Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Section about denialism of the attack

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

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

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

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

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

References

Yes, there should be a denialism section, even a denialism page. Drsruli (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I started one. Please add as you see fit. Mistamystery (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich The editor in question violated an edit rule that would potentially be subject to administrative sanction. Individuals don’t get to decide what outlets are and aren’t RS. It’s not covered under BRD. The edit should be restored. Mistamystery (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
No, that's not right. First of all, nobody is deciding that WaPo isn't an RS, that's just false framing, drop that rhetorical nonsense. Just because something is published by WaPo doesn't mean it automatically must be included. Hell that's literally right in the WP:ONUS section of WP:V. The edit summary was clear as to the reasons for the removal, and frankly I agree with it. I think there are more sources out there about this, but whatever is added about denialism should be sourced to multiple high quality sources about the topic. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
If you agree that the source is "questionable" and that the author "can't hide their bias", then please articulate how that original research is meaningful on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, it’s also a personal attack on the Washington post author. Drsmoo (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Saying that an external author is not an expert or their writings are biased is certainly an opinion, however you'd have hard time to convince a court of law that it amounts to an attack. — kashmīrī TALK 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
She’s an expert on social media, which is why she’s writing an article on Oct.7 atrocity denial and its pernicious spread seeded on social media. In your edit summary you claimed she was “biased”, please explain how you came to that conclusion.
I disagree with having a section using only one source. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
https://forward.com/news/570511/deborah-lipstadt-hamas-attack-denial/ - "Deborah Lipstadt, who rose to fame combating Holocaust denial, said Monday she was disturbed about how many people are denying that Hamas committed atrocities in its Oct. 7 terrorist attack in southern Israel."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-27/ty-article-opinion/exposing-max-blumenthals-deceptive-claim-israel-is-responsible-for-most-october-7-victims/0000018c-102f-d65f-a7dd-f0ff7b550000 - "The Grayzone editor has a history of denying war crimes, so it's no surprise he provided a piece that very selectively uses facts, includes purposely edited quotes to change their meaning and grossly plays down the atrocities against Israelis" Drsmoo (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-04/ty-article/.premium/how-media-outlets-like-haaretz-are-weaponized-in-the-fake-news-wars-over-israel-and-hamas/0000018c-3076-d15f-a7af-b27664390000 "According to the BBC’s Sardarizadeh, the denialist narrative that “it was Israel that killed its own civilians on 7 October, not Hamas,” has become appallingly widespread online." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs)

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/feminists-hamas-rapes/ - "On October 7, Hamas fighters raped Israeli women and girls. Whatever may have been unknown in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the rapes are by now as substantiated as anything ever can be in an ongoing war. There is eyewitness testimony. There are reports from doctors and others who saw bodies of women who had been sexually abused. There are photographs. You have to be a conspiracist or rape denialist to dismiss all that as fabricated. And yet, social media is crammed with dismissals of the evidence as Israeli propaganda." Drsmoo (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the Nov Haaretz story is very relevant as it's mostly about one person, but I do think the WaPo, Forward, and Dec Haaretz articles could support something in the body about growing denial (that atrocities happened, that it was a false flag, etc). Still wouldn't support a separate section unless it was long enough to justify it (like multiple paragraphs). Levivich (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The issue here is WP:DUE weight; devoting an entire section to this requires substantial sourcing - enough to cover it in a neutral manner. And in particular when evaluating due weight it's important to avoid excessively imbalanced usage of WP:BIASED sources; they are usable, but an entire section cited to sources that are biased in the same direction is often a problem. With that in mind... all three of the sources you listed are plainly WP:BIASED in the same direction. On top of this, one of the Haaretz sources you added is an opinion piece. How much coverage does this aspect of the topic have outside of sources who share that bias? How are sources of comparable weight and quality that don't share that bias covering this aspect? We can still mention it in a sentence or two, but it becomes hard to justify devoting an entire section to it. And just at a glance, if we're talking about how sources have covered atrocities, war crimes, and denials thereof, if you look at sources outside of Israel, they largely present both sides as being accused of committing atrocities or war crimes, and both sides as having denied the accusations of atrocities made against them, without the clearly one-sided presentation you're suggesting for the section here - that doesn't mean that it's completely equal or equivalent, but the section you added was one-sided in a way that significant amounts of high-quality coverage are not. See [1][2][3][4] Similarly, coverage of conspiracy theories related to the war are not one-sided; see [5][6][7][8] - again, there's substantial coverage of conspiracy theories being spread on social media by supporters of all sides, in sources that are at least as high-quality as the ones you presented. In particular if we're going to add the conspiracy theories you referenced we ought to add the "crisis actor" conspiracy theories; WP:DUE weight is relative and that has comparable coverage among high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

The text under the subsection ‘Accusations of Genocide’ currently reads: According to several international law and genocide studies experts, Hamas's assault amounted to genocide.[370][371][372] Legal and genocide experts have condemned the attack,[373][374] saying it represents a serious violation of international law.

It should read: An open letter statement was published by Haaretz, signed by Israeli and foreign nationals, condemns the actions of Hamas on October 7th, and claims that these actions constitute a genocide [372].

