Talk:List of major terrorist incidents

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for standalone lists of terrorist incidents

I've taken a recent entry, at Terrorism in the United States, the Monsey Hanukkah stabbing to WP:RSN#Is a statement by Governor Cuomo enough to all an incident terrorism at Terrorism in the United States ?. I removed it twice and it was reverted. There's only one source, a statement by Cuomo at the time, and the mentally ill perpetrator is now in a mental facility after being deemed unfit to stand trial. There was a related RfC[1] which determined that only if "the incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism". were needed for inclusion". That was for a different standalone list, List of terrorist incidents, but the principle is the same. And this entry is also a BLP violation. That RfC should apply to all standalone lists, but it's not clear to me that it does. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Storming of the Capitol

There's been some editing back and forth on whether to include 2021 storming of the United States Capitol here. I think it's useful to review the list criteria:

(1) The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism".

Clearly, the event was notable (it has a standalone article). It's the second criterion that is up for debate. Some RS do describe the event as terrorism. Some explicitly reject that. Many simply don't use the term. Right now, I don't think this criterion is met, but I recognise this is up for debate and the situation is still evolving.

I think it's important to note what the criterion does not say. It does not leave the decision to editors' reasoning: you can't argue that this event is or is not terrorism because it does or does not fit a certain definition of terrorism. It does not depend on what charges are brought against perpetrators: it does not require terrorism charges to be brought, nor are terrorism charges being brought sufficient. What matters is the consensus of WP:RSes. Any discussion should focus on that alone. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the storming as a whole is a complex topic that needs to be thoroughly discussed and explained. What the storming can be characterized as is highly contentious. There's videos of officers allowing protestors into the Capitol Building, then there's some showing protestors forcing their way in. There's other examples of protests or riots leading to the occupation of government buildings which have not been characterized as major terrorist incidents, such as 2011 protests in Wisconsin where thousands of protestors found their way into the Wisconsin State Capitol. The BLM riots and protests over the summer of 2020 and throughout the rest of 2020 resulted in the deaths of at least 19 people, the injuring of over 700 police officers, hundreds of buildings looted and destroyed, and a total damage cost around $2 billion, yet the events as a whole or the singular damaging riots are not considered to be acts of domestic terrorism, even though sociopolitical motivation was partially in minds of the people at the time of the acts. It would be wrong to rush to label the Capitol incident as a major terrorist incident, and as you say, it has yet to meet the criteria. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To focus on RS, here's a good secondary source discussing the issue: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/01/19/the-assault-on-the-u-s-capitol-opens-a-new-chapter-in-domestic-terrorism/ Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirect this page

I propose redirecting this page to List of terrorist incidents. This article hasn't improved since I gave it an edit in 2020 and "major" is an arbitrary definition. -GreenlandGneiss (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Poor section

I found the summary of terrorist incidents in section 1950-1999 to be particularly weak.

Whereas in the articles about the attacks themselves there is ample information to contextualize, here it is all but missing.

Most notably: 1) Whom was the attack aimed at 2) Who were the victims 3) What was the motivation of the perpetrators

As one example, the 1972 Munich Massacre does not mention that it took place during the Olympic Games(!!!) and that most of the victims were athletes from the Israeli Olympic delegation. Just from reading the summary information, one would assume that the victims were all German.

A similar example is the 1994 AMIA Bombing 84.228.164.140 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Reeim party massacure on Oct 7th should be added

260 fatalities listed until now https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/08/israel-festival-attack-gaza-militants/ 2A06:C701:4A0E:7200:60EE:503F:4025:5210 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This a horrendous attack, but should it be covered here or elsewhere? This list states, “This is a list of major terrorist incidents conducted by violent non-state actors, i.e. excluding state terrorism.” Does this count as a state attack or not? Difficult question. I don’t know.

