Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Title

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.

---

If this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article, it will almost certainly need a less ambiguous title.

More likely, this can be added to an article about various Hamas attacks on Israel in 2023, or over a longer period. DenverCoder9 (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19 Well, sadly it can be changed to "2023 Israel Palestine war" soon 2A01:C22:C931:E700:78CF:B4BA:DE3D:CB0C (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I typed 2023 hamas attack and the first thing that came up was clashes in May. Maybe we could add October. Borgenland (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

there is now an operation name for this event https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/558406/?app=true SignedInteger (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

should this become the new article name (once translated) SignedInteger (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/07/world/israel-gaza-attack

Both sides have referred to this as a war, and sources are reporting on it as such. Perhaps appropriate to title it as 2023 Israel-Gaza War or something similar. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.

2021 Israel-Palestine crisis is an indicator, maybe best to wait a bit and see just how serious this becomes. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best for us to wait for a bit. If there is no sign of deescalation, then it's a go. BlueHelvetical (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

“Gaza-Israel Conflict” or “Gaza-Israel War, 2023” are appropriate titles. “Palestine-Israel Conflict/War” is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Just like the geographic region known as “North America” contains 3 countries, Canada, USA, and Mexico. There is no country, “North America” nor is there a nationality, “North American.”

By the same token, the geographic area known as “Palestine” contains 3 countries, Gaza, Israel, and Jordan. There is no country, “Palestine” nor is there a nationality, “Palestinian.”

If Mexico were to attack or invade the USA, it would not be appropriate to refer to it as the “North America-USA Conflict.”

https://theworldhistoryofwar.quora.com/https-www-quora-com-If-the-Palestinian-people-didnt-exist-before-Israels-existence-then-where-did-they-come-from-answe?ch=17&oid=16745248&share=f887561d&srid=a9am&target_type=post MetroNYCJerry (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

what about 5th Arab-Israeli War 166.194.158.48 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If Israel attacks back, we can name it 2023 Palestine−Israel War. Andrew012p (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

And Israel has attack back while Gaza is under fire right now from Israel forces Efuture2 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That should not occur. While the groups are from terrorist organizations within Palestine, the Palestinian military nor government has declares actual war upon Israel. IEditPolitics (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. Since Benjamin Netanyahu declared war, surely the conflict is, definitively, a war? I would also like to express my deepest appreciation for everyone’s commitment to Wikipedia’s truthfulness and neutrality on this particularly divisive topic (and everything else). MrBoy632 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I agreed, he had already started a counter attack. Surely it's a war, rather than a conflict. Maybe compare it with previous conflicts and if it escalates, then it's a go. Either way, I would wait for an official government statement. So far, nothing new. BlueHelvetical (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is officially a war as not too long ago, the cabinet agreed on invoking article 40 aleph, which was not invoked since the Yom Kippur war, making it an official declaration of war. Zekromu88 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

As I stated before, Palestine's government did not explicitly declare war, nor use their official military. This is an act of multiple organized terrosit groups within Gaza and Palestine in general. To call it the Palestinian Israel War would be largely inaccurate. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Opposed. For now, I think it is too early to call it Palestine-Israel war. The side opposed to Israel is Hamas, which does not represent the Palestinians in West Bank. We should wait for more events. Zenms (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Point of information – Titles of articles are generally goverened by WP:COMMONNAME which states, "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Please focus on what WP:RS are using to refer to this conflict. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I would second the comment citing to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. It is easy to get caught up in various points of a conflict and forget to adhere to the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Given the statement by the Isreali Prime Minister, it would be justified in being called "2023 Israel Palestine war" and also because of the media coverage by reliable sources. It may be advisable to wait a few days to see how this progresses as there is no rush to finalize a title for the article right now. Jurisdicta (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

We should probably focus on getting the content right and picking the name later, something will coalesce. But people here seem to be generally on the right track and we shouldn't mind moving it and changing the name if a different one emerges. Keep in mind that no change is permanent. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The conflict is occuring a bit after Yom Kippur, so shouldn't it be called ẗhe "Second Yom Kippur War" or "Yom Kippur War II"? 23.93.17.238 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen a reputable source use that term. Mostly it is being characterized as a war. Invanity (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The infobox refers to it as the "Third Intifada", perhaps we should use that? SufficientChipmunk3 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I will just note that I did hear this already referred to as "war in Israel" on television. Reference was made not only to missile attacks, but also attacks from "land and sea".

Remains to be seen but discussion over this is absolutely warranted. ShouldIHide (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Opposed. I believe it is way too early to call it Palestine-Israel war. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and doesn't represent Palestinians on the West Bank. I may be inclined to change my opinion as more event's unfold. --Stubbleboy23 (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. Palestine did not declare war on Israel, only terrorist groups in Palestine. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In Hebrew Wiki, We have two different pages for the war (he:מלחמת חרבות ברזל, Operation Swords of Iron) and for the first battle of the war (he:מתקפת הפתע על ישראל (2023), Surprise Attack on Israel (2023)). אורי9 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel like at the moment it's Gaza/Hamas rather than Palestine as a whole so I'm not sure if it's appropriate to change it to "Palestine". And as mentioned, despite the media calling it a 'war' and a war being declared, I'm still not sure if the title should change to "war", it's currently too soon. To me it seems more like a conflict/clash or possibly a crisis, but even for that it's too soon to tell. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hareetz is covering it as Israel–Gaza War; Al-Jazeera, Israel-Hamas Conflict... Oops, now Israel-Hamas war, as does The Guardian. Thus far... https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-08/ty-article-live/over-250-israelis-killed-1-590-wounded-civilians-and-soldiers-held-hostage-in-gaza/0000018b-0cd2-d8fc-adff-6dfe855e0000 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/8/israel-palestine-escalation-live-israeli-forces-bombard-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-palestinian-attack-october-2023-gaza-conflict-hostages-latest-news kencf0618 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

My two agorots' worth: I support the use of the word "war" in the article title, but at the same time wonder whether the name "Palestine" belongs there. The attack on Israel was a Hamas initiative (possibly with outside help), but was it really an official Palestinian one? After all, Mahmoud Abbas, who is supposedly the Palestinian president (although I realize that his status as such is very controversial), is not part of Hamas. Palestine, as it sits now, is politically very fractured. Beyond that, I have no recommendation for a proper title, and I agree with a number of contributors that we should wait and see how this situation develops. Kelisi (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: I agree on the use of the word "war" but also due to the concepts of territorial dispute and the historical nature of the region, it may be possible to classify this as a warring internal dispute; a civil war. Therefore: October 2023 Gaza−Israel Civil War. LukeRDavis (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I don’t think “war” is an inappropriate term any longer. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: I believe that the name should be changed to The Israeli-Hamas War. USA1855 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to change the title to include the word "war". More and more news outlet are beginning to use "war" to describe what is happening. Here is one example:

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2023/10/08/israel-gaza-war-more-than-1000-dead-as-fighting-rages-on.html Withmoralcare (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: As many major outlets, including Al Jazeera, are describing it as the "Israel-Hamas war" Hensci (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: Israel has declared a state of war, and Israel and Hamas are the warring parties.kencf0618 (talk) 13:29, 9 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.

Add "non-combatants" to the Military conflict infobox

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
Part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Gaza-Israel conflict
Date 7 October 2023 – present Location Israel Gaza Strip Status Ongoing
Belligerents and Non-belligerents
Hamas Islamic Jihad	Civilian non-combatants	Israel
Commanders and leaders
Mohammed Al-Daif Ziyad al-Nakhalah		Benjamin Netanyahu Yoav Galant
Units involved
Al-Qassam Brigades Al-Quds Brigades PFLP Lions' Den	Magen David Adom Red Crescent	Israel Defense Forces
Casualties and losses
Unknown	At least 2 (in Gaza). and 7 (in Israel) civilians killed. At least 5 (in Gaza) and 3 (in Israel) civilians injured. Multiple civilians captured (in Israel)	At least 10 killed Unknown number of prisoners Armored vehicles destroyed and captured: 1 Merkava destroyed 1 Merkava captured 1 Namer APC captured Over 35 soldiers, police officers and civilians captured

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

I am of course talking about the civilians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we can confirm the reports of kidnapping by now, I agree non-combatants should be added Daniel (strangestuff) (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It isn't the convention for such things. I think it is best to raise this up to editors who are part of the Military History task force. Borgenland (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't you think that Israel-Palestine conflict is in a bit of a unique situation compared to other conflicts where it isn't 100% clear cut that subjects of Israeli-controlled territory don't necessarily align with the national identity of Israel? Perhaps on that basis, this is the correct venue to have a discussion and make an exception.

If not, could you please point a link to the correct venue to have such a discussion? Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the addition of non-combatants unless this becomes wiki-wide policy. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a good idea, imagine doing Ukraine. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is primary a military conflict, with its own conventions and it would make every conflict more convoluted than it is already. Imagine having Henri Dunant listed as a field commander in the Battle of Solferino.

Anyways, move your forum here to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history

Borgenland (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Solferino was as far as I can tell, a purely military conflict without civilian non-combatant targets. Henri Dunant was not involved in any combat.

For Ukraine, I am very much in favour, as well as Northern Ireland, or any other conflict of civilian non-combatant targeting, especially where their national allegiance can be easily determined (for example, indiscriminate attacks in disputed territory). Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

But he did involve himself. Which would make him a unit Borgenland (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the wiki page about it, the battle was already over, he was inspired by the aftermath to make Geneva conventions which relate just as much to how combatants can attack each other (or not) as it does to civilians. If he was out there on the battlefield telling sides not to kill each other in the heat of battle, or he was out supporting civilians not of any side (and the civilians without a side were actually present in that battle), yeah, I would support his inclusion. But really beside the point isn't it. Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with others, if this was added here this rationale could really be used in most conflicts. I'm also not sure the point? We have a casualties section which typically delineates between civilians and fighters. If they were fighting together as some sort of militia group with its own wikipedia article then this might change, but as it stands I see no point as having civilians as a "third side" in really any conflict. Yeoutie (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

As it stands right now, civilian non-combatant casualties are not separated out at all anymore. This is really a reflection of how seriously Wikipedia (and people involved in this topic at large) really care about civilian casualties. It is just a foot note or and now not even mentioned at all because everyone wants to claim a civilian as "one of their own" to use for propaganda purposes against the other side rather than a genuine concern about civilian casualties. Kleinerziegler (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a point of concern that I would have to ask. There have also been Palestinian civilians killed in direct clashes in the West Bank in support of what happened in Gaza. While I'm not sure if they've been included in the infobox, how will your proposal address that? Borgenland (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. It is very hard to determine the precise definition based on media reports, but essentially, I have done some more research when posting this and there is a logical difference between a "combatant terrorist", "non-combatant terrorist" and "non-combatant civilian":

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

Source: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&amp=&context=law-student-publications&amp=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fas_ylo%253D2015%2526q%253Dnon-combatant%2526hl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%252C48#search=%22non-combatant%22

"combatant terrorist" - someone who acts as a soldier would on the battlefield as if they were in the military, even though that military technically doesn't exist because that organisation does not have statehood

"non-combatant terrorist" - the same except instead of attacking military targets, they attack civilians. i.e. September 11, Boston bomber.

"non-combatant civilian" - Neither of the above. Have not attacked anyone with deadly force.

There is a gray area often bought up, particularly from the Israel side, when Palestinians use rocks or malee to injure/kill civilians or IDF. I am not totally sure how to handle that circumstance, but in an ideal world where there is enough evidence to go through these cases, I would lean towards counting them as a non-combatant civilian unless it's proven that they used serious force with intent to kill or severely injury.

(PS: Politically, I don't like using the term 'Terrorist' to describe combatants - against a military force. I'd associate the term 'terrorist' with the second group who attacks civilians and it seems that Governments have adopted the term for non-State militias to associate them with the abhorrent practice of attacking civilians. As far as I am concerned, Armies who fight each other should be regarded as being on equal footing as both being military forces, regardless of who is better equipped) Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-combatants are not belligerents- casualties for civilians are covered at the bottom of the infobox. Civilian agencies operating during the war aren't relevant for the infobox - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If you look closely, the infobox example was modified to say "Belligerents and Non-belligerents" Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Do also note that your proposal would add an unnecessary gap in the leaders and units, especially if no obvious relief agency is available. It would also lead to more mistakes with users having difficulties with columns particularly in conflicts were there are more than two defined sets of combatants involved. Borgenland (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

In my example, I have deliberately omitted "Commanders and leaders" because so far no one has stepped up to stand up for purely the civilian casualties.

I might argue that MDA is supporting both Civilians and IDF, while RC is supporting both Civilians and Hamas, and could be listed twice in that regards, as they don't discriminate based on combatant status.

It would seem that there is precedent for a 4-way war: Syrian civil war. Kleinerziegler (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

but your example did not list the Syrian Red Crescent or the White Helmets in whatever you consider to be non-belligerents. Borgenland (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You are completely correct, the Syrian civil war should also be listed out as a 5-way war. Thank you for saying this. Kleinerziegler (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Abo_Yemen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) DO NOT edit others' discussion! You vandalised my example. You will be reported if you do this again! Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  i removed the ref tags as they were messing with the talk page Abo Yemen✉ 11:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already a third casualties parameter in the conflict infobox template for covering civilian casualties. There is nothing unique about this conflict or any other. The same style guide applies . Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023

Support: Israel/Palestine is a special case. Even if you want to divide everyone into Jewish people and Arab people, there are many Arabs in Israel, and many pockets of formerly (or currently, depending on your perspective) Palestinian territory that can be collateral damage of Hamas' own rockets. You cannot cleanly divide many innocent bystanders into supporters of one country or another. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

But as far as legality is concerned, those Arabs in Israel are citizens of the State of Israel and some of them are serving in the IDF and/or are reservistst. Borgenland (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There are some who embrace the State of Israel, but others who reject the State of Israel, despite holding citizenship, or being eligible to hold citizenship (or technically are) but refusing to get an ID/passport on ideological grounds, and prefer the term "Palestinian" over "Israeli-Arab"

I would not automatically count on Arabs living within Israel proper as being on the Israel side, unless there is evidence to support their allegiance to one side or the other. Kleinerziegler (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: almost every conflict involves civilian casualties and the "parties" in an infobox typically represent the belligerents (and allies of said belligerents). Civilians are not fighting this war per se nor are they a belligerent. Per above and per this reasoning, adding in a "civilian party" would be superfluous and inaccurate. Dan the Animator 00:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: It's important to separate civilians and combatants in order to get a clear picture of the events. Yes, I know in modern conflicts like this the line between the two can be quite murky, but still. -75.142.18.247 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: as per other opposes, there are already parts of the infobox to put the desired info in, and it doesn't make logical sense to have a category of belligerents and non-belligerents. AllenY99 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Whilst I appreciate the humanitarian sentiment, this is generally not how armed conflicts are conceptualised, and Wikipedia is not the place to change attitudes. Riposte97 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Problem is, civilians are not under an umbrella either. Nothing unites say, an Israeli civilian killed by shelling versus a Palestinian civilian killed by shelling except for shared bad luck. Adding in groups like the Red Crescent further confuses things. What would a doctor who comes from some faraway country with aid have in commons with the previous two examples?