Rationale for change: 1. Reference 370 is an anonymous apparent opinion piece that provides no facts sourcing their death toll claims (of which some have been widely debunked by Israel itself in subsequent press releases). 2. Reference 371 is an Article from the Israeli newspaper ‘The Times of Israel’. It cites an open letter but provides no references or link to said letter, states a single name of a so-called ‘expert in genocide’ is a signatory, and states without facts that the actions of Hamas were genocidal. 3. Reference 372 is an open letter published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, to which anyone can sign. I am not a genocide expert but I could add my name to this document if I chose. There is no demonstration or attempt at demonstration by Haaretz that any of the signatories are experts in genocide or that they even work in an area of human rights, legal fields, or public policy. As such these signatories cannot be called ‘legal’ or ‘genocide’ expert. 4. Reference 373 is an article that cites anonymous anecdotal Israeli reports of rape against Israelis by Hamas. This article does not mention genocide nor does it provide substantiation for any claims of rape. Indeed subsequent reports have shown that a number of anecdotal reports made by Israelis were indeed false, therefore this reference is doubly inappropriate here. 5. Reference 374 is also an article about rape, and is problematic for the same reasons as reference 373. 2601:803:201:7B00:6DE8:B71A:8776:ED6C (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: but IMO it's worth further discussion. Will post more thoughts shortly. Levivich (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree some of these refs either shouldn't be used or don't seem to support what they're being cited for. I don't agree with the proposed change, per MOS:CLAIM and because I think the condemnations go beyond just the one open letter. Going through the five sources listed:
370 - I question whether Genocide Watch is an RS
371 - I don't know where WP:RSN is on ToI but it's not on WP:RSP. I think it's an RS for (quoting the source) "Over 100 experts on international law issued a statement Sunday assessing that the Hamas terror group committed multiple war crimes in its massive assault on Israel last week and that its actions in slaughtering 1,300 people likely amounted to genocide." However, I do understand the objection to using Israeli or Palestinian sources for this.
372 - Haaretz is green at RSP. I get the objection to Israeli sources categorically. But it says "Hamas' October 7 massacre of over 1,300 Israelis and foreign citizens constituted the “crime of genocide,” hundreds of international jurists and academics, including the former Justice Minister of Canada, declared Monday. In an open letter, some 240 legal experts, including experts from Harvard and Columbia Law Schools, King's College London and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, asserted that last weekend’s attack constituted a 'gross violation of international law, and, in particular, of international criminal law.'" I think it's an RS for that statement.
Note: Neither ToI nor Haaretz needs to prove in their article that these people are in fact experts, etc. Their stating that the signatories are experts is good enough for Wikipedia's purposes unless there are other RSes that say otherwise.
373 - NYT, but I don't see where it verifies that "Legal and genocide experts have condemned the attack"
374 - WaPo, same as NYT
Besides those, there are also refs 376-379 at the end of the paragraph. I haven't looked at those carefully, but they all seem like RS at first glance.
So in sum, I think you're right that some of these sources should be taken out. I'm not entirely sure about the Israeli ones. But there are still other sources that are cited that seem unproblematic, and I'm not sure what the paragraph should say once the problematic sources are taken out (but I think it's more than just the open letter mentioned by Haaretz). Levivich (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No Palestinian civilian casualties are mentioned

No Palestinian civilian casualties are mentioned in the summary. Misleading as it suggests no civilians were killed 81.107.245.72 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have a citation of how many civilians were killed by Israeli bombardment in this timeframe then do link it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

JERUSALEM, Dec 21 (Reuters) - The first 10 weeks of the Israel-Gaza war have been the deadliest recorded for journalists, with the most journalists killed in a single year in one location, the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said on Thursday. Most of the journalists and media workers killed in the war - 61 out of 68 - were Palestinian. The report, opens new tab said it was "particularly concerned about an apparent pattern of targeting of journalists and their families by the Israeli military."

Source https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-most-dangerous-ever-journalists-says-rights-group-2023-12-21/#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20journalists%20and,families%20by%20the%20Israeli%20military.%22 haymanpl 15:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 16:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Source cited for "247 Palestinians killed" actually says "200"

https://web.archive.org/web/20231007053106/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/sirens-warn-of-rockets-launched-towards-israel-from-gaza-news-reports

"clashes in the Israeli-occupied West Bank where some 200 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military so far this year" PsasPaul (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's text claims "Over the course of 2023, before the attack, Israeli forces[clarification needed] had killed 247 Palestinians, and Palestinians had killed 39 Israelis. PsasPaul (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I removed the line, but for different reasons than you've raised.
The Al Jazeera archive you're linking to is an old version of the article. The updated Al Jazeera article [9] says "At least 232 people have been killed and 1,600 wounded in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza during Israel’s retaliation after a deadly multi-pronged attack by Hamas forces into Israel, the health ministry says" and "At least 247 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces so far this year."
It is unclear to me whether the 247 "killed by Israeli forces so far this year" includes the 232 people killed during Israel's retaliation on 7 Oct (meaning the 2023 death toll pre-7 Oct was 15), or if it means 247 were killed before 7 Oct and another 232 on 7 Oct. I'm sure another source could be found to clarify this and could be added to the article, but until then, I've removed the line. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 -- Remove speculation on North Korean involvement regarding tunnels

Non-expert speculation does not belong on Wikipedia, and the bolded line should be removed completely:

"In 2014, Hamas employed 900 full-time staff for tunnel construction, each taking three months and costing an average of $100,000. Funding came from commercial schemes via Gaza's mosques, with contributions from Iran and North Korea.[75]"

Citation 75, an Economist article purported to cite North Korean funding for underground tunnels, is totally free of any evidence to that effect, and only contains a single sentence of speculation. The Economist article couches its speculation with the phrasing that Western adversaries "are thought to" have funded tunnel construction, while the current Wikipedia article declares it as a fact. It does not specify who is making this speculation, and this claim cannot be confirmed or researched further through this citation. The only knowledge gained here is that The Economist is willing to publish unattributed speculation to this claim.