Do we have reliable sources calling this terrorism or do they use different language? Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/8/7423202/

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk5oq3rlp

These are examples for articles saying it's terrorism A3811 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost everyone is calling it militants, there seems to be very few sources calling it a terrorist attack. And it doesn't seem to be a terrorist attack but more of a military style campaign instead. Additionally this article is for non-state actors, but Hamas is definitely a state actor controlling all the politics in Gaza. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail:

1. Hamas was designated a "terrorist organization" by the UK, US, EU, Canada, Japan, NZ, and others.
2. The attack, which primarily targeted civilian population (including women, children, and the elderly) and resulted in over 1,200 dead and more than 100 hostages (including at least one 85 y/o grandma and several teens, children and toddlers [2][3][4]), has been called a "terrorist attack" by various sources.
3. "Military style campaigns" do not generally involve murdering unarmed party goers,[5] throwing grenades into civilian hideouts,[6] burning babies alive,[7] or streaming someone's murder on her Facebook page.[8]
4. Can you source your claim that Hamas is a "state actor" anymore than ISIS, which "controlled all politics" across much of Syria and Iraq, was? François Robere (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Some fair points there yes, and I can't refute them all. Interesting though is that Israel isn't calling it a terrorist act, but a military one. As for what isn't done in military style campaigns, most of those have been done before yes in many ways. Was the Wech Baghtu bombing a terrorist act them? Ultimately I really don't mind either way, it's just since Hamas does appear to be a a state actor for a state that is recognized around the world by 2/3 of UN members it doesn't seem to belong on this list under its current inclusion criteria. And I'll note nothing Hamas has done before appears on this list. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The PLA is recognized as a state actor (of sorts), not Hamas

If the list is missing, then it should be expanded. François Robere (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It should 100% be added, Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by almost all major world powers. Joweph (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is related, but doesn't provide us with a solution! Bondegezou (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is widely designated as a terrorist organisation, but not everything a terrorist organisation does is necessarily terrorism. That's not a persuasive argument.

A few reliable sources calling it terrorism, but most not is not persuasive either, because WP:BALANCE. Do we have a preponderance of sources calling this terrorism? I am not persuaded we do.

List of war crimes exists and these attacks may well qualify for that list, although again we would need appropriate sourcing.

These attacks are already covered in List of events named massacres and Lists of battles. Both of those seem appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you wrote. With regards to preponderance - "googling" the following strings yields the following approximate numbers of results:

• Hamas terrorist - 246,000,000
• Hamas militant - 111,000,000
• Hamas fighter - 93,000,000
• Hamas peace - 77,500,000

Enclosing the strings in quotations marks, or searching just for recent news items, again yields more results for the first string than for any of the others. Of course, this isn't an accurate measure, and one would prefer to check some of the results themselves: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

To me this suggests not only a preponderance, but a variety of reliable sources that refer to these events as acts of terror (in some wording or another) in their own voice, which should be satisfy the criteria for inclusion. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

How much of that Google hits was pertaining to the current situation under discussion and how much was just "Hamas XXXX" which draws no relation? Also a lot of your links above aren't making any claims about the current situation being terrorism, or even equating Hamas to terrorist. Most actually just call it a war. Yes the word terror is sometimes in the stories, but it's not making a point. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say with them as I don't really see any of them discussing the incident that's under discussion for this article. And the article that's being linked that's under discussion doesn't primarily describe it as a terrorist attack. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday we were discussing 2023 Israel–Hamas war; now there's an article dedicated just to the terrorist attacks that instigated the war, so consider that instead.

How much of that Google hits was pertaining to the current situation under discussion Limiting the general search to pages from just this week:

• Hamas terrorist - 18,500,000
• Hamas militant - 7,530,000
• Hamas fighter - 4,240,000
• Hamas peace - 6,030,000

a lot of your links above aren't making any claims about the current situation being terrorism As noted earlier, those 11 media refer to Hamas's actions as terrorist acts very clearly, and they do so in their own voices. Some examples:

• "Wie sind die Terroristen vorgegangen?" ("How did the terrorists do it?") - Süddeutsche Zeitung
• "Shock Hamas terror attack" - France 24
• "a campaign of terror" - Foreign Affairs
• "The Hamas terrorist offensive" - CNBC
• "Hamas' bloody terror attack" - CBS

If this doesn't support the inclusion of the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel in a list of "major terrorist incidents", what does? François Robere (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The topic and goalposts keep changing for what people want to include and the replies here are now talking about multiple different things. For what people do wish to include the question and inclusion criteria is do the majority of reliable sources describe it specifically as terrorism? Not causing terror, not a terror attack, as that is not a definition of terrorism and happen in war all the time and aren't described specifically as terrorism. Do the majority of reliable sources describe it as terrorism specifically over anything else? And can you supply reliable sources that state that Hamas, despite being acknowledged as the state rulers of Gaza and the majority party of Palestine, do not represent the state of which their are leaders of. This is the criteria for inclusion in this article and probably explains why there are no other Hamas incidents in this article. Canterbury Tail talk 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

AFAIC it's very clear: something like this edit (with up-to-date numbers and sources), and this link.