We group the Israeli military divisions and the Palestinian military divisions together because they fight for a side.

There really isn't a third side. Bremps... 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

And that would run into improper synthesis territory. If reliable media in the future (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source) starts reporting civilians as a "third side", then we can change our infobox. That has not happened yet. Bremps... 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That is the whole point, to converge onto Civilian casualties without attribute them to a particular 'side', because they are not an either binary side, they are on the side of being innocent, getting caught up in the middle (also a deliberate choice to place them in the middle in the info box).

If a Doctor comes from a faraway land and treats injured from "both sides" equally, they do not need to be placed under a particular side. In fact, MDA have a mandate to do exactly this and will treat anyone they can, including Palestinian fighters who have caused carnage (not that I think that they would get priority & probably for propaganda purposes), because their only job is to save lives.

So ideally, humanitarian efforts supporting civilians are listed without being sided either except on the side of civilians, unless they also support a particular side at the same time, then they are essentially on two sides at the same time.

I accept that this is currently a data problem, but think that it is still worth trying to sift through the data to find the information or make estimates as much as possible, with the hope that the "feel sorry for the innocent people" side will grow and this data becomes more available over the long term. Kleinerziegler (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose That's not the concept of Wikipedia's conflict infoboxes. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose there are better ways of describing civilian casualties in the infobox. And listing the Red Crescent as a "combatant" is too strange to even consider. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 7 October 2023

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

• Too early, we don't know where this will lead yet. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, we need to wait for this is to take it's true form. But for now its just extreme tensions, not a all-out war. Snekaer (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps wait a bit for sources to come in that it is an all-out war, otherwise Wikipedia could be pre-emptive enough to make it be widely reported as an all-out war, and from there become an all-out war. Kleinerziegler (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Good idea, no need to escalate the situation ourselves. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point 72.195.236.88 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Renerpho (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point Catchphraseman (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Renerpho (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait a bit. Note per NYT, "Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, a military spokesman. He told reporters that the military was not yet calling the events on Saturday a "war," even though Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, had already done so in an official statement." Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Shall we move this to Hamas invasion of Israel on the lines of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please note that Russia attacked Ukraine first and now both are in a war attacking and defending against each other. Same is the case here. Hamas invaded and now both are in a state of war. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  This would violate WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE. Ghost finders (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hamas is not a country. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier See 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia Parham wiki (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, conflict/war is more appropriate. The invasion will consist of only a part of this entry. The scope of this entry consists and will consist of the entire conflict, even if it goes beyond Hamas’s invasion and into an Israeli invasion of Gaza. 2600:6C5A:44F0:2840:E0D3:58A8:5771:A49B (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hamas's invasion of Israel is only part of the war between them, therefore, this page needs to reflect that reality. The Hamas's invasion does merit its own separate page. There is a page for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and separate page for the Russo-Ukrainian War. Lewis150 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  1 - hamas isn’t a country

  2 - This invasion isn’t even completely done by hamas but several armies. If “invasion of anything” Gaza invasion of Israel would be more accurate The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @The Great Mule of Eupatoria

  • See 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia. Is al-Shabaab a country? No. Yet the page is named in that way because al-Shabaab invaded Ethiopia.
  • In Russian invasion of Ukraine Russian army invaded first then Wagner and other Russian-backed forces joined. Same is here. Hamas invaded then others joined. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah you may be right about it not needing to be a country, however you are saying it like the knesset were chilling at a tea party and then Gaza attacked. The conflict in Ukraine was localised, with 2 Russian backed separatists poking at ukraines side for 8 years before Russia decided to no longer hide the proxy war, while in Gaza the relation with Israel and what it had done to the population is terrible, they have had wars before. Comparing the Palestinian population in Gaza who have reach a boiling point and fed up with the disgusting treatment of the people while casting them under the blanket of hamas to an oligarchy invading a sovereign country to restore and old empire is not so cute The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @The Great Mule of Eupatoria Russo-Ukrainian War exists. But formal Invasion is defined in Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Similarly, Gaza–Israel conflict exists. This is about the major escalation by Hamas rather than the daily clashes. And if Israel attacked Gaza and jts citizens so did Hamas. They too were not having tea at the Palestine tower. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this 96.250.98.141 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now despite the "we're at war" comment, the media is still referring to it as a conflict, so it's still the WP:COMMONNAME. There isn't anything to gain by rushing to rename something that isn't widely used yet. It's also controversial to name it after Palestine when it's specifically Hamas that the issue is with. Waiting is the best option in my opinion.
  JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. There's no real point in pretending the conflict is something it doesn't seem to be at this point. Catchphraseman (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• This scenario always happens, and the answer is always to wait. Dege31 (talk) Dege31 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support 2023 Gaza-Israel war - both sides have acknowledged this to go beyond just a simple operation and rather a war. RamHez (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed that this should not be called a war with Palestine as this currently has nothing to do with most of Palestine (i.e. the West Bank). So 'Gaza' is correct, although IMO not really a war unless it lasts for a week or so Fig (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Um... Six-Day War 75.104.88.113 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Support. 41.109.187.110 (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Shaan Sengupta, there are sources saying invasion:

  • https://www.vox.com/2023/10/7/23907323/israel-war-hamas-attack-explained-southern-israel-gaza
  • https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/amp/
  • https://www.iranintl.com/en/202310073626
  • https://www.thestatesman.com/world/israel-palestine-war-from-hamas-invasion-to-israels-retaliation-video-1503229517.html
  • https://www.firstpost.com/vantage/hamas-invasion-of-israel-indias-pm-modi-condemns-terrorist-attacks-vantage-with-palki-sharma-28022
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/07/biden-israel-hamas-saudi-arabia/

  103.241.226.129 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Partially support. i think the article should be name “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” or at least an article about the operation should be created. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Is the State of Palestine even involved? They gave an ambivalent statement on the matter as far as I can tell, and titling the article as such if they are not in the war would be serious disinformation Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• oppose - conflict still the most commonly used term by external sources Xyphoid (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hamas would not doubt be claiming that it is in response to some previous invasion by Israel and by this logic it would be never ending invasions and counter-invasions of each other. Kleinerziegler (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since 1948, ongoing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier Russo-Ukrainian War and Russian invasion of Ukraine both article exists. Whats going on since 1948 is a conflict. But this is a major escalation (won't call it war as advised above). There are articles on conflicts going on since 1948. There is a difference in both. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  If one renames Israel-Palestine conflict (the whole thing) as Israel-Palestine war, then this is just a part of that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but not relevant to here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'd support this, it seems to accurately describe this situation rn - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps but are sources calling it a war? Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  The words Invasion and war are different. They dont have same exact meaning. Since sources are calling/not calling it a war that's why I suggested Invasion. Because this is what it is. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which sources are calling it (naming it) an invasion? Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier I never said sources calling it. I said that's what (invasion) it is. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier Anyways, sources say that Hamas has invaded/incursed/attacked Israel.

  • At least 40 killed in Hamas surprise attack on Israel
  • Hamas kills 40 in unprecedented, wide-ranging incursion into Israel. Netanyahu says ‘we are at war’
  • Hamas launches large attack on Israel as war breaks out in Gaza

  There are many more. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with the term invasion if it would be an official proposal. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest we procedurally close this for now as WP:SK #6. S5A-0043^Talk 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Way too early to tell how the situation will evolve, and whether "war" is the right terminology to use. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wait - This does seem likely to turn into a war, but in that case the proper title would be 2023 Gaza War in line with precedent from 2014 and 2008, or if the conflict widens beyond the Gaza area, then we will have to see what RS call it. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — 2023 Gaza war exists. An article for the attack should not be voided. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Will be deleted shortly. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  It has been redirected to this article. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I personally predict that there will be a separate article on the surprise attack. I'd wait until more coverage develops for it though because of WP:TOOSOON. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Israel declared a state of war because of the Islamist intrusion. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support 2023 Gaza War Israel said it is a war and title would be in line with the previous two Gaza wars. EkoGraf (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think such a title is too limiting since the attacks on Israel (especially the incursions into Israel by militants) including as our article say territory that is de jure Israel, are generally considered a key part of the conflict/war as they are more significant than any attacks on Israel for a long time. The previous 2 Gaza wars primarily involved fighting within Gaza. Perhaps things will change over time, but we can only go by how things stand at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The PLO or Fatah aren't involved as far as I know, it would be very disingenuous to call this a "Palestine-Israel War". ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fatah and the PLO have no trademark on "Palestinian". One side of this conflict is obviously and widely referred to as Palestinian. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, Hezbollah has now started in the clashes so it's not localized to Gaza. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Too early. PLO or Fatah are not supporting as yet so calling it Palestine−Israel war is not right at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anything, it would be a Hamas-Israel war, since the PLO and the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank don't appear to be joining in. The extent of Hezbollah's involvement appears to be a generic statement of support for Hamas (just like Iran), but they don't appear to be involved in the attacks at this time, so the proposed move is to the wrong page. I would support 2023 Gaza War, however, for these reasons and for those given by EkoGraf. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No instead we should title it Gaza Israel war 2023. Tesla car owner (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not an improvement. That said, 2023 Gaza-Israel War may be warranted soon. If not already. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "Palestine", because the West Bank hasn't been involved. Gaza's got its own political system for a long time. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think "Israel" would need to be in the title (e.g, "Gaza–Israel"), as much of the fighting has occurred on Israeli territory. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense for me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support. There has been an official declaration of war by Israel. This is a full-on war not a simple conflict. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: conflict remains the most commonly used term in external sources. It is a part of the Gaza–Israel conflict which has been ongoing for a long time, see for example Military operations of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It might get to the stage of the Gaza War (2008–2009) or the 2014 Gaza War, but we must not rush. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Point of information - There are two contentious issues here, probably the result of a rush of editors new to editing current events articles. This requested move is about a specific title, and not about the general observation of whether this is a war or not. The question being asked is whether "2023 Palestine−Israel war" is the right title. Secondly, titles of articles are generally goverened by WP:COMMONNAME which states, "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." There is a lot of WP:OR or personal reflection on a war-related title here rather than citing sources. Until mainstream news sources start using a "war" label consistently, you may find staying with the current name more prudent. Looking at this list may be instructive: List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. This is all to say that breaking out a new discussion section just around the "war" label may be useful, because expressing all those opinions into the mix of this RM just makes it more confusing for all. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Gaza is enclaved and supported by Palestine Pooqn (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Gaza is internationally recognized as an exclave of Palestine, but has been controlled by a separate entity (Hamas) since 2007. Hamas caused the attack, not the PLO, and conflating both here would be disingenuous. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Palestine Israel War. Strongly support Gaza Israel War. Gaza is only a part of Palestine and does not include West Bank. However this is still a war as Israel has entered a state of war. Ecrusized (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support calling this a war since it is one, but I'm not sure about that specific title. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Partial Support: I believe it would be more appropriate to change the article's name to 2023 Israel Hamas war since the war is not happening in the West Bank. EloquentEditor (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  But Hamas isn't the only Palestinian group participating in this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Partial Support for 2023 Gaza War. A Palestine War would imply that it has the support of the entire PA including whatever passes for its entire military structure. Borgenland (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the fighting yet has took place on Israeli areas, not Gaza. 2001:1970:50E1:E300:0:0:0:139D (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We don't know how long this conflict will last, or how much it will escalate. No need to hurry. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Far too early to make a call on what to call this.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is way too early. I would like to note that it doesn't really matter what Netanyahu calls it, it only matters what reliable sources refer to it as, and at this point they are not using the term war other than when quoting the prime minister. Agree that the "gaza-israel" part should be changed however. Yeoutie (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Support Hamas-Israel as the parties involved. Yeoutie (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Call it what it is: Hamas attacking Israel and Israel defending itself. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  So much for following wikipedia’s unbiased policy, huh 78.171.44.45 (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — As others have already said, it is too early to call it a "war", in terms of usage of that word in reliable sources and also the scale of the conflict. Yue🌙 17:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support - Israel has declared a state of war. What is happening is more unprecedented than the 2006 Lebanon War (yes, "war"!) I'm perplexed why people insist on calling it the clunky title it has now. -- Veggies (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Thus far the war does not involve Palestine at large. Gaza is only one of the Palestinian regions and Hamas is only one of its organizations. (That said, I would prefer a less clunky title than the current name.) AbbotOfLeibowitz (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Except Hamas isn't the only org involved in this war Abo Yemen✉ 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's too early to call it a war, and too early to tell where the conflict is going to go. - RockinJack18 18:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah agreed. Barring official declarations of war by both sides, naming something a war is best done in retrospect a few weeks or months down the line. Hard to call where this conflict/invasion will go. Unfortunately my gut does think this is going the direct of war, but we don't know that yet, and the sources aren't really supporting it yet. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support 2023 Israeli-Palestinian war. "War" because Israel itself has called it as such. "Israeli-Palestinian" because this already involves Gaza, and Palestinian militants in the West Bank have been regularly clashing with Israeli troops.VR _talk 19:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support It's obvious by now its a full blown war.Weatherextremes (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but it'd be good to have this discussion again at a later time. Most reliable sources still call it a conflict, and until that changes (and therefore so does the WP:COMMONNAME) I'm reluctant to support a page move at this time. Wikipedia has a lot of power when it comes to article titles, so it's important to be sure of these things. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 21:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Palestine" is both POV in this context and also inaccurate, as it reflects a war between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that currently is not underway, and/or a war between Israel and the land comprising the former Palestine Mandate, which it now controls, which is nonsensical. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Comments made which state that we do not know where this will lead and the main news are referring to this under this nomenclature. Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support This case is not like the previous Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. It has a much larger dimension, with a high number of deaths on both sides in only one day. Israel has declared a state of war; and, in addition, it is taking place beyond the Gaza Strip and the surrounding area. Salvabl (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - too early to tell if this is a COMMONNAME or if this is even a war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Too soon - pretty obvious we may well get there, but there's no reason to jump the gun. Retswerb (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Is it a considered a war yet? Cwater1 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's definitely becoming more large-scale with the expansion of Hamas controlled area in Israel because of the Hamas offensive and the large Israeli strikes in Gaza, so it's more of a war than just clashes at this point. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support alternative as 2023 Gaza-Israel War. It is almost certainly a war at this point, but fighting is still localized around Gaza and doesn't exactly warrant being referred to as "Palestine-Israel"/"Israel-Palestine", at least until we start seeing action around the West Bank. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  News sources do not call that, as wikipedia editors we can’t simply give events their names as it’s a violation of WP:OR. 78.171.44.45 (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per all sides declaring as such. Ultimograph5 (talk)
• Support as Netanyahu has declared that Israel in state of war and Hamas invasion of Israel is a good idea. As some part of West Bank is under Israeli Occupation while Gaza Strip is unitedly under Hamas Control. Lionel Messi Lover (talk)
• Oppose any move for now but support 2023 Gaza-Israel War should RS start calling it a war. (ps: strongly oppose any title that includes "Palestine" since Fatah (e.g. half of Palestine) is not a belligerent in this conflict) Dan the Animator 00:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose War against whom exactly? Where is the declaration of war and who made it? Why are some so anxious to call this an official "war"? The ink isn't even dry on the story. Perhaps an encyclopedia should follow and not lead? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As previously stated, not all of Palestine is directly involved in this conflict, just Gaza. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support A state of war has been acknowledged by governmental entities. This is a war between two de facto states, regardless of anyone's position, and is therefore unambiguously such.

