – rightly or wrongly, since the authorities in question appear to be averse to the transparent investigation of the truth – the events as a whole cannot be generalized with this presumptive terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The preponderance of reliable sources indicate it was a massacre. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The preponderance of sources discuss lots of little isolated parts of events on that day, because the events of that day were not one event. It wasn't "a/an" anything. It was a day filled with different events that cannot readily be generalized about and which certainly should not be generalized about in POV or lopsided terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Isolated parts of events"? Please. If you start with the Re'im music festival massacre which claimed 364 lives, and add on the other civilian massacres, some of which indeed have "massacre" articles here, you have the components of an organice whole, which is a massacre. I believe the sources reflect that the attacks on civilians indeed were a massacre. Much as we say "the Holocaust" and it had individual components. Not "isolated" components but components. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The titles of many of the poorly developed child article are themselves contentious. Add I have said, and will happily say again as oft as is necessary, the last thing this article needs is the imprint of generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Washington Post op-ed addresses the concerns raised by this new editor. We ignore them at our peril. Coretheapple (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we pay too much heed to op-eds at our peril? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor with few to no edits outside of talk, you would be wise to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia and its approach to content and sources before diving into suggestions in contentious topic areas. On pages such as this, as conveyed on your talk, your edits should be limited to constructive comments or edit requests, i.e. not advocating for a certain tone based on a selective reading of the information from sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the content of this editor's comments and not your opinion of his experience on the project. This editor cannot make article edits but has every right to comment in a substantive way on the talk pages. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. Since WP:ARBECR was amended in 11 November, non-EC users are only permitted to make properly formatted (X to Y) edit requests on restricted pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Had to double check and clarify the revised rules for myself, but that's the update.) Edit requests and nothing else. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're right. I stand corrected. I'm going to strike out my comment. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller's talk page post to this editor said that 'constructive comments" are indeed permitted, but apparently they are not. This needs to be sorted out. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess the old ways are engrained in many, and not everyone will necessarily have picked up on the subtle changes in the ARBECR update yet. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that a template message needs to be revised. I've asked Doug Weller about it. Now, as far as this particular discussion is concerned, typically we would hat a new user's comments if they go beyond what is allowed but I will leave it alone for now as it has gone on for a while. And frankly, in my opinion, his point is constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My request to use the term massacre is an edit request.
Wikipedia's standard and current status-quo for the use of the word "Massacre", the qualifications for what constitutes a "massacre" is inconsistent in this article.
If you disagree, feel free to provide actual evidence to assert your claims. You made several statements:
"nature of events on this day is murky at best" according to who? How is this relevant? Are other massacres details less murky? How so?
"since the authorities in question appear to be averse to the transparent investigation of the truth" According to who? What examples of said aversion do you have? How is this aversion denying the use of the term "massacre"? How did the authorities in other massacres act differently?
"the events as a whole cannot be generalized with this presumptive terminology." Why? How many casualties need to be "massacred" out of the total casualties so that it can be labeled a "massacre"? Weren't other massacres also part of a bigger conflict raising the same challenges to generalize it as a massacre?
What makes using the term "massacre" regarding this event "selective reading"?
It is clearly Wikipedia's status quo that none of the arguments you raised prevent the characterization of the event as a "massacre".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres
I've made a specific edit request using the proper form, but it is important to talk this issue over and address it, as well as the phenomenon of denialism of the attack as i've seen in another topic.
If this article fails to acknowledge the massacre that took place during this event, it makes this article a tool for the denial of an atrocity, spreading misleading information to Wikipedia's readers. Clearly against Wikipedia's standards and purpose.
Thewildshoe (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed your properly formatted edit request. I think your argument is persuasive and it has been  Done. Going forward I suggest that you use the "requested edit" format. It's easier. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you made duplicated the detail that currently appears in the second paragraph in the first paragraph. That's a technical matter - possibly this was overlooked. On a consensus level, I remain unconvinced by the merits of generalising in this context. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hatted this discussion a day or so ago on the grounds that it is not strictly speaking an "edit request," but I changed my mind per discussion below concerning an IP editor doing much the same thing. Am unhatting this discussion. This non-EC editor did make an edit request, after all, even though it was not using the correct form. We mustn't be rigid. Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

I wish you to change the number of people killed by Hamas terroists: Nova 359 people Be’eri 125 Kfar Aza 78 2A06:C701:4917:A300:EC91:C964:40AD:231B (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024 (2)

Change: "On 7 October 2023, the paramilitary wings of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PRC, PFLP, and the DFLP launched a series of coordinated armed incursions into the Gaza envelope of neighboring Israeli territory, the first invasion of Israel since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. "