Do you have any sources that establish Hamas as "acknowledged... state rulers"? François Robere (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

As you know the onus for obtaining consensus and proving it meets the inclusion criteria lies on the editors wishing to insert material. But yes, the government of Palestine is acknowledged by approximately 2/3 of the world. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC: including "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" in the list of major terrorist incidents?

Should "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" be included in the list of major terrorist incidents? François Robere (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes. For an entry to be added to the list, it must be a "major terrorist incident conducted by violent non-state actors":

1. "Terrorist incident": many RS qualify this as a terrorist attack in their own voice:

   RS quotes

   "Wie sind die Terroristen vorgegangen?" ("How did the terrorists do it?") - Süddeutsche Zeitung "Shock Hamas terror attack" - France 24 "a campaign of terror" - Foreign Affairs "The Hamas terrorist offensive" - CNBC "Hamas' bloody terror attack" - CBS "a campaign of terror" - Politico "massacre of civilians by Hamas terrorists" - NYT "Hamas terrorist attacks" - USA Today "massacre of Israelis at the hands of Hamas terrorists" - ITV "terrorists in Gaza", "terror attacks" - PBS "a terror attack" - CNN "Hamas terrorist attack" - The Telegraph "terror attacks on Israel by Hamas" - DW "24 hours of terror", "terror on wings", "terrorists" - The Guardian "a terrorist organization", "terrorist attacks" - Yascha Mounk at The Globe and Mail

2. "Major": the attack has been equated with the September 11 attacks,[20][21][22] and the sheer number of victims makes it the biggest such attack anywhere in the world since 2014 or 2015.
3. "By violent non-state actors": sources are unanimous in stating that Hamas is: a violent, militant organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip by force from the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority.[23][24][25][26][27][28] Wikipedia itself states that "the Fatah-led government... has been recognized as the official government of the Palestinian Authority", and that Hamas merely exercises "de facto control" over Gaza. No source that I've come across describes Hamas as a legitimate state actor.

This establishes the attack as a "major terrorist incident conducted by violent non-state actors", satisfying the criteria for inclusion. François Robere (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The criteria is actually The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism". You need to show that there is a consensus (meaning no significant dissent) among RS.VR _talk 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

So, which RS explicitly say that "the attack by Hamas was not a terrorist attack"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

CBC News, BBC News and The Guardian seem to have deliberately avoided calling it a terrorist attack. We don't sources to say it was "not a terrorist attack". Sources almost never say that.VR _talk 18:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian: "embraced the use of terror tactics", "has never balked at using terrorism";[29] "24 hours of terror", "terror on wings", "terrorists".[30] François Robere (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, not as much as any other military invasion The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• No - while Hamas is described and labelled as a terrorist organization it doesn't mean everything they do is terrorism. This is being described by most sources as a war, not a terrorist attack or incident. Even Israel doesn't seen to be describing it as terrorism but as war. Most of the sources listed above aren't describing this as a terrorist incident either but a war. Some sources are saying "terrorist targets" for Israel's responses but they don't say that this is a terrorist incident. Some are just quotes from others but not saying it's terrorism in their own voice. Yes some of the above are saying it, but more of the listed sources are stating it as a war rather than a terrorist incident. Balance of sources are definitely leaning towards a war being waged by Hamas against Israel rather than just terrorism. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  We're not talking about the war as a whole here, just this specific event. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  This event isn’t just the typical hamas bombing, but an actual military operation as they have crossed the border and occupied several kibbutzim, so it is more accurate to label it as a “military operation” than a “terrorist attack”

  side tangent: I love Bonelli’s eagle The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  That’s what militaries do? Kill children by pre plan? It’s simply a terrorist decision not a military one. Hamas is declared by the US and the UN as a terrorist group. Not a military organization 2A02:14F:17A:F5C5:45CD:786C:C5:8BC9 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, as established by vast majority of sources (see links by François Robere above). It was described as the most important terrorist attack after 911. Yes, it was also a raid, rather than invasion, in terms of tactics, but the purpose of the raid was to terrorize the civilian population, by attacking specifically the civilian population. Yes, we now have a war, but this war was started by the major terrorist attack (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood under discussion) conducted by Hamas and other terrorist forces. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe could include in List of prison escapes. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources? My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli blockade of Gaza and it being near impossible to leave? It’s not called the “biggest open air prison” for nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/12/palestinians-can-t-just-leave-gaza-during-israel-hamas-conflict/21fa3714-68b8-11ee-9753-2b3742e96987_story.html The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