DarmaniLink (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Support alternative Palestine as a whole is not involved to my knowledge,only Hamas and by extension Hamas-occupied Gaza.The article should be changed to ''2023 Hamas-Israel war'' or just ''Hamas-Israel war'' Roma enjoyer (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Support for “war”: I weakly support the “2023 Israel-Palestine War” naming, however I would give full support to 2023 Gaza-Israel War. 78.171.44.45 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Still too early to be calling this. (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL) Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment War has been declared, but isn't this only the Gaza half of Palestine? To my understanding, they are under separate leadership. Bremps... 00:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Point of Information Capitalized War as in American Civil War or lowercase war as in Syrian civil war? Bremps... 15:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There is not enough information to support this change as of now. I'm open to revisiting the subject as more information appears in RS to justify calling it by the proposed name. For example, how much non-Gaza Palestinian involvement have we seen shown in sources? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Partially Support Israeli has decarded a state of war and newspapers are reporting the declaration.[1] Israeli does not recognize Palestine and, therefore, cannot and has not declared war against Palestine. Lewis150 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wait We still hgavent received the official and de facto military reaction from West Bank, Fatah and PLO (even though one or two members of PLO seems to have involved in conflict, not all) therefore how can we say it is Israel-Palestine when half of Palestine yet still haven't involved?Eventually, West Bank will get involved too but I can not state in this course how will they get involved in. But wake me up when clashes start to occur inside and around West Bank. Cactus Ronin (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wait -- User Veggies brought up the 2006 Lebanon War, but that lasted for 34 days, and is called a war in most reliable sources (and by both parties and most neutral observers). There is no minimum for how long a war can take, and we don't know yet how long this conflict/war will last, but most sources still call this a conflict. If we eventually decide to move, I agree with Dantheanimator's reason to prefer 2023 Gaza-Israel War (and to strongly oppose the currently proposed move). Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  PrimaPrime's alternative 2023 Gaza War may be even better. Renerpho (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  However the war is not taking place in Gaza, it is in Israel. For now at least. 2001:1970:50E1:E300:0:0:0:139D (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly support the removal of "October". The year is enough. Renerpho (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just noticed the order: It should be 2023 Israel−Palestine War, per WP:AND. The current article title doesn't follow that guideline either. Renerpho (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I just struck my "wait" vote, and commented again below to explain the change. Renerpho (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Until farther development. See where it leads and if it's materialize. Mathsquare (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no opinion on what this article ought to be called, but apparently a reminder of policy is necessary: we don't decide facts ourselves. We describe things as they are described by sources. The only factor in naming this article is what sources are calling it. Don't !vote based on your own opinion of whether it should be called a war. That's original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment, can this be closed as a "no"? This will allows users to open a new move discussion with the word "war" but without the word "Palestine". Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's not necessary. If we find that there is consensus for a move to any of the alternatives, the closing user can choose to move to that. I also don't think it would be a great idea to start a new move request immediately after this one has been closed, at least not if the consensus is to wait. Renerpho (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless an actual declaration of war is made, we should probably wait until either the conflict ends, or a month from now, whichever is earlier.

  @Animal lover 666: Please don't forget to sign your edits.[2] Renerpho (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment It appears now Hezbollah is involved making it more than an Gaza-Israel conflict. Completely Random Guy (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support 2023 Israel incursion, inline with articles like those listed at 2023 Nablus incursion, 2023 Jenin incursion; it is both accurate and takes into account that this has now spread beyond Palestine with the intervention of Hezbollah. BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  And what about the missile attacks on other israeli cities & the air bombardment of gaza? This article’s name needs to cover all scopes of the war 78.171.44.45 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to 2023 Arab−Israeli War since it is more than just Palestinian forces now GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Its a war between Gaza (Hamas terrorists) and Israel nation. So we should title the article as Gaza Israel war 2023 or just Gaza Israel war. Whoever saying it's not war, should read speech of Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, he said "We're at war". Its an unprecedented terrorist attack on the country. Source - [ https://abcnews.go.com/].
• Oppose for now. The conflict is recent, media coverage hasn't generally referred to it as a 'war', and Palestine as a state hasn't been militarily involved as of yet. Best to wait for official Palestinian pronouncements and/or further developments. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment To anyone suggesting an alternative name, please try to cast a support !vote with the suggested alternative name instead of an oppose !vote. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Too early, let the dust settle for a few days and reliable sources will have a clearer understanding that we can use.Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title is somewhat erratic because it resembles a war between a geographic region and a state. It's like New England–Massachussetts war. However the actual name is also erratic. While it is possible to name a war after a region, e.g. Gaza war, we can't name it Gaza–Israek war as well for the same reason. Hamas–Israel war isn't good also becaus there are several more groups involved. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Palestine is the common name of the State of Palestine and it doesn't refer to a geographic region (at least in our case) Abo Yemen✉ 12:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support The security cabinet of Israel has officially declared and referred to the conflict as a "war", thus it is now officially considered such. SlySabre (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  According to WAPO< "Israel’s declaration of war, a mostly symbolic formality, would allow the government to enact a wider mobilization of military reserves and compel the government to identify specific wartime objectives, raising the specter of a ground invasion of Gaza." Anyway, what counts is not what Israel says but what most sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It's too early for that. NoNAja (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:Too Soon - It is not November yet. Cwater1 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Not all of Palestine is participating, just the Gaza strip. Andro611 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  btw Hezbollah isn't in Gaza Abo Yemen✉ 18:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - it's difficult to say what history will think of this conflict. For now, I think the current title is best. A year from now? Who knows? --B (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Declaration of war was approved so it makes sense to call this a war. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any title that conflicts Hamas and Palestine; they are different entities. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • conflates? --B (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support alternative: Many news sources and experts are calling this a Third Intifada. It should be moved to such under WP:COMMONNAME. AmericanBaath (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose as this is being called a war and even the Israel PM approved the declaration of war on Oct 8 Efuture2 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support for 2023 Arab−Israeli War. Israel has declared a state of war. Major Israeli officials (president, PM etc) say that the country is at war. However, it is worth considering and labeling the second side of the conflict. It is the Palestinian Arab factions. But it is not a Palestinian state. PLATEL (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Israel is not at war with Palestine because Hamas is definitely not the State of Palestine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  did you take your time reading at least the infobox and seeing who is actually fighting? Abo Yemen✉ 12:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The title implies that Israel is fighting all Arabs instead of solely the belligerents listed in the infobox. Framing this as a generalized ethnic conflict is misleading. Lunaroxas (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Most news outlets label this as the most significant war in the region since the Yom Kippur war. Hamas in the south, Hezbollah in the north, now Iran is apparently involved, as well as the US which is sending warships to the region. This is not just a shootout, or a dispute, this appears to be a war with regional players involved. Even if just a proxy war, it's still a war. Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - largely reported by media as a 'war' now Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Gaza War is the only title that makes sense to me. Charles Essie (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a war. I'm surprised it hasn't been renamed yet. Is there even one example of media or politicians calling it a conflict? Hamas has ground forces in Israel. Netanyahu specifically referred to it as a war. Hamas has called bombing Gaza for a war crime. It's very clearly a war. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has turned a bit into a joke. Everyone but Wikipedia is calling it a war. Even Hamas has talked about war crimes. Netanyahu has declared war. Why not call it what it is? 82.147.226.240 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Fatah, which leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is officially involved and clashes are being reported in the West Bank. It now makes sense to use "Palestine" or "Palestinian" in the title instead of "Gaza" or "Gazan." AmericanBaath (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - this is now labelled a war by Financial Times Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This conflict has been labeled as a war by many people including the media and Palestine and Israel officials I think that this should be labeled as a "war."

CostalCal (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The Israeli President literally declared war. The "conflict" started in 1948. Also, it's about more than just Gaza, although they are being focused on by the media and bombed excessively, all of Palestine has been under an active apartied state since the unlawful colonization in 48. 136.37.8.145 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Summarised

• Comment

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

Year disambiguator:

Option 1) October 2023 (status quo)

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

Location descriptor:

Option A) Gaza−Israel (status quo)

Option B) Palestine−Israel (RM proposal)

Option C) Gaza (proposed by EkoGraf, "2023 Gaza War)

Option D) Israeli−Palestinian (proposed by VR)

Option E) Arab−Israeli (proposed by GloriousExistence)

Option F) Hamas−Israel (proposed by Red-tailed hawk)

Conflict descriptor:

Option i) Conflict (status quo)

Option ii) War (RM proposal)

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

@Chessrat Can Hamas Invasion of Israel also be proposed on the line of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please note that Russia attacked Ukraine first and now both are in a war attacking and defending against each other. Same is the case here. Hamas invaded and now both are in a state of war. I put this before too in the discussion above. I was told that Hamas in not a nation. So is al-Shabaab (not a nation). But 2022 al-Shabaab invasion of Ethiopia exists. Then I was told that how am I saying that Hamas initiated this. Well if we compare it with Russia-Ukraine situation then Russo-Ukrainian War was going on by separatist forces. But then Russia escalated and invaded Ukranian formally and Russian invasion of Ukraine was made. Similarly Gaza–Israel conflict and regular clashes were going all the time but then Hamas escalated and invaded Israel. There was also a claim that according to reports only Hamas is not involved others too are. For that in Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia invaded and then Russian-backed forces like Wagner joined. Similar case here Hamas invaded and then Hamas backed forces (allies) like Hezbollah joined. Can we consider my proposal too like all other. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Gazan invasion would be more appropriate if we are to be inclusive of all groups. Borgenland (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hezbollah is not in Gaza Parham wiki (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a nice summary that is well reasoned and is consistent with existing naming conventions. It may be useful to survey what reputable media outlets are labeling this event, since WP:COMMONNAME does advise us to consider what reliable sources are using. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose So far only the Gaza Strip is involved. --Synotia (moan) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  as @Parham wiki said, Hezbollah is not in Gaza Abo Yemen✉ 14:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nor is Iran. -- GreenC 15:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support but as 2023 Gaza–Israel War. This is a war, and it is being recognized as such by the media. --(Roundish ⋆t) 15:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose title as proposed, but support 2023 Gaza war or 2023 Gaza–Israel war. “Palestine” in this case is inaccurate, as it seemingly implies the West Bank/PA is involved when they simply put are not. For now, it’s just Hamas in Gaza. The Kip 16:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  that means you support the renaming of the article; you should change it to "Support 2023 Gaza war or 2023 Gaza–Israel war." without the oppose Abo Yemen✉ 17:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As it stands today, this is war with Hamas. Hence, Hamas must be in the title. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Atm, NYT is running its live commentary as "Israel Gaza conflict", WAPO/AJ as "Israel Hamas conflict", Guardian as "Israel Hamas war", AP/Reuters as "Hamas attack" so nocon there either. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support War was officially declared by Israel for the first time in 50 years so it is a war. Someone Not Awful (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe it should be something more like "Gaza-Israel War" or "Hamas-Isreal War" instead since the conflict is only between Gaza and Isreal and does not include either the West Bank nor the government of the State of Palestine? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support a rename to "2023 Gaza-Israel War", but Oppose a rename to "2023 Palestine-Israel War" - I support changing the conflict part of the name to war and removing "October" since this is the most significant conflict of the year there and could extend past this month. However, I think that changing "Gaza" to "Palestine" is unnecessary and overly exaggerates the extent of the conflict, since only the Gaza strip has been involved so far. It if extends outside of Gaza, then it can be changed to Palestine. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 19:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support a rename to "2023 Gaza-Israel War" per declaration and above comments.Spilia4 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support "2023 Gaza war" would be more appropriate محرر البوق (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support rename to 2023 Gaza-Israel War. My preference is 2023 Hamas-Israel War due to the declaration of the war being officially towards Hamas. Moreover, "Palestine" perceives that all Palestinian parties, such as Hezbollah, have an active role in the conflict. Unlike the invasion of Ukraine, Hamas is more widely known than Putin, let alone the United Russia party, and considering on an ancillary note the lack of UN member status for Palestine, and attributing the war to Israel and Hamas as the two primary belligerents through nearly all the sources previously stated (as well as others including CNN, CNBC, Deutsche Welle, Chinese State Media, the WSJ, and ABC Australia), I'd say that Hamas is the best belligerent in the title. Given Hamas' governance over Gaza, though, I'd say that Gaza would be an alternative if Hamas is not suitable for inclusion in the title, hence my first sentence. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support alternative move to 2023 Gaza War. Multiple sources refer to this as a war and this title adjusts to the current location of combats avoiding to decide between Hamas or Palestine. A lot of reports warn that Israel will start a land invasion of the Gaza Strip, but it is too soon to assume that other fronts will be openned. In case of that, there will be time to find another name. Anyway, I strongly support to add war and remove October from the title. The current escalation is more comparable in the number of casualities and impact to the Six-day War rather than to the May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes. Basque mapping (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the title 2023 Hamas-Israel War or similar. Seems that the conflict hasn't escalated to the West Bank yet and has been mostly Hamas and other smaller aligned groups against Israel.LordLoko (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm wondering if the name shouldn't be "2023 Gazan–Israeli War" instead. As my explanation, I want to point out that names of conflicts usually have adjectives. For example, ongoing conflict in Europe is described as "Russo-Ukrainian War" or "Russian-Ukrainian War" instead of "Russia-Ukraine War". And the same goes to most of wars in history.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support It is clear that both parties recognize this conflict as a war. I'd prefer a move to 2023 Gaza War. TheInevitables (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Since Israel has declared a state of war. Johnson524 21:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support now since decleration of war has been officially issued. ♦ jaguar 22:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as it's clearly a war, both sides are calling it that. Also, Israel has now formally declared itself in a state of war. I would support move to either 2023 Israel−Palestine War or 2023 Gaza War. GWA88 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as Israel has outright made a declaration of war, though I also think that some of the alternative names suggested here would be viable as well.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. ~ HAL333 23:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as both sides are calling it a war. Strong Oppose to "2023 Gaza War" because fighting is taking place in Israel as well. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support page move to 2023 Palestine−Israel War, as per the recent formal declaration of war. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'd rather have the page moved to 2023 Hamas-Israel War as Israel declared war on specifically Hamas, not Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Bottom Text (talk • contribs) 01:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Struck per Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA. — MaterialWorks 14:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support with modification' -- it should be the '2023 Hamas-Israel War', per the above comment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree. With Hezbollah involved, this goes beyond Hamas. Mihibo5 (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would support "2023 Gaza War" or '2023 Hamas-Israel War', but not "Palestine−Israel War" at this point. One should realize however that other sides (like Hezbolah) are likely to join. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  They joined Abo Yemen✉ 13:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support as either 2023 Gaza war or 2023 Gaza–Israel war. It's been two days now. Both sides have made statements calling it a war, and multiple major media sources are referring to it as a war. — N2e (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as 2023 Gaza-Israel war or Third Intifada. An official declaration of war is being signed, it's hard to call it anything else. 64.43.152.30 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Struck per Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA. — MaterialWorks 14:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Conflict is too vague. Insurgency, intifada, invasion, massacre & war are much better descriptors. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support "2023 Gaza-Israel War"; the problem with having October in the title is that this could easily last well beyond October.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. The current title incorrectly uses a minus sign (−) instead of a dash (–). For the proper symbol used, see Gaza–Israel conflict. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment "2023 Gaza–Israel war" seems reasonable enough to me and I think it would be worth closing this RM sooner rather than later at that, given there's obviously no consensus for anything else and that in all recent votes there has been complete WP:SNOW support for both removing the "October" and for changing the "conflict" to "war". It looks vaguely silly for Wikipedia to be avoiding the term "war" whilst every notable source uses that. It's hard to summarize the result of a RM whilst events are changing so quickly after all- would be quite easy to move it to 2023 Gaza–Israel war for now and be open to a future RM changing that to something like Palestine–Israel if the core area of the fighting spreads. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  But the Lebanese Hezbollah is also a part of this war and Lebanon shares no borders with Gaza Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  My point is- the title being "2023 XXX war" is not controversial; there's no full consensus on what the XXX should be but a decent amount of support for the "Gaza-Israel" status quo. As a result a quick move to "2023 Gaza-Israel war" would be better than the current title and there is no controversy about dropping the "October" and changing the "conflict" to "war", and still leaves the possibility open of a future move depending on the spread of the conflict ("2023 Palestine-Israel war" might end up more appropriate depending on the scale of Hezbollah intervention) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  yeah that's basically almost everyone here in this discussion Abo Yemen✉ 14:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I already voted above, so this is just a summary of my current position. I would like to add a reminder that the first option does not follow the WP:AND guideline, which asks for entities to be listed in alphabetical order in such cases. That is, it should be 2023 Israel–Palestine War, not 2023 Palestine–Israel War, should that option be chosen. It is my impression that a consensus is forming to make some move, and I have struck my vote to "wait" that I gave earlier. I am uncertain what the best option would be, but I definitely support that the word "October" should be removed, any typos (minus vs. dash symbol) corrected, and I now weakly support the word "war" in the title. Renerpho (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Chessrat: Was this intended as a reply to Abo Yemen, or to my comment? Maybe move it accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, there was evidently an edit clash. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  All good. :) Renerpho (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support "2023 Israel–Palestine War" All the major news sources in different languages and different sources call it a war. I have seen WP:RS call it Hamas-Israel war but as far as I understand the Palestinian Authority has stated it has received a declaration of war too and there has been fighting in East Jerusalem as well, meaning the West Bank is also involved. There's also Iranian and Hezbollah notable involvement too. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support for 2023 Israel–Palestine War. That's really what this is, as of the moment. -- GreenC 15:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• This war is only in Gaza. Arab–Israel War and Palestine–Israel War is technically wrong.--Sunfyre (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  so this means that you support "2023 Gaza-Israel war" Abo Yemen✉ 16:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support 2023 Gazan–Israeli War