Quote from the Economist article:

"By 2014 the group’s tunnelling effort employed 900 full-time staff, with each tunnel taking three months and an average of $100,000 to build, according to a study by the RAND Corporation, a think-tank. Hamas raised capital for the tunnels, pitching them as commercial investment schemes, complete with contracts drafted by lawyers, through mosques in Gaza. Iran and North Korea are thought to have helped with construction, supplying money and engineers."

As per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, speculation may be used only if it is attributed to "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field". Even if the original source was an expert, this cannot be included in the article because it is unattributed, and it cannot even be attributed to the author, since Economist articles are not attributed to any Economist writer.

The other claims on tunnel funding are also sourced from the same piece of unattributed speculation, and they should be removed if they cannot be better supported. The claim that Iran generally funds Hamas can be attributed to many other sources, including the U.S. State Department and US-based NGOs. The claim about investment schemes through mosques does not seem to be as easily supported, and should be deleted if this is the only viable citation.

Citation 75 should be removed and replaced with a citation to the RAND Corporation study mentioned in the Economist article, which gives fuller access to the source of the cost estimate information (the phrasing on the cost figures should also make clear that these are estimates). The RAND study does not have any information regarding North Korean or Iranian financial ties to Hamas, nor about claimed commercial investment schemes involving mosques. Curlsstars (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

While I'd prefer to find more sources than remove text, the current accusation is so poorly sourced and, perhaps in any other instance, could be considered libellious that I've decided to remove it for now. Any editor can please re-add it if better sources are found. — kashmīrī TALK 20:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I was about to edit the content to attribute the claim to the Economist; it's a top tier source, so I don't see justification for complete removal. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The Economist only quotes an unnamed report by RAND Corporation, of unknown reliability and with possible COI. — kashmīrī TALK 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
COI? How? And what matters is that the Economist saw fit to print the claim - they've assessed the claim and decided it is sufficient to print, and unless we consider the Economist to be unreliable we shouldn't be rejecting it on the basis of us not liking the Economist's source.
Also, a quick search finds this.
We should probably also include North Korean influence more generally; in particular, the use of North Korean weapons has received a lot of coverage:
  1. Evidence shows Hamas militants likely used some North Korean weapons in attack on Israel
  2. North Korea training, providing weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis - report
  3. South Korean military says North Korea may have links with Hamas
  4. Expert: Hezbollah has built a vast tunnel network far more sophisticated than Hamas’s (North Korean support for Hezbollah tunnel effort)
BilledMammal (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The first three don't mention cooperation in tunnel construction, the fourth one is sourced to an Israeli intelligence agent. By the way, RAND is predominantly funded by the U.S. Army. Can't you find more reliable and impartial sources for what are expected to be statements of facts? — kashmīrī TALK 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You overlooked the first link I provided. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
There seemed to me to be a direct contradiction there between "North Korea’s Link to Hamas" and the Economist article. Perhaps the Economist confused Hamas with Hezbollah? NadVolum (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Photograph of dead baby is WP:UNDUE

The photograph of the dead baby is clearly WP:UNDUE as it gives a misleading impression that young children were targeted by Hamas, and basically indirectly promotes the "mass baby murder" Zionist narrative that has been widely debunked at this point. In reality, only two babies died in the operation, as the article itself notes. The overwhelming majority of victims were adults. The proportion of child (<15 yo) deaths on October 7th was remarkably low in the circumstances (something like ~2%) and orders of magnitude better than Israel and other militaries engaged in an urban warfare context.