'Prison break': Hamas war stirs Arab world’s antipathy to Israel Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If you truly believe it, then you need to include it to List of prison escapes. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No. The article doesn't endorse the "prison break" meme, which it clearly attributes it to "viral posts" on "Arab social media"—just as it explains that the “open-air prison” metaphor is one employed by "Arabs and human rights activists", not by FT itself. It should go without saying: an RS quoting a flat-earther is not an RS reporting that the world is flat. ElleTheBelle 18:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It's been called “open air prison” with abbriviation cause it is not a real prison but a slang to describe it. Also, it has a few check points with both Israel and Egypt that are open - not everyone can come and go, but this is the same as with any other country boarders to my understanding Rafah Border Crossing Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Note relevant 2A02:14F:17A:F5C5:45CD:786C:C5:8BC9 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, most sources recognize the it as a war not an incident, palestinian resistance militants took down hundreds of israeli occupation armed forces including tanks and armored vehicles not just civilians, it is a full war between Palestine and Israel that many militants and civilians on both sides have been killed, and war crimes have been committed by both sides of the war not just one of them, it basically a war not an “incidents”. It is also worthy to note that western politician fire speeches and sometimes lies (as biden did when he claimed to have seen images) or whatever they “recognize” don’t represent the international community nor outweigh superior global organizations like United Nations that represent the international community and what is “terrorism” and what is not.

Stephan rostie (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, page 2023 Israel–Hamas war should be categorized as a war. But we are talking here about the attack itself, i.e. page Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The split was made after a limited consensus (low WP:CONLEVEL ) and was not made for the purpose of then being able to include that bit of the war in this or that list (or maybe it was....) Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume that no one is going to nominate the newly created page Operation Al-Aqsa Flood for deletion because it describes a separate and highly notable event. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not new, it was previously merged with 2023 Israel-Hamas war (then called something else). Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we have a larger problem: compare our 15,000-word September 11 attacks article with our 10,000-word War on terror entry.

Israel was not at war with Hamas when the terrorist attack occurred—it's what prompted Israel to declare war for the first time since 1973. And while there certainly needs to be mention of the Hamas terrorist attack as the inciting incident in our 13,000-word 2023 Israel-Gaza war article, much of what's currently in that article needs to be moved to what's now only a 2,000-word Operation Al-Aqsa Flood article.