Year disambiguator: 2023 as this stands out from rest of conflicts and clashes in 2023, more so if it is to be named "war."

Location descriptor: Gazan–Israeli as per @Artemis Andromeda.

Conflict descriptor: War Wiki6995 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need to wait until and unless the Palestinian National Authority or Palestinian Liberation Organization speak on the issue. Lunaroxas (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  The PLO has nothing to do with Gaza as they are based in the west bank Abo Yemen✉ 16:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - I do think it should be titled as a war, since war has been declared by Israel on Hamas. However, there is a chance that the war may spill into other regions, such as Lebanon and the West Bank, should Hezbollah and other groups decide to join in support of Hamas. If this happens, calling it something like the Israel-Gaza War would be incomplete. Adding a descriptor of a year, "2023 Israel-Gaza War" may be inaccurate too, we don't know how long this war is going to go on for. There is something about "Palestine-Israel War" or "Gaza-Israel War" that sounds a little clunky to me, though. (PaulThomas92 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC))

  The article name can be changed if 2024 starts Abo Yemen✉ 18:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment given the reasoning in some of the above votes, just thought I should clarify this: while two of the belligerents are technically a part of the PLO (de jure rep. of the State of Palestine), the West Bank (as a geographic polity) is not actively engaging in significant military offensives against Israel and Fatah-aligned troops (which represent a significant proportion of Palestinians militants) for now. In any case, whatever your vote, it should be based on how the majority of secondary sources are framing. btw this is not a vote Cheers, Dan the Animator 18:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This has clearly evolved into a war. A conflict is a brief period of violence, but now major, devastating attacks are taking place between the two sides. This article should be renamed 2023 Gaza War or 2023 Gaza-Israel War. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is clearly a war! War has been declared as well. Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Gaza-Israel War or 2023 Gaza-Israel War War has been declared & this is being described as a war by many sources. It’s affecting parts of Israel & Gaza as well. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Map of alleged territory seized by Hamas

I have stumbled upon this tweet which purportedly displays the towns under temporary Hamas occupation. Should this image be included in the article? https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1710584095632163250 Ecrusized (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A proper map should be made if we are to show the occupied towns LuckTheWolf (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

We could use this: Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict detailed map

Just add more cities to it in southern Israel, with control and ongoing engagements and all that - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes DBakampaka (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Response weight

As always with such pages, a wall of response material is rapidly being added without a logical stopping point - if 200 countries responded, would the page simply list all 200 responses? A simple starting point for rationalizing this would be to ditch pure twitter/X content. Foreign ministry tweets are a primary source; without secondary sources supporting the mention of such primary statement, they have no weight and are undue. I would suggest initially removing responses that do not have secondary sources supporting them, and potentially later tightening this to multiple secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The detailed wording usually adds no knowledge. A sentence such as "The attacks were condemned by countryone[ref], countrytwo[ref], ... and supported by countrya[ref], ... would seem sufficient, with more detail when anything substantial rather than routine is said. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on experience, it is better to condense such statements after things quiet down, because some editors are quite touchy especially if it deals with their home countries. Please do note also that a lot of countries, including mine, have lots of migrant workers in Israel so I might add ours the moment it comes out. Borgenland (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

We know that the West will support Israel by default and the rest of the world will call for restraint, with a few outliers supporting the Palestinians, so listing every single country in the western block with their identical statements is pointless. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Reactions are added, until they become too numerous. In that case, only reactions covered in secondary sources may be kept. If that becomes too voluminous as well, a split is in order. Simple procedure. Dege31 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Reactions are not inherently notable. They do not need to be covered at all unless the reaction itself has been the subject of analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Im going to condense and split off. nableezy - 17:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

and done. nableezy - 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a major change; there should be a consensus first.–St.nerol (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There is precedent, same thing was done with 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, split off to International reactions to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. Logical, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If your only objection is a lack of prior consensus then you dont have an objection. If you have a reason in support of a listing of reactions belongs in this article feel free to provide it. nableezy - 04:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

nableezy's action is in the spirit of WP:BRD, "there should be a consensus first" is not a problem. Pol098 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Simchat Torah, Shemini Atzeret, and Shabbat

One should remember that not only is Yom Kippur a much more important holiday than Simchat Torah (one with military implications- Yom Kippur is a fast day), Shabbat is not a holiday in the same sense as either- it happens once a week. I would remove the mention of Shabbat and perhaps clarify the difference between Simchat Torah and Yom Kippur. Tangle10 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It also occurred on Shabbat which is rest day. But aside from that, could you also clarify Succot? There are also mentions of that holiday. Borgenland (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sukkot ended right before this happened, and is a feast holiday. Tangle10 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tangle10 So many mistakes. There were three different occasions on the day of the initial attacks: Shabbat, Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah. Of the three, Shabbat is the most halakhically limiting. Yom Tov, such as Shemini Atzeret, is second to Shabbat. Simchat Torah has no halakhic significance on its own, despite being the most culturally prominent among the three. The combination of these three different occasions caused a unique difficulty: it's as halakhically limiting as possible (Shabbat), as laid back as possible (Shemini Atzeret, which is a "Yom Tov", a time of family dinners and time off work), and one of the happiest and busiest day in the Jewish year, especially for young parents and their kids (Simchat Torah). Joalbertine (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The proper, biblical name of the holiday is Shemini Atzeret. In Israel, Simchat Torah is celebrated on Shemini Atzeret, a one-day holiday immediately following the seventh (final) day of Sukkot. In the Diaspora, Shemini Atzeret is a two-day holiday immediately following the seventh day of Sukkot, and Simchat Torah is celebrated on the second day of Shemini Atzeret (which is colloquially referred to as Simchat Torah rather than "the second day of Shemini Atzeret"). The day the war started was Shemini Atzeret (and Shabbat) in both Israel and in the Diaspora, and it was Simchat Torah in Israel, but it was not Simchat Torah in the Diaspora. 108.21.213.213 (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The bible does not say anything about a day called Shmini Atzeret. It says "On the eighth [the Hebrew word is Shmini, and as an adjective it comes after the noun in Hebrew] day, you shall have an Atzeret [the exact meaning of this word is unclear, but it's at the beginning of the clause (not unusual in biblical Hebrew), immediately after the word "Shmini"]". Animal lover |666| 14:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666 This etymological information is irrelevant. I believe the point was that Shemini Atzeret is דאורייתא (a mitzvah originating from the Torah), as opposed to Simchat Torah which is not even דרבנן but is simply not a mitzvah of any kind. Joalbertine (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

party near Re’im

Palestinian terrorists arrived to the nature party complex in the Re’im forest, fired at the participants and threw grenades https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1710551424436748742 https://www.jta.org/2023/10/07/israel/it-was-utter-chaos-families-and-survivors-describe-the-horrors-of-hamas-invasion https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryhehzybp#autoplay https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2023_q3/Article-f88c2856ee80b81026.htm https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gunmen-homes-captives-abducted-gaza-leave-israelis-shock-2023-10-07/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

peoeple dead https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-bodies-being-removed-identified-from-site-of-large-party-near-reim/

"Survivors of Massacre at Israeli Outdoor Rave Describe 'Battlefield'" https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-07/ty-article/.premium/survivors-of-massacre-at-israeli-outdoor-rave-describe-battlefield/0000018b-0a85-dae9-adcb-abbfa4990000

a lot of them are missing. https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hjyzajclt

I added a sentence about bodies being recovered from the party. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The event appears to have been named Universo Paralello but can't find a solid source for that yet.©Geni (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/07/middleeast/israel-gaza-fighting-hamas-attack-music-festival-intl-hnk/index.html calls it Nova Festival. Borgenland (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In my understanding, the massacre at the nature party (which was in the forest) has nothing to do with the battle at Camp Reim (Gaza Division headquarters). These are different events that took place.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-07/ty-article/.premium/survivors-of-massacre-at-israeli-outdoor-rave-describe-battlefield/0000018b-0a85-dae9-adcb-abbfa4990000

Geographically, there are Kibbutz Reim, Camp Reim and Forest Reim in this area. These are 3 separate places and it is advisable to be careful of confusion. 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E813:77F3:5AD8:B10C (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There was also a third battle in the kibbutz itself (https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/b15wi11xz6#autoplay) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 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)

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[3][4][5] 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)
• 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)

"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)

Slow down

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

Do you have any constructive suggestions, rather than SOAPBOXing? The article is sourced to credible news outlets like CNN, Al Jazeera, and The Times of Israel. Of course information will change and update. Wikipedia, luckily, is perfectly capable of updating as the information does. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no sense in fighting this. It is inevitable. It's a major event. It will undoubtedly evolve. Andre🚐 01:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No need to be agressive. I don't agree either, but I don't need to belittle others to get my point through. Stay kind. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Doesn't a major event that has repercussions and echoes around the world deserve an article? Dl.thinker (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In an article about a subject that is leading to a large number of deaths and is likely to incite further deaths, I would think an encyclopedia ought to wait for the dust to settle. We currently live in a world filled with misinformation which has caused so many problems. We are WP:NOTNEWS. An encyclopedia should at least attempt to wait long enough to gain a more full view of facts and analysis. That is, yes there are repercussions and echoes around the world. So, let us be responsible and not contribute to those repercussions. Let us report when we have a fuller story to document. We should never be part of any echo chamber on any side. But as others have said, it's a waste of time to remind editors that this is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR Borgenland (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time that policy was correctly cited. Your explanation certainly doesn't indicate this is a correct cite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

We would be derelict in our duty if we failed to have this article and keep developing it as the war proceeds. Waiting until "the dust has settled" is an empty, unhelpful cliché. Who gets to decide when the dust has finally settled? Some random person on the internet? I have heard countless criticisms of Wikipedia over the years, but if we did not have an article about this war, that would bring on the most devastating criticism by far in the past 22 years, and I would agree with that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This article does not violate WP:NOTNEWS, which has four restrictions. There is no original reporting by Wikipedia editors. This is not routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. This is not Who's Who type of content. This is not celebrity gossip. Those are the only things that NOTNEWS precludes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case, factual reporting in RS is mostly repeating what they have been told by an involved source. I can read a newspaper for this. And then read it tomorrow and get a different set of 'facts' and then.... It's not what I use an encyclopedia for. No, we do not wait for one random person. (Did I suggest something so silly?) We form a consensus that RS are using primary sources from all involved with expert analysis tying it together. Wikipedia has no deadline. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree but it is always the same with these breaking news things, nothing to be done, the article will develop and eventually settle down. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the first major, rapidly moving event that is covered on Wikipedia as it happens. We have done this from the first day, and will doubtlessly continue to do so. The earliest edits at World Trade Center/Plane crash were quite erratic, too, even though they came from some of the founders of the platform. Renerpho (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Third Intifada..?