To: "On 7 October 2023, the paramilitary wings of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PRC, PFLP, and the DFLP launched a series of coordinated armed incursions into the Gaza envelope of neighboring Israeli territory, attacking military outposts and committing massacres on the civilians of the envelope, the first invasion of Israel since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. "

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27im_music_festival_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%27eri_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Oz_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Aza_massacre https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000009131432/israel-hamas-kibbutz-massacre-survivors.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/10/israel-hamas-attack-war-death/ Thewildshoe (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Thewildshoe (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section about denialism of the attack

Since denialism of the attack becomes a phenomena, we should have a section about this.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/21/hamas-attack-october-7-conspiracy-israel/ 85.65.215.23 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly is a post truth world. False flag attacks are a thing okay but this most obviously and definitely was not one. How much more evolution does mankind have to have before this sort of stupidity is weeded out or is there some evolutionary advantage to it? Progression from ape to idiot on the internet NadVolum (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about ahaving a section on it. There's crazies on every topic - I think wait and see if it actually becomes notable and the maybe write a separate article about it rater than cluttering this one up. NadVolum (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that so far, there's not enough material and content to justify another section. Maybe in the future as this progresses.
I suggest an edit to mention it, and maybe in the future link it to the cross-article series about anti-semitism.
The ADL concentrated many notable cases of denial by public figures, organizations, politicians, leaders, journals and medias in one article:
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denialism-wake-oct-7-massacre
Thewildshoe (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more source about the denialism
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denialism-wake-oct-7-massacre 46.116.188.197 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://forward.com/opinion/574713/holocaust-denial-belief-oct-7-hamas-israel/ 46.116.188.197 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning is not a bad idea. A separate section? No. Secondly, just pointing out that non-extended--confirm editors are only allowed to make edit requests, not contributions iike this. The policy was changed in November 2023. I think it's a bit much, but there it is. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an edit request to put something about denialism into the article. We can't expect new users to cross every t and dot every i. NadVolum (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe I'm being too stuffy about it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I just unhatted a section above from a new editor. You have a point on that. Coretheapple (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Change: "According to a poll conducted by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy between 14 November and 6 December 2023, 95% of Saudis did not believe that Hamas had killed civilians in its attack on Israel.[1]"


To: Move to a new paragraph: "According to a poll conducted by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy between 14 November and 6 December 2023, 95% of Saudis did not believe that Hamas had killed civilians in its attack on Israel.[2] Denial of the intentional mass killing of civilians in the Hamas-led attack has been common throughout the world, with concerns among Western countries about the spread of this phenomenon. [3] [4] Queen Rania of Jordan said in an interview, in reference to reports of Israeli children found butchered in an Israeli kibbutz, that those reports haven't been "independently verified". [5] Known Israel critic, Roger Waters, alleged the October 7th attack was a "false flag operation" and expressed doubts about the events that reportedly unfolded that day, a sentiment that is prevalent in social media along with other misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war revolving around the denial or minimizing of the atrocities that took place on that day. [6] [7] Thewildshoe (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26,000 Palestinians killed 2603:9001:2306:5645:1B7:1F8:8E28:CF94 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Saudis Overwhelmingly Oppose Ties With Israel, Poll Finds". The New York Times. 22 December 2023.
  2. ^ "Saudis Overwhelmingly Oppose Ties With Israel, Poll Finds". The New York Times. 22 December 2023.
  3. ^ "Growing Oct. 7 'truther' groups say Hamas massacre was a false flag". The Washington Post. 21 January 2024.
  4. ^ "Denialism in the Wake of the Oct. 7 Massacre". ADL. 21 January 2024.
  5. ^ "Queen Rania of Jordan accuses West of 'glaring double standard' as the death toll rises in besieged Gaza". CNN. 25 October 2023.
  6. ^ "Roger Waters Floats Unfounded 'False Flag' Claim About Hamas Attack". Rolling Stone. 7 November 2023.
  7. ^ "EU official warns social media firms to monitor for false Israel-Hamas information". NPR. 13 October 2023.

Requested move 26 January 2024

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October attacks – The most common name for the event. Irtapil (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]



The current title is a very good description, but nobody actually calls it that? The extremes of both sides, and everyone in between, all refer to the event as 7 October.

The page "7 October" already exists as a page about that date in history (in a series including every day of the year), so calling it 7 October attack (which is already a redirect here) or 7 October attacks is the best available option to fit WP: common name.

If we add any extra elements we should keep the whole thing "Hamas-led attack on Israel" to match prior consensus, and thus avoid re-litigating every word.

Irtapil (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this move. It took a while for a common name to settle, but '7 October attacks' seems to be it. Riposte97 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1199221445"