Furthermore, the location of the dead baby photograph is also curious. It is placed in the "Reported Atrocities" section. However, while the death of the child is tragic, we don't know whether the killing was deliberate. The child could have been killed by stray gunfire, which would be an accident but not a war crime. JDiala (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed in light of no response. JDiala (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Good points. starship.paint (RUN) 14:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it is WP:UNDUE;
First, the baby was killed during an attack where the civilians were deliberately targeted, an attack where the intent was to kidnap and murder as many civilians as possible - which included a baby being kidnapped. Such a killing belongs in the "Reported Atrocities" section.
Second, it is WP:DUE; there is an imbalance in the article towards pictures of the impact on Gaza, and we should be increasing the number of images of the impact on Israel, not decreasing it.
I've reinstated the image, absent a consensus to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove immediately as the image has been sourced to ZAKA, which given the scandal surrounding ZAKA reporting[10][11][12] makes all the information accompanying the photo unreliable / likely made up. — kashmīrī TALK 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    Unless you are suggesting the baby did not die during the Hamas attack - and have evidence to support that claim - your reasoning is not sound.
    Further, the image has been stable in the article since last year; you need a consensus to remove it, rather than boldly doing so after removal has been challenged. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    This is not how WP:ONUS works. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it is; editors don't get to remove content and claim WP:ONUS when the content has become the status quo and thus has consensus. Instead, the editor needs a consensus to remove it - if you don't believe me, consider what result in an RfC on the inclusion of this picture would be required to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting the baby did not die. The picture is that of a dead child. I'm saying that we can't trust in any of the information provided by Zaka – how the baby died, who killed it, even whether it's an Israeli baby. Simply, the source of the image has been found untrustworthy, that's it. — kashmīrī TALK 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) As far as I can tell, the only allegation regarding Zaka's image is that they "released sensitive and graphic photos". There are no allegations that the images and context related to them is untrustworthy; unless you have a source regarding this that you have not yet presented?
    I note that Hamas did kill babies in the attack; there is no reason to believe that this is not one of those babies. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    A logical fallacy. "There are sometimes rocks falling from the sky, so there's no reason to believe a random rock isn't one of them". Things is, an encyclopaedia has a higher bar of evidence. — kashmīrī TALK 23:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    No reason, except for the fact that - since we’re talking in euphemisms - this "rock" looks like it has fallen from the sky, and an organisation, that while not perfect is not generally unreliable, has told us that it fell from the sky.
    In addition, Zaka isn’t the only source telling us that baby was murdered by Hamas BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    The photo's origin is an unreliable organisation, period. That ToI has run it in the same week only shows how little verification was performed before publication. We now know that ZAKA made up many of their "facts", and I'm quite sure the consensus here is to avoid sourcing Wikipedia to that group unless unavoidable. — kashmīrī TALK 01:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree this is UNDUE as non-representative of the casualties, and BilledMammal consensus is required for inclusion. nableezy - 14:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Clear consensus here for removal. Note that BilledMammal has not engaged with the arguments made. JDiala (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal:
1. That is a warped application of WP:DUE. The test is not whether an atrocity represents a statistically significant proportion of all atrocities committed in an event. Thousands of sources have focussed on the murder of babies on October 7. You may not agree with that focus, but it's inarguably the case.
2. Zaka remains, as far as I can ascertain, reliable. If Kashmiri has a reason why this isn't the case, please put it here.
3. Onus dictates it remains if stable for a long period in the absence of consensus. Riposte97 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That isn’t what onus or undue say. nableezy - 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparent internal discrepancy in number of militants captured

In the infobox, it says '~200 militants captured'; in the section Capture and interrogation of militants, it says 'Following the attack, more than 600 militants were captured in Israel.'. Jontel (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Change militants killed to terrorists

Hamas c asualties must be changed from militants to terrorists. 2A0D:6FC7:55D:E5D8:B0CE:C1FF:FEB0:3981 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:TERRORIST. I don't like it either, but there you have it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Attack? According to Int'l Law Armed Resistance is Legal under Illegal Occupation

According to International Law, the illegally occupied have every right to resist an occupation by peaceful or violent means. The term attack is loaded as it suggests the action against Israel was not permitted under international law. The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but there are several caveats: the attack took place outside of the occupied territory, and attacks targeting civilians, of any nationality, are never legitimate. — kashmīrī TALK 21:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Are colonizing illegal occupiers civilians? The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, "the attack took place outside of the occupied territory..." but in the territory of the illegal occupier... The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The Lord of Misrule — The term is used by a very large majority of secondary reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that mention this specific event as a “armed resistance” and not an “attack”? You can use WP:RSP to see the list of reliable sources. Anything not marked on that list doesn’t mean that the source isn’t reliable either, just that a conversation about it has yet to occur on Wikipedia. But nonetheless, for any change to occur, it needs to be back up by reliable sources. So, the next step would be for you or someone else to link a few sources for “armed resistance”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thx The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Could I cite the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907? The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Not unless a reliable source does. NadVolum (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/occupied-territory/ The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Or https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law/9780198861034.001.0001/law-9780198861034 The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
That wouldn't count as a source for this as it does not say this specific event (7 October 2023) was an "armed resistance". That is what you need to find a source for. Not a law that could be interpreted to say this is an armed resistance. A direct source is needed that says the 2023 attack is an armed resistance. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
An example of what I mean would be like this Associated Press news article which states "Hamas surprise attack out of Gaza stuns Israel". That is a source that says this event was directly an attack. That is the sources you need. Something that directly says this specific event is an armed resistance and not an attack. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Last question of the day... while this source states "attack," it is contextualized by calling the attack a response from the Palestinian Resistance https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/10/07/palestinian-resistance-in-gaza-launches-historic-surprise-attack-against-israel/ The Lord of Misrule (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia is pretty selective on which sources can be used. Typically these would be a newspaper or academic journal. One then weighs common usage if different sources say different things. Drsmoo (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@The Lord of Misrule: Are colonizing illegal occupiers civilians? If you're unable to tell apart combatants and non-combatants, i.e., you don't understand the term "protected person", then I'm sorry but it doesn't make much sense to engage in a discussion about international law. — kashmīrī TALK 01:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
But doesn't international law classify all occupiers/settlers as combatants? The Lord of Misrule (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Did you bother to check the links? — kashmīrī TALK 03:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The typical understanding of settlers in this context is for those in the Israeli settlements. The Gaza envelope, where the attacks occurred, is not one of these settlements. Drsmoo (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a distinction without a difference for the lived experiences of actual Gazans, the overwhelming majority of whom are descended from (or are) individuals expelled in 47 from elsewhere in the erstwhile Mandatory Palestine. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
To editor The Lord of Misrule:, the legal status of a person as combatant or non-combatant under IHL has no dependency on their physical location. Settling on occupied or annexed land does not make a person a combatant, just like living in the Gaza Strip does not make a person a combatant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