No one - In israel or in palestine, called it Third Intifada, really no one. אקסינו (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not universal but several American news agencies have referred to it as such. Similarly, we use "Third Intifada" in the 2014 Jerusalem unrest article, along with others.

If there's any terms being commonly used in Israeli or Palestinian media about this - and it's being widely used - I recommend that it's added. KlayCax (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

So by that logic this would be the fourth intifada. Or, perhaps, there is no third intifada despite the wishes of bloodthirsty outsiders to label everything as such. Total crystal ball violation. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WP: Crystal only applies if we're speculating it is. If reliable sources are referring to it in the present tense as such: then it's a different case. The situation is obviously horrific. I'm not implying it isn't. KlayCax (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, some news called it a third intifada, and others called it Hamas-Israel war, Israel war and some called it a Terror wave, we just need to stick we a netural name and I think the current title does it perfectly.

It could be defientely called an Intifada in a matter of days weeks or maybe months but it's not the name used by anyone other than some populist news agencies thus it's incorrect to call it that. אקסינו (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream news agencies such as The Guardian have also referred to it as such. It's not limited to tabloids. I think we're past the point of just considering it sensationalism from clickbait low-quality "news"papers. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It's a controversial term and it's too soon to decide it will be called the Third Intifada. Andre🚐 01:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• This is hardly commonly used for this conflict. I haven't seen it once. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Timeline needed.

self-explanatory. Great Mercian (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a timeline is necessary, or even feasible. Many events happened nearly simultaneously across many locations in a short period of time. It probably would be impossible to reconstruct a sequence beyond the broad outlines already given. If this conflict continues in the coming days, as it almost certainly will, a chronological progression of the conflict will become easier to write (.e.g, day-by-day or week-by-week, etc.). --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that what a timeline is? Great Mercian (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You could try to create a timeline article....divided by hour? It's only day 2. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_October_2023_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict kencf0618 (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sexual violence?

It is mentioned in the lead that there was sexual violence. However, the links provided do not say this. Driving around a body of a naked woman does not imply there was sexual assault per se. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems your objection has some point. Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The woman wasn't naked either, it appears this is how she dressed normally (look her up). Even the Israeli commander who was caught was in his underwear. It seems a lot of them were simply caught unexpectedly, nothing sexual about that. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

She was not a soldier caught unexpectedly, she was a german citizen murdered in a music festival 2A02:6680:110B:9A00:C4B1:4809:B0E2:1AD2 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no proof that she is even dead, most likely taken for prisoner swap. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The bullet holes shown in the back of her head on video aren't proof? 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:41BB:C608:C30A:AA5D (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To add on to what you said, there is still a sentence in the article saying, “a video of Palestinians parading her unconscious naked body in a car,” which should be changed to reflect the fact she is fully clothed and was being transported as a prisoner, not paraded. 159.242.0.110 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

She wasn't unconscious, she was dead. It wasn't transporting a prisoner, it was showing off and reveling over her corpse. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:41BB:C608:C30A:AA5D (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that say the opposite; she is most likely alive. The main goal of this seems to be taking prisoners for swapping, and it's entirely consistent with that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The earlier cited "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) 04:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Did this ever get put back in? Because it needs to be.

"Others were captured and bound and kidnapped. “I saw videos with a male getting held by a group of Arab kids. Like, they’re like 16, 17,” one survivor recalled. “They’re kids, but they’re young men already, and they’re holding this guy, and he looks as his girlfriend is being mounted on a bike and driven away from him. God knows what she’s going to experience … Women have been raped at the area of the rave next to their friends bodies, dead bodies." Several of these rape victims appear to have been later executed. Others were taken to Gaza." In photographs released online, you can see several paraded through the city’s streets, blood gushing from between their legs.

Source.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:22, 9 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)

Southern Lebanon involvement

Just recently, Southern Lebanon initiated their rocket attacks on Israel in support of Gaza. IDF responded by artillery fire, and some UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL) in Lebanon is pulled back to their base. Should it be included in the article? I'm looking into others opinion, as I am unable edit it due to article protection. BlueHelvetical (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources? I can't find anything to this effect.VR _talk 05:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's being reported on X (formerly known as Twitter) Efuture2 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is reliable sources of UN peacekeepers backing away/increasing their presence there due to rocket attacks there, but the issue is still ongoing and nothing much (information) can be found as of now. I will keep on updating if there is anything new. BlueHelvetical (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll get back to ya with reliable sources. BlueHelvetical (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please specify who exactly since Southern Lebanon is not an independent state. Borgenland (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's Hezbollah. I will look into some more informations. BlueHelvetical (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: UNIFIL confirms rocket attack at southeast Lebanon towards Israeli-occupied territory in the general area of Kafr Chouba and artillery fire from Israel to Lebanon in response. They are in contact with authorities in both sides of the Blue Line, at all levels, to contain the situation and avoid serious escalation. BlueHelvetical (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Here it was reported in the guardian live coverage, add hezbollah to the list of belligerents. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-palestinian-attack-october-2023-gaza-conflict-hostages-latest-news#maincontent MysticForce07 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

i24news

ynetnews

Hindustan Times

BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A handful of mortar shells doesn't square with Hezbollah. Those guys have a lot of rockets.©Geni (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Gulf News now reports that Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for shells and missiles fired at Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Unlikely. They don't recognise the Shebaa farms as Israel (in fairness neither does anyone else its just that most of the world thinks they are part of syria rather than Lebanon).©Geni (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well now Hezbollah has claimed responsilibity for it. "Lebanon’s Hezbollah says it has targeted three occupation outposts with mortar shells in the “occupied Shebaa Farms” in southern Lebanon." https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-palestinian-attack-october-2023-gaza-conflict-hostages-latest-news#maincontent MysticForce07 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I deleted this section as a mistake\edit conflict. hope it's fine now. –Daveout(talk) 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Separate section for names

Daveout[6] it is convention on wikipedia to have a separate section for names (its often called "etymology"). I would respectfully keep the names section separate from the background section.VR _talk 04:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

For example, see the "Etymology" section at Second Intifada.VR _talk 04:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Daveout No offense, but you are wrong. Firstly, as both VR and I pointed out, terminology sections are extremely common for conflicts with many and/or disputed names, such as Vietnam War. Secondly, they are not just trivia no one cares about, they are important for orientation - especially for new readers who may know only one of the possible names; more importantly, their inclusion in the middle of the background disrupts the reading flow and is distracting. And you are currently in the minority for wanting to remove the section, as it was there before you edits, and your change was opposed by at least two editors. Perhaps a compromise would be possible? For example, having the "Terminology" section as a sub-section of the "Background" section instead of in the middle of the background? (BTW, though I restored the section this time, I won't start an edit war over this; I would prefer if we could just talk about this). Applodion (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your compromise effort. But man I honestly don't thint it's necessary to highlight those nicknames. They're propaganda terms made to boost morale and make govs look good. Like Israel's "protective edge" (cringe) and Russia's "Special operation" (super cringe). Furthermore they're still there, before the terms actually appear on the text. And even without this "glossary" it's perfectly possible to understand what is being talked about without them all together. User7681 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And please, if you're editing more than typos on your comments please make it clear with a note and a new signature (or other method) like as follows. User7681 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [Edited]User7681 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Im Daveout, just commented with my alt account. But there's no problem disclosing that. Cheers. User7681 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Daveout As I said, I won't try to restore the section again, but I find it kinda telling that your main argument for opposing the section seems to boil down to "I don't like it". Just saying. Applodion (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you really want me to compile a list of MAJOR wars that don't have "etymology" sections and compare them with those who have it?. Boy, you're in for a treat.... User7681 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And I could list all the major wars that have a section for names; btw, you got reverted by yet another editor. So perhaps your view is indeed not common sense. Applodion (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, I really find that awful. I'm happy to be in the dissenting minority. Anyway, kudos for your win. Keep it cool and nice, my friend. See ya✌️ –Daveout(talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

kidnapped

German-Israeli citizen kidnapped. She kidnapped with a group of tourists. She was at the party in Reim forest. According to the documentation they published, the terrorists stripped, beat her and spat on her. They transferred her to Gaza.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/al-aqsa-storm-militants-infiltrate-israel-after-gaza-rockets-10-07-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hkt4cnj11p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E813:77F3:5AD8:B10C (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It said she was stripped, when all that exists is a video of her in the same kind of clothes she wore regularly. So it seems to be just sensationalist spin. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what the fuck does that even mean? No need for rudeness in a horrible situation like this.

Hamas murdered a German citizen Its that cut and dry Why with the opposition of mentioning it?

She's all over the news and is a major image for the casualties.

Ignoring this is nonsensical. 2601:40:C481:A940:3C92:C11F:3285:D004 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

i see two other users have pointed this out and they've been removed. 2601:40:C481:A940:3C92:C11F:3285:D004 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There was mention but as since she was a regular civilian, we couldn't simply put out her name due to possibility of WP:MEMORIAL violation Borgenland (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no indication she was killed nor stripped, she was most likely taken alive for prisoner swapping. Only one being rude here is the one adding expletives. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

She was stripped. The earlier cited "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) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Map

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

PNG based off of the modular map of the Israeli conflict.

Maps based on the much more comprehensive and detailed Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict detailed map are far superior to the map we have now. Module maps allow the citation of sources to reflect an accurate and verifiable state of things on the ground. See your false claim and inaccurate map for proof of why we need that. They are intricately clickable, allowing users to go to the module and see what all points of interest are and go to their respective articles. So, why did you remove it from the article? -- Veggies (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If you see it fit I think you should go for it. I only reverted it because you specieded hamas and the invasion included multiple factions (I was under an assumption that militants in general were in the city, not specifically hamas), so slay The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: I don’t like the module map because it is very bleak. It does not cover roads, heights or urban density. The current map should be as easy to edit as the module. I couldn’t upload it as svg since it’s size is too large but you can download it at the page and export it as png. This should be very east to edit for anyone who has edited vector files in the past. Ecrusized (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: Your map is a stitch job—and not a good one. I can see the seams of where the different screenshots of the map you wanted were poorly stitched together. And you call my efforts "low quality". The point of Wikipedia is so users can edit the Wikipedia themselves—not to rely on requesting changes from a small group of users. This is why the module map was developed. Your map is out of date and uncited. -- Veggies (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: I'm not an expert mapper by any means. I have already requested a map from user Rr016, and I have made the current map in the meantime. A better map should be ready in a few days. As you can see in my ping below, you can edit the file by downloading it. SVG's are the most common file format in Wikipedia's maps and should be available for the largest number of users to edit. Right now, it's your map vs mine but I think if it were put for discussion more users would support the current map. Ecrusized (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Also see, Talk:October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict#Please consider reverting to the previous infobox map image. Ecrusized (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: It's not "my" map. Unlike you (evidently) I don't claim to own my contributions to this site. The module was created by many other people. I suppose you haven't noticed that the modular map is an SVG one, and it is only the thumbnail that I've tried to put on the article that is rasterized. That's why I link back to the module in the caption. If I could place a cropped SVG live-snapshot of the module in the infobox, I would. Only in your mind is this a "you vs me" conflict. And stop making new talk page sections every time you need to bring something up. There's already plenty of "Map" threads on here. -- Veggies (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed to own anything. This was uncalled for "Unlike you (evidently) I don't claim to own my contributions to this site.". I am simply stating that no one else besides you and I had participated in this dispute. I'll repeat once again that you can edit the current file in many ways as I have explained. Ecrusized (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: I have updated the map in accordance with the modules map. Ecrusized (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Edit request: Correct Hebrew transliteration

מבצע חרבות ברזל≠Mivtsa Charvot Barzel מבצע חרבות ברזל=Mivtsa Ch/Kharavot Barzel Sorry formatting is terrible when combining Hebrew and English. Location: Second paragraph of the "Background" Section. Source: Me, a native Hebrew speaker. TomGoLeen (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want a better source: The academy of the hebrew language TomGoLeen (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@TomGoLeen: I changed it to "Kharavot", and marked it as needing a citation. The CNN article we are currently citing does not provide a transliteration. Right now, a search for "Mivtsa+charvot" only lists this Wikipedia article (and a mirror site), while "Mivtsa+kharavot" finds the WikiData entry. If you have a source (ideally a specific URL), that would be nice. Renerpho (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Death Toll in Israel is now 400+ per "Times of Israel"

Per the news outlet, the death toll on the israeli side is now over 400. The "Times of Israel" also state that there are currently 2,048 injured on the israeli side.

Link to the article: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israeli-death-toll-passes-400-another-2048-injured/

The article was posted 10 minutes ago as of my writing. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Requesting an edit to the casualties part of the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poles Ragge (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to add:

The "Times of Israel" article is referencing the Israeli Health Ministry. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Ecrusized (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Im watching N12 and it says 500+ 87.68.136.59 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I just read the death Toll has risen to 600+ according to "Times of Israel".

Per Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian ( https://twitter.com/manniefabian ) N12 is saying the death toll in Israel is 500+ and "Channel 13" is reporting 600+ deaths on the israeli side. Poles Ragge (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

[Note]

• Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian is a military correspondend for the news agency "Times of Israel".
• At time of my writing "Times of Israel", "Channel 12" and "Channel 13" are all refering to the Health ministries number of 600+

Poles Ragge (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Im currently watching "The Welt" (german news channel) and they're also referencing the official number of 600+, that was made by the health ministry of Israel. Poles Ragge (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

small update per "channel 12 news" and per "times of israel", the israeli death toll has risen to 700+ Poles Ragge (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Egyptian policeman kills Israeli tourists in Alexandria

Something related to the topic source 2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm considering whether to place it in international reactions instead. Borgenland (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if the events are linked, though. Bremps... 15:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't really state they're linked unless the motives of the shooter are made clear. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Timing (Holiday)

It's important to note that the attacks began in the early morning hours of Shemini Atzeret. To understand why this is such a crucial detail, read Yom Tov and Melacha. It's the main reason that many Israelis compare the attacks to the Yom Kippur War. Joalbertine (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joalbertine: The article currently says: The attack took place during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah and Shabbat, and a day after the 50th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War, which also began with a surprise attack. What do you suggest to be added to this? Renerpho (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho I would write something along the lines of: The attack took place during Shabbat and the Jewish holidays of Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah, which conclude the long holiday season of Tishrei ("High Holy Days"). It was also a day after the 50th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War, which also began with a surprise attack during a religious holiday ("Yom Tov").