A similar issue is found in our 8,700-word Russo-Ukrainian war article, which is dwarfed by the massive 15,600-word Russian invasion of Ukraine. Surely there's a better forum for this larger discussion, but it's one that's worth having, no? ElleTheBelle 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree it turned out to a war. However, what started it all was the incidents on Saturday the 6th of October that can be phrased as a terror attack. Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• No - While I think it will be included as a Terrorist incident in the fullness of time I would avoid categorising it until RS have settled down on the subject. We are still at the 'News' stage. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  If that's really that case, why the article at all—given that WP:NOTNEWS? If an encyclopedia can't even broadly categorize the subject of an article, isn't it malpractice to publish it? ElleTheBelle 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - it's "Israel's 9/11" per RS. Andre🚐 17:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• At this point No. The Guardian reports (emphasis added): The attack also inevitably revived demands for news organisations to follow the White House lead and call Hamas terrorists, not only because of the nature of the killings but because the US, EU and UK governments have banned the group. Kenneth Roth, the former head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, criticised the White House stance. “It is not helpful to use the term ‘terrorism’ in a war when the White House only ever applies it to one side. Better to remind both Hamas and the Israeli government that humanitarian law makes it a war crime to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians,” he said. I tried searching if The Guardian, a major newspaper, called the attacks terrorist. I couldn't find anywhere that it did, although it did quote others making that allegation.VR _talk 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • CBC News is another reliable source that has explicitly refused to call the attacks terrorist. It instructed its journalists: "Do not refer to militants, soldiers or anyone else as ‘terrorists.’ The notion of terrorism remains heavily politicized and is part of the story". [31].VR _talk 17:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • And BBC News also explains Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists'.VR _talk 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. If WP followed such BBC policy, we would not have any pages with word terrorist/terrorism in the title. According to WP:TERRORIST, Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter .... It does not mean we can not have any pages on the subjects of racism, sexism or terrorism (e.g. this page) and call them as such. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Major news orgs (NYT, AP, BBC, etc) don't use the label so it does not meet the definition given in MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, of course NYT calls them "Hamas terrorists" [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Well, like, obviously there ain't any top-notch scholarly sources yet, but news reports are solid, don't you agree? And honestly, don't expect scholars to drop some major revelations here. So, we got these editorial rules about not calling Hamas militants "terrorists" 'cause Wikipedia's gotta think about the whole world reading, and we're trying not to seem like we're taking sides, but when they're out there doing some pretty atrocious stuff, it gets tricky. The way to handle this is to talk about those actions as "Acts of Terror" and back it up with some legit sources that call Hamas terrorists, but we ain't doing that in Wikipedia's voice. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Infinity Knight: A "yes" would mean that you're calling Hamas terrorist in wikipedia's voice.VR _talk 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Vice regent:, We label some seriously messed-up things as "Acts of Terror" and we've got credible sources that tag Hamas as terrorists. It's in line with Wikipedia's rules and lines up with the BBC's policy too offset=@5:30, you know? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
      • @Infinity Knight: but that interview you linked above is saying the opposite: that BBC will not call Hamas terrorist.VR _talk 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
        • @Vice regent:, The BBC's editing policy, although intriguing as a symbol of neutrality, holds no relevance in this context. They effectively address the issue by characterizing the incident as an "Act of terror," particularly in this instance. In fact, the interviewer's query pertained to the BBC's choice not to designate "terror group Hamas" as a terrorist group. To be succinct, I'll reiterate one final time: we possess a comprehensive list, we categorize these incidents accordingly, and it's essential to acknowledge that we possess credible sources supporting the inclusion of this particular event. Unless there is a valid argument asserting that the event fails to meet specific inclusion criteria for the list. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. "Terrorism" is an English word with an accepted meaning, and this latest example perfectly meets that definition. To suggest that Hamas killing Israeli civilians isn't "terrorism" because Hamas and their apologists say it isn't is beyond bizarre and completely unmoored from reality. Hamas slaughtered more than 250 defenseless civilians at a music festival in cold blood, butchered and burned alive kibbutzniks in their homes, fired more than 3,000 rockets at population centers for the express purpose of terrorizing and killing civilians, and took scores of civilian hostages to exchange for their comrades imprisoned for terrorism—if all that doesn't meet the definition of a "terror attack", then nothing does. More broadly: our encyclopedia is going to lose every shred of credibility if we continue down this path of laughable far-left political bias. ElleTheBelle 17:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• No - Considering that "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" is an ongoing military operation of various Palestinian factions and does not meet the criteria of "terrorism". This operation is not even an "incident", it is a campaign. The operation may presumably last months or years, and no neutral person labels them as "terrorism". MOS:TERROR

Counter point - Netanyahu's "Operation Swords of Iron" should be regarded as a campaign of mass-terror, considering that the IDF chief categorised Palestinians as "human animals" Nazi-style and Netanyahu has ordered the ethnic cleansing of 1.1 million Gazan civilians. "Israel tells 1.1 million Gazans to evacuate south. UN says order is ‘impossible’" (CNN, 13 October 2023)

How about that? A few more days or weeks into the conflict, the world might be potentially looking at a genocide in Gaza. If wikipedia dehumanises the Palestinian side as "terrorist", that will be one of the best propaganda tools of the far-right Netanyahu regime.

I am sick of these newly created Washington DC war-propaganda slogans like "Israel's 9/11", "Hamas is ISIS".