the attack took place outside of the occupied territory

The overwhelming majority of Gazans are descended from (or are) individuals expelled in 47 from elsewhere in the erstwhile Mandatory Palestine. From their perspective, all of Israel is occupied. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@The Lord of Misrule: The sort of thing you should be looking for as a source here is one that ties together a discussion of international law with the specifics of this event. Such a source is this academic paper: The Palestinian Operation on October 7 Between International Legitimacy and Criminalization, which covers the Palestinian right to self-defense and right to self-determination in the context, including with recourse to armed resistance. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
That source is from an Open Access Journal, which is not disqualifying to my knowledge, but, I’ve been unable to find much detail about this journal (International Journal of Law and Politics Studies), it doesn’t seem particularly widely cited in Google scholar, though that may not be disqualifying. It is currently not evaluated or indexed in https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/details?id=67098, and I haven’t seen an evaluation of it anywhere. The author doesn’t appear to have ever been cited. I suspect a reference from this particular source would likely be disputed by some. Which could then lead to an evaluation of the source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Drsmoo (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Given that most of the sources for this topic are currently news sources, the first relevant journal sources to emerge are not something to be sniffed at. I'm not seeing the cause here to interrogate this particular journal paper - is there anything that it says that you find surprising or which contradicts what is well known in international law? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
In much the same way as an attacker has responsibilities (proportionality, civilians, etcetera), a "resistor" is subject to the same sort of restrictions, both Israel and Hamas have breached their right to self defense/right to resist respectively. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly why have each of them lost their rights as a result of the atrocities they have committed? NadVolum (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Not lost, breached. Civilian attacks for one. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
They have not lost rights as such. They breached the law. It's illegal to target civilians everywhere. You can't go and kill your neighbour just because you have a claim to the land they live on. What the attackers did was a war crime and they should rightfully be prosecuted for it; unless it is argued that Gaza was not in the state of war with Israel at the time, in which case the killings should be considered a common crime (murder). In short, there's no justification for the 7/10 attack, just like there's no justification for this type of Israeli response. — kashmīrī TALK 23:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
There's no accommodation for the civilian attacks under international law; the attacks on military targets fall under the right to resist. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Actually, not only military targets are included but also the entire security apparatus – police, security agencies, secret services, etc. The discussion is mostly around the question whether the term combatants includes civilian employees in military forces doing non-combat roles, such as accountants, car mechanics servicing police cars, or IT technicians servicing their computers. — kashmīrī TALK 13:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not that simple. It depend on the role of the police during the conflict. See p62 here. Zerotalk 13:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I admit I had in mind the situation like in Gaza or in counterinsurgency where police forces are an active side of hostilities, e.g., by conducting home searches for combatants or interrogating suspects. Obviously I didn't mean traffic police. But that publication presents the matter clearly. — kashmīrī TALK 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
That's not a respectable peer-reviewed academic journal, I'm sorry. This is a predatory publisher, i.e., one who will publish anything for a fee. This journal is not indexed in any real academic database (SCOPUS, etc.), except of course CNKI which indexes everything indiscriminately. There are unfortunately hundreds if not thousands of such publishers milling out hundreds of "papers" a day. Read more at predatory publishing and see our policies at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Predatory_journals. — kashmīrī TALK 23:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like an RSN subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not a perennial source, so perhaps no need of a separate discussion when our policy on predatory journals already covers it. — kashmīrī TALK 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You can't declare a journal as predatory without a source declaring it at such. It's not on Beall's list. Yes, it is open access, by design on the part of the publisher. It is also double-blind peer-reviewed. Predatory? Undetermined. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know this journal or its publisher. It might be predatory, but I don't see a prima facie case for that. The fact that it charges authors a fee means nothing; the fact that their fee is less than a tenth of what mainstream publishers charge for open-access is even evidence against. Zerotalk 07:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"Al-Kindi Center for Research and Development" was created long after Beall ceased publishing his list. It's a one-person company registered in 2021,[13] run off a dilapidated terraced house in West London,[14] and whose 2023 micro-entity accounts show a debt of £1,104 (vs a £674 debt in 2022). Their contact telephone number is a mobile number in Oman.[15] It's decidedly, confidently not a respected academic publisher. I don't need to add that none of the "journals" have an editorial board or a real peer review process. It's all fake. — kashmīrī TALK 11:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you can't make a blind assertion like that. It has a published editorial board. Feel free to email its members and check whether the list and the peer review process is legit, but short of this, quit with the circumstantial and irrelevant information. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Iskandar323, why are you defending the indefensible? I've explained you why Al-Kindi is with full certainty a predatory publisher, and offered you hints how to spot one. Since you're completely deaf to all the reasonable arguments, I'll ask @Randykitty, an expert in academic publishing, to weigh in.
By the way, I could not find a person named Belal Ali AbuHasballah who would be affiliated with the East China University of Political Science and Law. However, a Belal Ali AbuHasballah wrote a Master's thesis on public international law vs Israel-Palestine conflict at the Islamic University in Gaza in 2019. Is he the authority you're pushing in here? — kashmīrī TALK 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi, sorry for responding so slow. Al-Kindy definitely looks to me as being predatory. The address given is a garage in a residential neighbourhood. Their website proudly announces that their journals are indexed by CiteFactor and Index Copernicus, two fake journal evaluation databases. They also proudly list all kinds of trivial databases (for example, indexing in GScholar means nothing, as Google indexes everything). I checked the editorial board of their British Journal of Biology Studies, which has exactly zero researcher from the UK on its editorial board, which consists of rather obscure scientists from Asia (and one person with a Chinese name working at a secondary school in Canada. I looked at one article and the opening line of its abstract is "Interaction between biological and vision science is rough with misinterpretation on either side." Sure, sure... In all, this smells like rotten fish... Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not pushing anything: I merely presented the source as an example of something. What I'm just objecting to is the excessive independent reasoning that is going on here. Your points above are 10% evidence/90% personal judgements based on said evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Telling apart an established academic publisher from a business like Al-Kindi is much like telling apart a large software company (think Microsoft, Adobe or Oracle) from a garage project (one-person software developer). For you it may be "personal judgement"; for others it's something painfully obvious. — kashmīrī TALK 10:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't care whether it is published out of a garage or not (most of the world's great start ups began just so), so long as it has qualified academics conducting a proper peer review process. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not agree that "attack" implies a wrongful act. For example, both Operation Tidal Wave and The Blitz use the word "attack" describing air operations by opposing sides in WW2. The introduction to the article makes it clear that the October 7 attack is considered either resistance or terrorism depending on who you ask. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Enhancing Neutrality in This Wikipedia Articles