I think it's important for the reader to understand that a large portion of the population had no access to phones, radio, television or computers for about 13 hours into the event, because observant Jews would only use electricity on Shabbat/holiday if it's a matter of life or death. Since the only information they had was the sound of the sirens, some friends of mine sat in shelters for almost the entire day without any idea of what was going on outside. The text should convey this reality in some way. Joalbertine (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joalbertine: If that is so then I agree. However, we need a reliable source that discusses those issues. Do you have a newspaper article that does so? Nothing against your personal experiences (you and your friends have my sympathy), but we can't use anecdotal evidence here. Renerpho (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho I totally understand. However, it's not likely to appear in a newspaper article because for Israelis it's simply obvious, and as you can see, it's very hard to explain halakhah to an outsider. That's why I suggested stating the basic facts about the nature of the day, without going into too much detail. Joalbertine (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure there won't be anything in local newspapers? The concurrence of multiple holidays seems unusual enough to me that it should be mentioned even in Israeli newspapers, if it is really relevant. We are currently citing an NPR article [7] for the "took place during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah and Shabbat" part, and AP [8] for the second half of the sentence. If any of that is to be replaced by something not in the current sources, we need a different one, as those are not basic facts. Renerpho (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah are always the same day in Israel. They don't always coincide with Shabbat, obviously, but there's nothing unusual about that. These are all regular events in the Jewish calendar, so I'm not sure why a newspaper article would be needed to corroborate their existence or religious nature. Joalbertine (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joalbertine: We are in a difficult situation then. If nobody has reported this as relevant then we cannot include it. In the case of the "holiday situation", we currently have to rely on outside sources (two articles published in the US), and what they make of it. What you have said about why the details matter sounds highly relevant to me, but that's not enough. Renerpho (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"in Israeli Airstrikes"

@EkoGraf: Regarding this edit, I included "in Israeli airstrikes" because it isn't an attempt at providing a full accounting of Palestinian casualties; it doesn't include those killed in ground fighting. I think the infobox needs to clarify this, but I don't mind how it does that - if you can think of a better way than saying "in Israeli airstrikes" then I encourage you to add it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, adding "in Israeli airstrikes" is not in line with other Wikipedia conflict infoboxes (including previous Gaza wars) where only casualty figures are listed (with attribution to the source and distinguishing between civilian and combatant). Causes of death are not for the infobox. As per the established template of Wikipedia conflict articles, their causes of death are expanded upon in the main body of the article, to be specific, in the casualties section of the article, which is the standard Wikipedia encyclopidic practice. If you want to elaborate in the casualties section regarding this, I can help you with that. EkoGraf (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

My intention with that edit isn't to include the cause of death; it's to make it clear that the Palestinian Ministry of Health (Hamas) is not claiming to make a full accounting of casualties. I think that is something we need to make clear, as currently we are misrepresenting the source.

Can you think of a way to do that other than to say "in Israeli airstrikes"? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: the Palestinian Ministry of Health (Hamas) is not claiming to make a full accounting of casualties, please provide a source confirming that the Ministry is not making a full accounting. PS I already added (if you didn't notice) Gaza in the brackets of the ministry to indicate for which region they are claiming the casualties. EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters; "Gaza health ministry says 370 dead in retaliatory strikes"

Amnestry; "Israel’s retaliatory attack on Gaza has killed at least 232 people and injured nearly 1,700, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health."

France24; "The death toll in the Gaza Strip rose to 313 Sunday, the health ministry in the Palestinian enclave said, as the army carried out air strikes on Hamas targets for the second consecutive day."

Anadola Ajansi; "More than 250 Palestinians, meanwhile, were killed and over 1,700 injured in Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry."

Forbes; "Roughly 370 Palestinians have been killed and 2,200 have been injured in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Ministry of Health said Sunday."

Among many others. BilledMammal (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Again, did you not notice I already added "Gaza" in brackets beside the Ministry to indicate the region they say they are documenting as an attempt at compromise? EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make it clear that they are only reporting casualties from within the strip, as there are other ways to interpret that disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Hope this satifies you [9]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Injured and missing Brazilians

What are the criteria for adding people from other countries affected by the conflict to the 3rd box in the infobox?Like Nepalese and Thai. Because it was reported that 2 Brazilians were in the Unniverso Paralelo party who are missing (dead or kidnapped) and one injured. Source: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2023/10/ataques-em-israel-deixam-um-brasileiro-ferido-e-dois-desaparecidos.shtml OLuizgs (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Theres also the fresh reports from antony blinken that several american citizens are "dead, missing". Also, the indonesian medic that was killed by Israeli forces is also gone from the infobox. Poles Ragge (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you send any current sources on the disappearance, injury or death of Americans in the conflict? I couldn't

t find. OLuizgs (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

So, firstly the "Times of Israel" live ticker Article [ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/blinken-says-there-are-reports-of-several-americans-killed-missing-in-israel/ ] referenced Antony blinken. Better to say, a tweet from Kaitlan Collins [ https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1711006008938545162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1711006008938545162%7Ctwgr%5E8fe039b4122680206efde0c5bf80fbfe44529a41%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofisrael.com%2F%3Fpost_type%3Dliveblog_entryp%3D3115970 ] where she said that Antony blinken told CNN that several american citizens are dead and/or missing.

The German goverment announced that atleast 2 german citizens are missing/kidnapped by Hamas. The news channel "Die Welt" is reporting on that.

I could only find stuff about one of the two dissapeared german citizens, Charlie Louk. [https://www.welt.de/videos/video247883122/Angriff-der-Hamas-auf-Israel-Offenbar-auch-Deutsche-unter-den-Opfern.html ].

Her mother posted a video on social media, saying she recognized her daughter in a hamas video. According to her and "Die Welt", Charlie is that girl in that video where Hamas fighters film a lifeless body of a woman on a pickuptruck, surrounded by hamas soldiers that are chanting (Video is graphic).

According to the Swiss goverment news channel "SRF", there were no reports of swiss citizens missing, kidnapped or killed at the moment of writing (16:00 UTC+1). The swiss live-ticker is here: https://www.srf.ch/news/international/grossangriff-auf-israel-mindestens-500-tote-in-israel-hisbollah-angriffe-im-norden.

Im swiss, if anyone needs translation of swiss or german news, i am here.

Also, SRF cited the official swiss Departement für auswärtige Angelegenheiten (EDA) aka the swiss Ministry of foreign affairs.

At the moment of writing, thats all i know. Poles Ragge (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

New Palestinian death tool of 370 killed and 2,200 injured OR 400+ killed hamas members (claim by IDF)

According to the military corresponded from "Times of Israel", Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian, the palestinian health ministry claims that there are 370 killed and 2'200 injured on the Plestinian side.

[SOURCE: https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1711011674277163456]

The "Times of Israel" also say's the IDF claims to have killed 400+ Hamas terrorists.

[SOURCE: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-october-8-2023/]

Both claims are similare numbers BUT the Plestinian health ministry didn't distinguish between civilians or hamas terrorists/fighters.

The IDF only said "Hamas Terrorists". Poles Ragge (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF is calling every Palestinian killed “terrorist”, I wouldn’t take their word for it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, that's why i put "Hamas Terrorists" in brackets. The only real sources we have of dead and wounded are either from the Israeli IDF or from the Hamas and palestinian health ministry. Both have interest to make their side look good and the other look bad. Poles Ragge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF does take significant steps to reduce killing or injuring civilians, but when the terrorists use them as shields hurting them is sometimes inevitable. They also recognize the fact that civilians are not terrorists, but some times it takes time for them to be sure how many are each. Animal lover |666| 14:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you're also right. But we currently have some fog of war everywhere. Only after this crisis we will have full visibility who was a terrorist and who not.

And yes, Hamas is using civilians as human shields, no doubts to that. Poles Ragge (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

citation please? i have not heard this. Mark28482 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

They're different numbers. Israel is saying they have killed 400+ fighters inside Israel, while the Palestinian Ministry of Health (Gaza) has said that 370+ have been killed in airstrikes on Gaza. We need to clarify this to prevent further confusion; see the discussion at #"in Israeli Airstrikes". BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

West Bank

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

At the moment, RS media outlets are reporting it hand-in-hand with the events in and around Gaza. If sources explicetly state its not linked I have no objection to removing it. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about this, 7 deaths in a short time is not usual but the connection is not obvious and the WB is otherwise quiet. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Actions in the West bank should count into this crisis. Its just primarily in and around Gaza. The WB and norther israel-lebanon border could also be counted at being connected with the Gaza-crisis. Poles Ragge (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

For now both WB and Lebanon should be included, unless RS say otherwise.VR _talk 20:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

All fronts are connected: Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank, all part of the Iranian strategy, headed by the Quds force, to encircle Israel and make a multi front war on her. אסף טל דורון 317 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

More casualties

Please add to the foreign victims a Chilean who was murdered by Hamas, the name has already been published and the Israeli ambassador in Chile confirmed it publicly, I leave you the link

https://www.24horas.cl/internacional/noticias/hija-de-chilena-murio-en-israel-tras-ataque-de-hamas-habria-recibido-8-disparos Darknessofhumanity (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

can you add this section in infobox

| casualties3 = 17 Nepalis kidnapped by Hamas, 7 Nepalis injured
2 Thais killed, 11 kidnapped by Hamas, 8 injured,
2 Ukrainians killed.
2 Argentinians killed. 103.241.226.129 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

References

more info

From the beginning of the event (documentation that became less unusual) "Extraordinary documentation: terrorists have infiltrated the surrounding settlements and are shooting" https://www.mako.co.il/pzm-soldiers/Article-af01eb8bf780b81026.htm

The fighting is still going on in some areas, 8.10.2023 (https://news.walla.co.il/item/3614541 , https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryczojxwa): "Terrorist squad in Kibbutz Bari, exchange of fire on the spot 2023" "The difficult battle in the Gaza village continues: "The biggest nightmare of the residents of the Otaf has come true"

results:

"The father and daughter were kidnapped and managed to escape, the traces of the mother disappeared" https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-560435ee64e0b81027.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

"Reports that several Americans killed - Blinken"

'"The terrorist murdered the grandmother, took a picture and uploaded it to her Facebook. That's how we found out" | Chilling evidence from the terrorist attack' https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rykxjfxb6#autoplay

'Biden's Secretary of State announced that in the next few days the US will announce military aid to Israel. Compared to 1973, he said: "Then there was a war of army against army. This time it is an attack by a terrorist organization. Women, children and a Holocaust survivor in a wheelchair were kidnapped to Gaza"'

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/h1jq4eg11p#autoplay "After the exchange of fire with Hezbollah: Gallant instructed to prepare for the evacuation of settlements in the north"

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/ryczojxwa "This morning the dimensions of the disaster are also revealed in Kibbutz Nahal Oz. According to the residents, at least 20 terrorists infiltrated the kibbutz territory yesterday, more than five of them including children were murdered. The terrorists also took hostages from the kibbutz with them. Residents are being evacuated to Mishmar Ha'Negev"

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/s1nlru0x6 https://www.ynet.co.il/blogs/war2dayevening "A day after the start of the attack on the Gaza Strip, when the security forces arrived in the settlements, the depth of the horror that took place there was revealed. In Kibbutz Nir Oz, as in Bari, many of the buildings caught fire. The terrorists burned houses to make the residents come out, to shoot them or kidnap them."

"In Ofakim they relive the day of the hard fighting: "I fortified myself with the gun, protecting the family. That's what there is"" https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-10-08/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000018b-0f0f-dae9-adcb-afbf25f20000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 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)

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)

Update to foreign citizens killed.

The german news channel "Die welt" announced that a german tourist from berlin (not Shani Nicole Louk) is now reported to be killed after being kidnapped by Hamas.

I'm trying to look to somehow get a link for that news thats not gonna be the link to the youtube-livestream of the official "Die Welt" channel.

Poles Ragge (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.welt.de/tv-programm-live-stream/

Here it is Poles Ragge (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

More info: A mother talked with one of the reporters and said her daughter got killed after bing kidnapped.

Please take with a grain of salt (safety-first) Poles Ragge (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This is too poorly sourced to be used in the article. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

Hi. Popular Resistance Committees lauch attacks with drones on Israel, someone can add this organisation to the belligerents ? Thanks. Idem for al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades who publish videos.

(source PRC : https://qaweim.com/) (source al-Aqsa : https://nedal.net/) AnthonyRd71 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments removed from this talk page

Constructive comments from new accounts have been removed from this talk page. Does the 30 day, 500 edit minimum apply to the talk page as well as the article? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Applies to the RM, WP:ARBECR. Any others may be restored if you believe they are constructive. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed a few instances of identical comments that were posted twice (apparently accidental), from this page and the List of international reactions to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict talk page, especially duplicate edit requests. The 30/500 rule played no role in that. Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The 30/500 rule doesn't apply to ordinary discussions (it does to move requests). I've generally been trying to archive discussions that have naturally resolved so as to keep the page readable, but I can stop doing that if you'd like. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I think this article needs more archiving, not less! Renerpho (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Trim discussion topics

Calling for an urgent closure and archiving of outdated discussions (especially casualty figures) and international reactions (moved to another article). It is becoming quite difficult to scroll through this talk page. Borgenland (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The archive time was reduced to 1 day, it should clear up tomorrow hopefully. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 8 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)

Declaration of War?

There are multiple reports that Israel has issued a formal declaration of war. If this is true in the sense defined under international law, it would be a fairly rare occurrence in the post 1945 era and should probably be noted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

According to WAPO< "Israel’s declaration of war, a mostly symbolic formality, would allow the government to enact a wider mobilization of military reserves and compel the government to identify specific wartime objectives, raising the specter of a ground invasion of Gaza." Idk if it is worth mentioning specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It is the first time since 1973. I think that is worth mentioning. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A symbolic formality with very few modern examples. I'd say it merits a mention, assuming we are talking about the legal formality that in theory sovereign countries are supposed to issue before commencing hostilities. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times of India: "Israel officially declares war for 1st time since 1973 as death toll mounts to 600." The Jerusalem Post: "Article 40 allows the government to order “significant military action that may lead, with a level of probability close to certain, to war."