MOS:TERROR, WP:POVPUSH

shadowwarrior8 20:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The series of Hamas massacres against Israeli civilians finished within a day. It is the series that is getting designated as a major terrorist incident. Each massacre many involved barbaric actions (see my vote below for a list). The massacres satisfy any objective definition of terrorism that exists. Even ISIS and Al Qaeda have their defenders, though they’re incidents are on this list. The pure savagery by Hamas prompted Netanyahu to describe them as human animals. See my comment below for my thoughts on a hypothetical Israeli genocide against Palestinians. Closetside (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats not what the RfC is about. Full stop. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Operation Al Aqsa Flood is the 2023 Hamas invasion into southern Israel. Whenever they could, they massacred Israeli civilians. Barbaric massacre after barbaric massacre in one town after another. The invasion in essence was just a massacre campaign. Closetside (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar response to allegations of ethnic cleansing. The relocation order is temporary and all evidence suggests it will be receded after the war. If the order is never receded and northern Gaza is entirely populated by Israeli settlers after the war, that would probably warrant wide consensus on designating the order as an instance of ethnic cleansing. If such consensus existed, I would support reflecting it on Wikipedia. Right now, allegations that Israel intends to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza is confined to fringe extremists. Closetside (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

categorised Palestinians as "human animals" Nazi-style - they called Hamas "human animals", not all Palestinians.

Netanyahu has ordered the ethnic cleansing of 1.1 million Gazan civilians. - source? from what I read, altough he ordered on further strikes as part of the war he urged the citizens to move to the south of the strip, outside of Gaza city where most hamas related properties are. https://www.ft.com/content/8ea2374e-c21c-4232-bc69-615e36b26caa

@Shadowwarrior8 And may I ask, I understand it may be a sensitive topic but why are you sick of what you called the propaganda slogans of "Israel's 9/11"? in terms of numbers it is equvivalent to 7000 americans in one day which is higher than 9/11 Sunshine SRA (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it the "equivalent" of "7000 americans in one day"? After 6 days of the start of "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm", the number of deaths of Israeli citizens is around 1300 (which includes both civilians and combatants) and nowhere near 7000. When it comes down to the first two days, nearly 700 Israelis were killed (according to Reuters). Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Per capita. Although, 7000 is low; the real per-capita equivalent would be 43,000. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• No per shadowwarrior8. If the evaluation of the attack as terrorism is under doubt, and it is as not all news sources are using that term, then no. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes . This string of massacres of at least 500 Israeli civilians started the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Therefore, the argument that there were wartime killings is invalid; the massacres began the war by inciting a sweeping Israeli response. These series of massacres, which included killing women and children, taking obvious innocents as captives, looting, house burning, person and corpse burnings, and beheadings. Such barbaric acts are obviously an act of terrorism by any objective definition of terrorism that exists. Defense of these massacres is confined to extremists who claim that Palestinians have the right to resist “by any means necessary.” Extremists defend ISIS and Al Qaeda too. Closetside (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Extremists who use the “by any means necessary” defense ironically enable Israel to defend a hypothetical genocide against Palestinians by claiming they are just defending themselves from a hostile group out to kill all its soldiers and civilians. Speaking of an Israeli genocide, if there will be a wide consensus that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians, I would support fully designating Israel’s actions as such. Right now, the allegation of an Israeli genocide against Palestinians is confined to fringe extremists, where it will most likely stay forever. There are no masses of Palestinians dying from the effects of Israeli blockade escalations at this time. Heck, Israel will terminate its blockade escalations on Gaza if Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad released all of their Israeli captives.Closetside (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Editors have provided many sources describing this as a terrorist attack; while some sources, like the BBC, have refrained from doing so, it is their policy to not name any event a terrorist attack and thus their failure to do so here is not indicative. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes– the fact that most reliable sources describe this as a terror attack is sufficient. It may have started off a wider war, but so did 9/11 and that doesn't make that any less of a terror attack either. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes We have more than adequate coverage of this in RS as a terrorist attack. The main counterargument I'm seeing above revolves around Hamas' disputed designation as a terrorist group. This is immaterial to the discussion. Whether or not Hamas is classified as a terrorist group, the attack was indisputably a terrorist incident. I'm also not seeing any sound reasoning to support the notion that the attack was a "war", as some users have claimed. The Israeli side seems to have declared war as a result of the attack. Could someone explain why that means that the attack itself was not a terrorist incident? Until such a rationale exists, it seems pretty clear that inclusion in the list is warranted. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)