As a widely accessed platform for information, Wikipedia plays a significant role in shaping public understanding of this conflict. However, recent observations indicate a need to address biases and enhance the inclusion of diverse perspectives within Wikipedia articles on this topic.

Issue Identification and Recommendations: 

The representation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Wikipedia suffers from biases, reliance on unreliable sources, and a lack of diverse perspectives. To address these issues, it's crucial to:

Diversify Sources: Incorporate reputable sources from various viewpoints, including Israeli, Palestinian, and neutral third-party perspectives.

Evaluate Source Reliability: Ensure that sources are credible and free from bias before inclusion in Wikipedia articles.

Address Broken Links: Monitor and rectify broken or inaccessible links to maintain the accessibility and integrity of information (as an example: https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2024_q1/Article-bb644614196ed81026.htm returns error 403) .

Encourage collaboration: Foster dialogue and collaboration among editors representing diverse backgrounds to ensure a balanced representation of the conflict. خريف الارض القديرة (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of this is kind of vague but that link is functional, it might be blocked in your country. Totalstgamer (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
just for example : both the "strength" and "Casualties and losses" sources are either from Israel's Statements or Israeli websites with total ignorance for other resources like this : https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/lang__en/1405/default.aspx?lang=en خريف الارض القديرة (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
That's another matter, i just clarified that link is functional Totalstgamer (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change lead sentence

The lead sentence currently mentions "the paramilitary wings of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PRC, PFLP, and DFLP." I propose this be changed to "the paramilitary wings of Hamas and several other Palestinian militants groups" or something similar (perhaps someone else has better wording which keeps the spirit of my suggestion).

The issue with the current sentence is that it implies that the five factions listed are an exhaustive list, when that it not true (some Salafist cells also took part, for instance --- and including all of them is impractical). The other issue is that (with all due respect to the PFLP and DFLP) I feel undue weight is given to them when we consider WP:RS, given that virtually every reliable source only talks about Hamas, and the PFLP/DFLP are really an afterthought given their small size. JDiala (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Bill3602. JDiala (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hamas own statement

Is there room on this article for the actual Hamas statement on the attack - https://twitter.com/pmofa/status/1710630801379922370 - or do we continue with the established tradition of ignoring Palestinian voices?

I posted this before, but editor Sean.hoyland deleted it for some reason. A quick glance at his edits appears to confirm that he is attempting to quell discussion of certain ideas. Mcdruid (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this but it should be from reliable sources. Twitter doesn't usually count. JDiala (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That's not Hamas but rather the Palestinian authority MFA's statement. Btw if it's their official twitter account there's nothing wrong with using it. Alaexis¿question? 06:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
One explanation is that "A quick glance at his edits appears to confirm that he is attempting to quell discussion of certain ideas."
Another explanation is that there is
Is there something preventing you from following these simple rules?
What do you think would ensure that you follow these rules from now on? Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

AJ investigation into attack

October 7 Al Jazeera Investigations with transcript (1 hour) Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

October 7: Forensic analysis shows Hamas abuses, many false Israeli claims Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Source 38

We really should not use that NYT article as a source. 129.219.21.241 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for this request? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Terrorist?