There are several sentences in the article about "being at war" etc., why would it be a problem to include a sentence that officially confirms it? RiniX (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas casualties per IDF

I would like to clarify that I was forced by another editor to remove [10] a source [11] explicetly stating that the IDF's claim of Hamas casualties was for both militant deaths in and outside of Gaza. The editor in question insists on saying the figure is for deaths inside Israel only, calling upon a BBC report which said 400 were killed "during the fighting in Israel" [12], which is ambiguous to me. In any case, I leave it to other Wikipedia editors to decide whether IDF was referring to all Hamas casualties or not and which source should be used. I myself do not intend to continue being part of this discussion any longer due to bad faith behavior experienced and will leave it to the rest of the editor community to decide which information is correct. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference, one more source [13] saying IDF refered to Hamas casualties both in and outside of Gaza. EkoGraf (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Idk that the IDF is reliable for Hamas casualties any more than Hamas would be for Israeli. They are probably both unreliable for their own casualties for that matter. The casualties are being constantly updated so it's probably not that critical. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Add US to infobox

It is appropriate to add this information. Biden ordered military aid and more is coming. Blinken too. Dl.thinker (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Aid as in soldiers on the ground or Ukraine-style aid? That's an important distinction. Bremps... 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If US becomes a participant, then yes. Atm, no. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of "Supported by:" in the infobox military conflict is deprecated. Parham wiki (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, is it? I just added it but anyone's free to revert. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I self-reverted, as the Template:Infobox military conflict page confirmed that it is deprecated. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• The US just sent a carrier strike group to Israel:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• I think it would be better to add US not as a combatant but under "Supported by:" underneath Israel.VR _talk 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent The use of "Supported by:" in the infobox military conflict is deprecated. Parham wiki (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you keep saying it’s deprecated I’ve seen it across Wikipedia? Example: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Bobisland (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  An arms supplier note is also across Wikipedia war info boxes Bobisland (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  See Template:Infobox military conflict: The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated, and it then links to a discussion. That discussion does say that an article-specific consensus can override the deprecation, to be fair. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind someone else fixed it Bobisland (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing Israelis

@EkoGraf: The current number of missing of 750+ in infobox is unreliable. It originates from a tweet by Jerusalem Post[15] being quoted by other news reports. I think it should be removed. Ecrusized (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: If you think its unreliable then remove it by all means. Wasn't sure myself since it has not been widely reported on. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox casualties

@EkoGraf: I have merged the IDF, police and Shin Bet casualties with the note listing foreign nationals. Additionally I have also removed the number of displaced and the Israeli estimate of killed militans. The section seemed too large for the infobox and I think those should be listed inside the article like the list which shows the casualties of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore I consider adding (86% civilians) next to 700 killed in Israeli casualties, would you support this? Ecrusized (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Counting the number of Israeli civilians from the total would essentially be WP:SYNTHESIS, if you plan to subtract the number of Israeli combatants from the total. It's quite possible there are additional combatants who have not yet been identified in the total of 700+. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: I have no problem with the merging of the Israeli security forces dead to the note listing the foreigners. I also have no problem with the removal of the number of discplaced or Israeli claim of militant dead (due to its potential unreliability). However, I agree with @Jprg1966: that 86 percent shouldn't be added unless sourced, because it is more than likely there are still a number of Israeli combatants among the 700 dead who have not yet been identified. It will become clear in a few days. EkoGraf (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Map 2

@Veggies: The current map is in .png format since its too large to be uploaded as an .svg. However, you can download it as .svg at its page in common through MediaFire and export it as .png. The .svg format is very easy to edit and can be done using Inkscape, a free software. It can also be done using Adobe Illustrator, a paid but slightly more advance program. Personally I use Inkscape. You can also request changes at the files talk page. Ecrusized (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Under "Terminology," the article refers to the Palestinian offensive as "Operation Al-Aqsa Deluge" and the Israeli counterattack as "Operation Swords of Iron." The rest of the article instead uses "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" and "Operation Iron Swords." The "Terminology" section should be changed to fix this consistency error. AmericanBaath (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Google searches reveal "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" and "Operation Iron Swords" are the more common variants. I'll change accordingly. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please consider reverting to the previous infobox map image

Just wanted to express that I dislike the current map (Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png) for a number of reasons. Firstly, it puts the Gaza Strip and West Bank in a dotted line as opposed to a solid line, implying that it's a disputed territory and not an internationally recognized border, which is a problem. But I also dislike that there's low contrast between the colors in the towns where fighting is ongoing and there is no highlighted outline of the region where fighting is ongoing unlike the previous map, which makes it visually more difficult to understand the scale of the conflict.

• 
  Previously used image, File:October 2023 Gaza−Israel War.png
• 
  Currently used image, File:Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png

I don't think either of these are perfect, but I do think that the previous one is easier to interpret and more informative. It is possible that the older one contains outdated information and therefore would not be appropriate to use right now, but I would appreciate if the map displayed visually had more in common with the older one, or if the newer one at least was modified to account for some of the issues I mentioned.

I did not attempt to boldly do this myself because I don't even want to think of getting into an edit war on a topic this contentious, even though all I'm proposing is a stylistic change and not really a content change. I hope others will agree.

Thanks,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems the current revision is now the previously used map again, but I'll leave this thread up since things can change rapidly on an article like this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I like the version "Israel-war-Oct-8-2023.png" because its more accurate with showing Palestinians' presence only where it was reported. The old map made it seem like Palestinians occupied the entire blue area, when that's probably not the case.VR _talk 20:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza and the West Bank are disputed territories. A large part of the world does not recognize Palestine as a state and much of it is under Israeli occupation. The same thing could be said about Israel itself, I suppose, but one SVG map of the region has to be used and that's the one they went for. Second, there is no highlighted regions on the map because there is no definite "front line" between two armies. Militant infiltrators have attacked separate towns and points but haven't linked into a unified offensive line. Fighting is sporadic. -- Veggies (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, Palestine is in a unique situation among polities with limited international recognition in that its borders were agreed upon by the United Nations itself, so these are still "internationally recognized borders" unlike most unrecognized or partially recognized polities. On a highly touchy and sensitive topic like this, I'd like to avoid conveying or implying - intentionally or unintentionally - that Palestine is "not a real country" or merely an insurgent breakaway movement within Israel. Dotted lines don't always have to convey this, of course. File:Israel and occupied territories map.png is a good example of how this problem can be avoided by having all international borders be dotted and explaining in the key what Palestine's slightly different looking borders mean.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh? File:Israel and occupied territories map.png has different border styles for the Palestinian territories, just as you admit. Is it a key that says "Armistice Demarcation Line" that you want to see? What is it you're arguing, exactly, because I'm lost, now? -- Veggies (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the miscommunication, Veggies. I can see how bringing up that map would create confusion as I brought it up as more of an "if we're gonna do it this way, there's a wrong way and a right way to do it" side point, not as an example of what I'm asking us to do here. To be clear, my preference is either to have no solid borders at all (like in the old map) or to use the same border style for all polities involved. But just to make sense of what I was trying to say there:

• Normally, a map that has a mix of solid borders and dotted borders with no key or legend explaining what the borders mean will visually imply that the dotted borders are less legitimate than the solid borders. This is usually fine when we're talking about breakaway/insurgent polities with de facto borders but no association with the United Nations, but Palestine's borders are de jure internationally recognized ones, so a map that could visually imply that Palestine is a breakaway state within Israel as opposed to a separate country is problematic.
• If we are to use dotted lines and display Palestine differently, there's a way to do it that avoids those problems, which is the only reason why I drew attention to that other map. It's fine in spite of its dotted lines and differentiated Palestinian borders for the simple reason that it doesn't imply that the Palestinian borders are less legitimate than other international boundaries. It displays all boundaries as different types of dotted lines (which removes any visual implication that the boundaries of Palestine are in a lesser category than the rest of the boundaries) and explains the purpose of making Palestine's borders different, which is simply to show the reader the former borders of the Palestinian Mandate and the current agreed upon lines. Not to make it look like it's just a disputed region. I am not saying that my preference is to model the map off of this, but rather that if we are to make Palestine's borders look different from the rest, there's a better way to do it. Hope that clears that up, but if it doesn't, don't worry because it's not relevant.

But enough about that side convo, I regret bringing up that other map in the first place as it clearly just derailed the discussion. Just to be clear again, my preferred position is to either have no solid borders at all or to use the same border type for both sides of the conflict.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I prefer module maps because they can be sourced better and updated by consensus on EnWiki (Commons doesn't allow overwriting of ordinary files for "Substantial changes"; see c:COM:OVERWRITE). The land control map could well be useful—if the module map were to be updated to have something like an interpolated border between the various places I would support it—but it's going to be a bit harder to keep an ordinary svg/updated based upon local consensus on the fly if we don't use the map module.

For these reasons, I think the module map should remain, but it should be improved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is fair, there are certainly advantages to the module map that make it worth using. I do not mind that we still link to it in the infobox. Some sort of interpolated border would be very useful for visually conveying the scale of the conflict, though I do not know how challenging this would be. If I could change any one thing about the map, it would be the low contrast between the shade of green used for Gaza and the shade of blue used for Israel. When they're put right next to each other in those small boxes, they become very hard to see, and I can imagine this would be even more of an issue for colorblind readers. This is less of an issue when looking at the full-sized map which is animated, but it's not ideal at the small resolution used for the infobox image.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard, Vice regent, Veggies, and Red-tailed hawk: Notice to all participants. I have uploaded the map in .svg format after a significant compression of the original file. It should be available for anyone to edit now. Additionally seam errors have been fixed. Ecrusized (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Most" countries called for de-escalation

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

@Vice regent: No objections from me in principle, under the condition that you add a reliable source that says so (the Wikipedia article you mention does not suffice, and neither would any form of WP:SYNTH). This is not obvious. And please remember WP:1RR. Renerpho (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Why do we need a RS for that? We are summarizing RS's here. Do we have an RS that "Most countries condemned Hamas" (as stated in the lead), even though its fairly obvious they did? VR _talk 00:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is one.[16] If you have something similar for what you want to add then go ahead. Renerpho (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need a RS for that? -- We need RS's for everything. You can summarize RS's, but you have to cite them somewhere; or there has to be consensus that a statement is obvious, in which case you don't need an explicit citation. But going ahead and doing your own statistics on the list we have compiled here is WP:OR. This list is not an independent summary of RS's. If you find a similar, independently created list in a RS then you could summarize that. Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Deif message

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

Would agree with this. The likes of the ft are likewise currently profiling Deif not Abbas, who is not relevant here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Abbas' statement should also be removed. But we should summarize Hamas' position in the lead very briefly (just as we summarize the Israeli position). The more full statement should be in the body and not the lead.VR _talk 20:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think "Hamas cited these events in the justification for the offensive, with Mohammed Deif, the commander of its military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, called on Palestinians and Arab Israelis to "expel the occupiers and demolish the walls" is too much detail for the lead. I would summarize it as "Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join the fight."VR _talk 20:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Makeandtoss: and @Iskandar323:. Do you agree with the summarization?VR _talk 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. There should probably be no individual statements or quotes in the lead at all. It's already far too bloated and a long way divergent from the summary-style form it is meant to take. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    I disagree. The three sources that have cited excerpts from his 10-minute statements have taken different sentences, but all of them have focused on his references to the occupation, which the summary above omits. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    A middle ground would be "Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join the fight against the occupiers." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Brazil position on the conflict

The brazilian government never said it supported "Israels right to defend itself", it simple condemned the hamas attacks on civilians and called for de escalation, please correct the information 2804:4FFC:40D:9D00:4D20:2973:F9C3:415C (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks 2804:4FFC:40D:9D00:D084:D667:4BFA:679B (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistakes/dis accurating at this paragraph

"It is the first direct conflict within Israel's de jure territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. 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. Israel formally declared war for the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War."

1. 2006 Lebanon War and 1982 Lebanon War ( first and second Lebanon Wars ) was declared as wars at Israel. The difference can be that they started as military operations and their status were changed because the events 2. the 1973 Yom Kippur War happened at golan height and sinai. The are outside of the Green Line (Israel). There were a few infiltrations into the area surrounding Gaza (the area that was attacked yesterday and today) through tunnels during operation Tzuk Eitan and the Israel Defense Forces dealt with them. In the current case it is broader and included a lot of damage to civilians and their kidnapping. 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:8B1:FC2F:B000:4280 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong about the paragraph? Renerpho (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WB Palestinian casualty count

Up to 13 in 24 hours, an unusually high number, if anyone can find sourcing on that, reasons for, etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Section Israeli and international victims

Is there a section that lists the victims? Victor Grigas (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are all support additions being removed collectively?

I tried to add the U.S supporting Israel but it was removed and called deprecated although this type of infobox layout is seen across Wikipedia? If it’s newly deprecated can the wording be changed to arms supplier? Bobisland (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

See #Add US to infobox section above and template discussion/RFC refers. Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

3 Brazilians missing, 1 injured during attack on rave.

i am not able to paste the link here for some reason, but several Brazilian news outlets are talking about it.

in addition, the rave was organized by Alok (DJ)'s father, maybe important to mention. 177.83.128.215 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

correction:DJ alok's father was not the organizar, he was only onde of the djs there. 177.83.128.215 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Re'im music festival massacre is a more appropriate article for that level of detail. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

Please include the case of the 8 Mexican Foreign nationals reported missing or killed on the attack , one by the name of Orión Hernandez Radoux, apparently captive in Gaza or missing, boyfriend of German- Israeli citizen Shani Louk who was shown deceased in a video posted on social media , naked and paraded as a trophy trough the streets of Gaza and was later recognized by her Mother . 189.216.171.79 (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We already have a sentence on Shani Louk. I see news articles about 2 Mexican nationals being captive, which is also already noted in the article. If you can find an article saying there are 8, I'll add it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential bias in 'Outside Gaza' section

Second to last sentence in Outside Gaza section states: "Video footage confirmed that a small unit belonging to the Palestinian militias had arrived at the Jewish settlement of Psagot near occupied East Jerusalem."

I am uncertain whether the "occupied East Jerusalem." is acceptable and would like someone to please review it. 2600:6C60:5D00:66FA:FCEA:5DC2:E74B:D324 (talk) 00:44, 9 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 [17] 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)

  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)

Add Uruguay to countries with reinforced security following the attacks

The Minister of the Interior, Luis Alberto Heber, ordered the police forces to reinforce security to preserve the safety of Israeli citizens and organizations in Uruguay, following the surprise attack by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the declaration of war.

"We are going to remain in a state of alert to provide peace of mind and avoid any type of incident that could put people's safety at risk," the Interior Ministry reported.