At the bottom of the page, the attack is put into the category "terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2020s" or "massacre against Jews." I don't agree with this and think it violates NPOV. Many view the events as a legitimate military operation against an apartheid state. Many military installations were targeted, and the soldier-civilian death ratio is far better than that of Israel or any other Western nation engaged in urban combat. JDiala (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: See this discussion, which involved 58 editors with 184 individual comments. The discussion resulted in a consensus on Wikipedia that deemed the attack a “terrorist attack”. To challenge that consensus, you would need to have reasons not already mentioned in that discussion, as any reason mentioned in that discussion to not include it was on the minority consensus view. So, read through that discussion and if your reasons (which must include new sources) were not already discussed, then you can open a new discussion to reassess if community consensus has changed from that discussion. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter: Could you cite the WP policy which requires that opening a new RfC requires a new reason? JDiala (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@JDiala: Not so much direct policy on that, more of a mix of WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY (essay), which eludes to the idea as well WP:CCC (policy) which says Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. You are not required to propose any new reasonings or sources. However, common sense (essay) would first off read the previous discussion, which would reveal a 2-1 editor consensus that it was a terrorist attack. This means, to a degree, the idea that it isn't a terrorist attack (which I !voted for in that discussion) is the "One against many" or the "losing" ideology. The consensus is less than 6 months old, so WP:CCC plays huge here since less than 6-months for a full RfC is a fairly recent consensus, meaning an attempt to rehash the same debate may be considered disruptive in a contentious topic. So to answer your question, no, there is no direct policy saying you must provide any new reasons or evidence via sources to start a new RfC. However, a word of advice is that a new RfC on this fairly recent topic may be seen as disruptive to editors and administrators. Hopefully that helps. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Blinken's quote about his own witnessing of Hamas atrocities



  • In the sentence "a baby, an infant, riddled with bullets. Soldiers beheaded. Young people burned alive. I could go on, but it's simply depravity in the worst imaginable way" Blinken was referring to the atrocities seen by himself in photographs and videos.
  • I am asking for someone to make an edit to clarify that it was said after media evidence was shown to him. Please remove "given by the same ZAKA volunteer" and add "evidence shown to him".
    • "Watch Blinken react to footage of Hamas terrorist attack on family | CNN Politics". CNN News. 3 November 2023.

The sentence "U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described some of the evidence given by the same ZAKA volunteer" is implying that Blinken's graphic description of Hamas' atrocities is as false as are all the ZAKA volunteer's claims. But Blinken clearly stated that his account of the atrocities was based off his own witnessing of photographs and videos, and not off the ill-advised ZAKA volunteer's stance. Watch his conference here: 'Overwhelming': Blinken recalls seeing graphic images from the Hamas attack on Israel. :

Deerove (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing about this already, if there is no consensus for the change there it wont be made in the article despite a request. nableezy - 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to add the CNN reference I added here in the discussion. It should be added.
Deerove (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discrediting Blinken's quote about his own witnessing of Hamas atrocities

The sentence "U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described some of the evidence given by the same ZAKA volunteer" is implying that Blinken's graphic description of Hamas' atrocities is as false as are all the ZAKA volunteer's claims. But Blinken clearly stated that his statement was based off his own witnessing of photographs and videos, and not off the ill-advised ZAKA volunteer's stance. Please remove "given by the same ZAKA volunteer" and add "evidence shown to him". Watch his conference here: 'Overwhelming': Blinken recalls seeing graphic images from the Hamas attack on Israel. Deerove (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The citation for that sentence clearly states a ZAKA volunteer described that. NadVolum (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Where? I can't find it. Deerove (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I hope this isn't some lawyering, it says "His descriptions echo those of an Israeli emergency responder, who described discovering the scene in a home at Kibbutz Be'eri during a recent press conference. Yossi Landau, the head of operations for the southern command of Zaka, Israel's volunteer emergency-response organization, described the scene he said he found after entering a home at Kibbutz Be'eri." NadVolum (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You are pointing to the first part of the paragraph: a young boy and girl, 6 and 8 years old, and their parents around the breakfast table. The father's eye gouged out in front of his kids. The mother's breast cut off, the girl's foot amputated, the boy's fingers cut off before they were executed.
But the sentence "a baby, an infant, riddled with bullets. Soldiers beheaded. Young people burned alive. I could go on, but it's simply depravity in the worst imaginable way." is not mentioned in the article you are referring to; here Blinken was referring to the atrocities seen by himself in photographs and videos. This is where I am asking for someone to make an edit to clarify that it was said after media evidence was shown to him. If you want I can quote what exactly he said during the conference from the YouTube video. Deerove (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it would have to be made clear that the evidence was shown privately to him by Netenyahu with no checks. NadVolum (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I've edited this. User:Deerove was correct: somehow two different statements with different sources and about different sets of atrocities ended up together in one sentence. Andreas JN466 18:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that Business Insider says Blinken's descriptions of the mutilated family echoed those of an Israeli emergency responder, who described discovering the scene in a home at Kibbutz Be'eri during a recent press conference.
Note also that Haaretz said, in its discussion of the ZAKA member's numerous statements subsequently found to have been false: But no children 6 or 7 or near those ages were killed on Be'eri. Andreas JN466 18:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  • It was explained and cited here, for example. Hence, this is something reliably sourced and arguably notable. But is it due on the page? I would say "yes", but one needs a consensus for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Reference the significance of October 7 as Putin's birthday and the implications

Thanks Freakdog (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) https://www.politico.eu/article/hamas-gift-russia-vladimir-putin-international-crises-russia-israel-palestine/

References

Rename to "October 7 attacks"?