El País Accuratelibrarian (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas' amount of soilders

I ask you to remove the saying that Hamas' has "1000+ militants". The terror organisation has at least a couple tens of thousands alone, without the other terror organizations.

It is late, 4:55 a.m. here, so please somebody rlse find a few sources for Hamas' amount of militants, and maybe another one for the others.

Thank you in advance! רם אבני (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done @רם אבני: Hamas is certainly far stronger than 1,000, but the "strength" parameter is meant to describe the strength of units active in the conflict. See the template page. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: It may still be worth looking for a more recent source, or one that actually includes the cited figure. The current citation (in its archived form[18]) does not give that number 1000 anywhere. As far as I can tell, it doesn't give any figure for the strength of Hamas's units. Renerpho (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jprg1966 The topic is of the war of Israel against Hamas.

For now, both are fully in war.

Therefore, their strength count shall be represented.

If you mean the suprise terror attack, and not the overall war, then that's a discussion to have. (Since a few hundred Hamas' militants entered Israel, while others shot missiles).

But regarding the war, both are fully in. רם אבני (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done @רם אבני: I take your point. Given the fluidity of the conflict, as well as the failed verification that Renerpho mentioned, we should probably leave that field blank for now. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@רם אבני: Assuming you are right, would you have a reliable source for "your" figure of a couple tens of thousands? Renerpho (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

1,000 sounds inaccurate to me as well, but, for what it is worth, I think the figure comes from this article: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/1000-hamas-fighters-infiltrated-israel-most-killed-or-back-to-gaza-blinken-101696810480050.html FortalezaNY (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@FortalezaNY: Thanks, that would be a reasonable citation to use for the strength parameter, if we decide to add it back (as "about 1000", not "1000+" which is still unverified). It can't be the original source for the number, because that article is only a few hours old, but that doesn't matter much at this point. Blinken said, quote: "We had about 1,000 Hamas militants who infiltrated Israel. Most of them seem to have either been killed or have gone back into Gaza." Renerpho (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Surely Blinken didn't get that number from Wikipedia, right? Renerpho (talk) 02:49, 9 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)

Map update - Palestinian presence in Ofakim

The stand-off in Be'eri and Ofakim is still ongoing in Ofakim, meaning the map needs to be updated to reflect that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What's your source for that? I'm reading that the city was cleared earlier on the 8th. [19] -- Veggies (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: The article stand-off in Be'eri and Ofakim says it is still ongoing as no source says the standoff itself ended. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The source for your claim...is Wikipedia itself? Yeah, no. I'm going to go with verifiable sources, thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

American English?

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

As I understand it, MOS:ARTCON does, though it lists some exceptions. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC) (edited LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC))

It should all be in the same variety of English, with exceptions for quotes, titles of sources etc. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Comparisons

Comparing this attack to 9/11 is a reaction some are having, as such it belongs in the reaction section and should not be state in wikipedia's voice. Other comparisons have also been made, to the 1973 war, or the Tet offensive (and broadly some have compared the Israeli occupation to apartheid). All of that should be attributed and put alongside reactions.VR _talk 03:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The Great Mule of Eupatoria

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

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

I will wait for both videos to surface on mainstream news websites, for now I get it being reverted. Flow of new information makes citing more difficult because it’s localised to these specific websites for now The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

On a somewhat different topic, you added this edit stating "Important to mention in the civilian casualties" and adding in claims of such as "200 civilian casualties" in wikivoice. I was unable to find this verified in the ABC news source you linked, which you added with the title "198 killed in Gaza." I also fail to see why this would be included separately from the already mentioned and attributed statement "The Palestinian Ministry of Health led by Hamas in Gaza reported Israel had killed at least 400 Palestinians in gunfights and by airstrikes, including civilians, 78 children and 41 women." KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the error and cited the relevant sources. I included this in the section because it seems to revolve around the civilian casualties of the war as opposed to military The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

There is already mention of civilian casualties with attribution and using newer figures: "The Palestinian Ministry of Health led by Hamas in Gaza reported Israel had killed at least 400 Palestinians in gunfights and by airstrikes, including civilians, 78 children and 41 women." The new links you added regarding "198 casualties" appear to be old versions of the Ministry of Health statistics, without differentiation of civilian or military casualties nor citing "Israeli bombardement of civilian targets" as the cause of the casualties.

The new sources you cited also reference the Ministry of Health, rather than state the casualties in their own voice, and you are editing with wikivoice.

Per your cited ABC source: "Palestinian Health Ministry says at least 198 killed, 1,610 wounded in Gaza in Israeli retaliation after Hamas attack."

Per your cited Business standard source: "The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza says at least 198 people have been killed and at least 1,610 wounded in the territory in Israel's retaliation after a wide-ranging Hamas assault into Israel."

Per your cited EconomicTimes source: "The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza says at least 198 people have been killed and at least 1,610 wounded in the territory in Israel's retaliation after a wide-ranging Hamas assault into Israel. The toll came as Israel has carried out a number of airstrikes in Gaza and has clashed with gunmen at the border fence around the coastal territory." KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

Instead of breaking 1RR, and removing FV tags linked to this talk page without discussion, can you go on talk and achieve consensus for your obviously contested claims in the lead that have been raised by both me and @BilledMammal? Again, see WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I’ve already undone my girlboss reverts for the limit I am allowed for this page (though I messed up by accidentally undoing the entire page to a previous version which I am trying to get around). I have removed the loosely or ambiguously sourced claims in my edits, while getting better citations others The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria

The contested claims include considerably more. The entire section is contested and has been removed by both me and @BilledMammal, which you have elected to reinsert. Please self-revert the section to comply with 1RR and wait until you have achieved consensus, especially for a contentious claim in the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do that if it hasn’t been reverted already. Apologies for the late response, I was drawing white cheeked terns The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And common terns too. Edit 12:56 is already reverted and the claims of edit 12:59 seem to have been changed so it looks to be sorted The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

you are therefore a terrorist sympathizer and a terrorist apologist and should not be involved in this discussion. Mark28482 (talk) 18:16, 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)

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)

Any new advances in the map?

It's been awhile since the advance was changed on this map. Is there anything new from both sides? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Click here for a more comprehensive map. MrBLOCKiron (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The map

I want to know is Hamas retriting or advancing because the map is a little confusing 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:F8F3:4505:F6A8:414A (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Click here for a more comprehensive map.

Captain Almighty Nutz ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 07:20, 9 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)

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

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

Fatah

Did Fatah and the Palestinian authority officially join the war? If so, then Abbas should be added in the infobox.

https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/138006 RAMSES$44932 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of the Fatah, has called for suicide attacks. Does this make Fatah appear in the infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this resource enough to keep Fatah?https://www.isna.ir/news/1402071509427/%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%86-%DA%AF%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%B5%DB%8C Parham wiki (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Fatah is de facto split in two. Fatah the political party has distant itself for a while now from their military wing especially the one in Gaza. Alhusseinst (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Fatah should be removed. Also "https://www.isna.ir/" is an unreliable source. Ecrusized (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Shani Louk

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

I recall there was a dispute regarding Dual Nationals. Furthermore, in the absence of a specific notability (standalone article), outing her full name in this page could constitute a WP:MEMORIAL violation. Borgenland (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

From https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/07/middleeast/israel-gaza-fighting-hamas-attack-music-festival-intl-hnk/index.html:

CNN has confirmed the identity of the woman as Shani Louk, a German-Israeli dual national. CNN has reached out to her family for comment but has not yet received a response. Borgenland (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This was also cited at the tail end of the credit card. I suggest you read the entire thing fully before making such unfounded conclusions. Borgenland (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I can see now that you have a source, that information wasn't in any article that I'd checked. My intention was to add the Business Insider source, which for some reason got lost in my edit. Hence, my invitation inviting you to explain your actions. From the same CNN article:

“ In a video obtained by German news outlet Bild, Louk’s mother Ricarda said: “This morning my daughter, Shani Nicole Louk, a German citizen, was kidnapped with a group of tourists in southern Israel by Palestinian Hamas.”

“We were sent a video in which I could clearly see our daughter unconscious in the car with the Palestinians and them driving around the Gaza Strip,” she said. “I ask you to send us any help or any news. Thank you very much.”

”

So CNN is contradictory, the other source simply quotes CNN, so it would appear to be A) circular and B) somewhat unconfirmed.

Also WP:MEMORIAL states:

“ Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.) ”

This incident and her identity is being reported in multiple news sources. Your interpretation of that policy appears flawed but I didn't actually make it an issue. I can imagine the pain her family is going through, so had no intention of disputing it. WCM_email 11:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to speculate but since the mother appears to be based in Germany, she would probably be identifying the victim as German first. Borgenland (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Shani Louk and her mother moved from germany to israel and are indeed dual-citizens of israel and germany. She was not a german tourist. "Die Welt", a german news channel, wrote about her in this article. Her mother also made a public statement to the german news channel "Bild". They're referenced in the "Welt" article. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And you know why her mother gave that video appealing for help in finding her daughter, in German? And not say, Hebrew or English? Because it was meant to appeal for German political support and deceive a bit the public into thinking she was an innocent German tourist murdered. As I mentioned in the next discussion, dual citizenship is very common as most Israelis have it, especially with European countries, either from ancestry, family ties, many have retained or were given 'back' their citizenship from ancestors who were expelled. It is illogical, and in my opinion decietful, to mark each fallen Israeli with their dual nationalities. User6619018899273 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Dual Nationals

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

Disagree. It should not and does not matter to any country if their citizen has a dual citizenship, or is strictly a citizen of their country.

I am a dual citizen of switzerland and croatia. I got my dual citizenship last summer. I was born, raised and lived in switzerland for my entire life, YET if i would be killed, injured or lost in any conflict inside switzerland or as a tourist in another country, i would've be counted as a croatian casualty. If i would be kidnapped, it would be in interest of croatia to help me. Now, as im a dual citizen of switzerland and croatia, i would be counted as a casualty of both countries. If i will be kidnapped, it will be in the interest of switzerland AND croatia to get me to safety.

Dual citizens SHOULD be counted, no matter how much time they spend in any of both countries. Poles Ragge (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"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)

bias

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

See also is for similar events, so it makes sense that those are attacks against Israel. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Noticed that too. However as long as you have the sufficient citations then the Israeli attacks on Gaza during the war can and should be included. Civilian casualties in Gaza are barely mentioned in the news anyways The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli cabinet confirmed that Israel is at war

I cannot edit this article because it is protected, but whoever can edit the article should know that the Israeli cabinet has confirmed that Israel is at war and not in a conflict or a military operation. KatzeChat (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done This is already in the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:22, 9 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. [20] 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)

Kibbutz of "Sufa Beheri"

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

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

@SaintPaulOfTarsus

Thanks for pointing it out, I've separated the two locations. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, @KiharaNoukan. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist attack?

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

See discussion here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not wanting to violate WP:FORUM but how is killing 260 people at a psytrance rave not terrorism? Somebody please explain! Synotia (moan) 20:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

no, this is by definition a terrorist attack. it targeted civilians, brutalized, raped, humiliated and murdered people who had nothing to do with the ongoing conflict. denying this fact makes a person complicit in what is happening and makes them a terrorist sympathizer and a terrorist apologist. Mark28482 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please use reliable independent sourcing to clarify rather than your personal opinion. WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

this is not my personal opinion, this is the definition of the word and complexly neutral use of english words. what do you think is an "opinion" Mark28482 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A statement without reference to any sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

my source is the Wikipedia article itself that clearly states. do you refute that this was a terrorist attack? you already refused to condemn the attacks because you claim they are justified? Mark28482 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

First WP is not a source. Second, As it says at the top of this page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

okay, you clearly have personal opinions and personal biases concerning these terrorist attacks. i recommend you recuse yourself from this discussion as you are unable to contribute in an unbiased way. Mark28482 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Another statement of no value. I recommend you stop making them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

this is my final warning in good faith, if you refuse to add to this discussion i will report your violation of ethics. Mark28482 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe I made my position clear. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Mark28482, I suggest you read WP:PETARD. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You still have no reliable sources. I second SelfStdier's recommendation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli tank and vehicle losses in the infobox

@Stephan rostie: I have reverted[21] your edit which stated that Israel had lost "a number of" tanks and vehicles because it consists of a weasel statement (How many?). Furthermore infobox is not to place to add every single detail about the article. It aims to be a brief summary of the key facts. Please see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Ecrusized (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized Regardless. You don’t have any right to revert it per WP:1RR. I am assuming a good faith and giving you a chance undo your revert before reporting your violation. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie: "I am assuming a good faith and giving you a chance undo your revert before reporting your violation." I have been on this website long enough to know that's not how things work. Are you not willing to discuss this issue at all? Ecrusized (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There are exceptions to being able to revert such as vandalism or disruptive edits Bobisland (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Green

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (4)

Belligerents Nx.colonel (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Al-Quds Brigades are participating on the side of Palestine. Also USA has sent military support to Israel

 Not done Al-Quds Brigades are a wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is noted as a belligerent. And we do not include "supporters" in military conflict infoboxes any longer, with exceptions only when there is a page-specific consensus. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:02, 9 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)

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

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

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

Lebanon in infobox

@WeatherWriter: The attack from Lebanon today wasn't done by the Lebanese state or the Lebanese Army. It was conducted by Palestinian Islamic Jihad[22] and the retaliatory Israeli strike killed a Hezbollah fighter.[23] Ecrusized (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Gap in explaining the intial blockade

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

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

Number of militants killed in Israel

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

If you have an idea of how to address the overlap (or of course, a better source) I'm all ears. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I would have already placed it if there was any source for it. I also don't like merging Palestinian and Israeli estimates into one. Ecrusized (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree they should probably be disaggregated, especially the Lebanese one as well. To account for the imprecision, the Israeli claim could be written as "hundreds" rather than an exact number. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Lebanese casualties are still too few compared to Gaza's (6). Separating it will create undue weight in the infobox. If Hezbollah enters the war however it should be separated. In a manner similar to the casualties listing of the Yom-Kippur War article. I'm not a fan of adding weasel statements like "Hundreds killed, per Israel". Because infobox style is meant to be brief and concise, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Additionally I believe Hamas and other groups will announce their casualties in a few days from now as has been the case in other Gaza conflicts in the past, like the 2014 War. Ecrusized (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

War Crimes

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

Better to think of it as "armed conflict" https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/armed-conflict/ Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Possible truce talks

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

Turkey has expressed willingness for acting as the mediator [24]. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (7)

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)

References

Hamas Fraud and economy

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

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

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

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

Hezbollah =?= Lebanon

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

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

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)