This seems to be the more well-known name of the attacks and I feel the name fits better with other articles on Wikipedia than its current one. "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" might fit (considering many articles use the name of the attacker's operation as the name of the article, like Operation Barbarossa) if it wasn't likely to bring up undue weight issues. Bill3602 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We are where we currently are based on a conscious choice to currently side with the most neutral descriptive title possible. Operation names, while accurate, are discouraged unless focused devotedly on the military planning etc., since they are rather POV. "October 7" is also POV and has the air of 9/11-style branding about it. Neither are perfect, and both have flaws, and thus the descriptive compromise so far remains. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. I always thought the title seemed a bit off compared to other article names, but it does make sense to use it as 10/7 and al-Aqsa Flood both bring up POV concerns.--Bill3602 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename to "October 7 attacks". Drsruli (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is off compared to the bombing of Gaza where Israel is not mentioned in the title. CurryCity (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Just a more clerical-style note: If consensus seems to lean towards a renaming, a formal requested move discussion is required before a move could take place, given the current name (on a CTOPS article) was formally decided by a very long requested move discussion involving 71 editors and 178 comments. Basically, to start the formal requested move discussion, a fairly strong pre-discussion consensus is needed (ballpark 20+ editors in rough support), since that large discussion is less than 6-months old. Per WP:CCC, consensus can change, however, also per policy, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. This is not a support renaming or against renaming comment, but rather a strictly clerical note and reminder than the current title is a less than six-month old consensus, which involved 70+ editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
As a personal P.S. note, it honestly may be best to discuss this in a couple of months, like maybe around the 1-year anniversary. Honestly, any formal requested move discussion started before 22 April 2024 (i.e. the six-month window) that doesn't present any new evidence or reasons not mentioned in that October 2023 discussion would probably fit the description of being along the lines of disruptive, especially given the CTOPS nature of the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Change "Coordinated Armed Incursions" to "A Major Terrorist Attack"

Considering the consensus outcome of the RFC for classifying this event as a major terrorist attack, the language in the first sentence of the leading paragraph should be changed from "coordinated armed incursions", which is more appropriate for state-sponsored military actions, to "major terrorist attack", which is more appropriate for an event that included the capture of civillian hostages, random murder of civillians, and an array of non-state actors that are classified by many nations as terrorist organizations.

In short, I argue that affirming the outcome of the RFC by revising the blurb would improve the clarity and quality of the article. Noamthinks (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your approach which seeks to increase alignment, the contents of this article have no dependency on that RFC. It looks like the RFC had a well-defined narrow scope. This article falls outside of that scope. Consensus for something like this is local not global. Editors at this article don't need to affirm anything. They just need to comply with policy here, locally, in this article. Or at least that is my understanding of how things work. So, you may need a new RFC here, or at least consensus will need to form locally here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
And of course you don't need to pick one, it can be described as 2 things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll also add that everything in your sentence from "which is more appropriate..." to the end of that sentence is not relevant to content decisions. Descriptions of things should be based on reliable sources that describe the things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland Understood, my apologies for using reasoning instead of sources in advocating for this content decision.
However, as mentioned in the article and later on in the blurb, there are numerous reliable sources that describe this event as a terrorist attack. Whereas, on the reverse side, what exactly is the reliable source for the language of "coordinated armed incursion"? It appears to be placeholder language out of reluctance to use the label of "terror attack" rather than a reliably sourced terminology.
Who chose the language of "coordinate armed incursions" and why? Is this a better representation of how the event is portrayed by reputable secondary sources than "major terrorist attack"? Noamthinks (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I haven't looked at how that text came into being. I'm trying to stay out of content related things as far as possible unless something catches my eye. I agree there is no doubt that a substantial proportion of coverage describe it as a terror attack and so the article can say that. But saying that it has been described as a terror attack is obviously different from Wikipedia's editorial voice stating it as if it is an objective fact. Editors might be applying MOS:TERRORIST because it is wiki-voice. But there are probably better formulations that more accurately capture the variations in the sources including major terrorist attack. Like I said, there is no requirement to pick only one. Describing the various descriptions that have WP:DUE weight might work. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Noamthinks. Let's call a spade a spade and not fall back on obfuscatory language. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The issue is the sources that call it a shovel or don't use a pithy description (because absence of labeling also has weight). What one person sees as obfuscatory another might see as a compressed, neutralized combination of all the variations (I don't like this approach because it is a lossy compression). I think it might be better to just dispassionately treat things like this like an Eggplant - "Eggplant (US, CA, AU, NZ, PH), aubergine (UK, IE), brinjal (IN, SG, MY, ZA), or baigan (GY)" and provide the reader with a brief survey of various descriptions from the various parties like the common name process. Anyway, I have now exhausted my talking about content allowance for the day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point on this, but we're not talking about vegetables, we're talking about a terrorist attack, and as you point out, a substantial proportion of coverage does indeed describe it as a terrorist attack. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It also is worth pointing out again that "coordinated armed incursion" is not some well validated alternative description or name, but rather something that seems to have been invented by an anonymous wikipedian. It strikes me like rewriting the 9/11 article to describe it as a "coordinated aerial attack", without reference to any use of that term or language in the secondary sources. Noamthinks (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
9/11 was exclusively an attack against civilians. With the october 7 attack, despite targeting civilians, alos had and was centred around a military objective which in this case was capturing all the border crossings and collapsing the forces at the gaza fence, as well as capturing military bases in the communities that were overrun. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
As long as these standards also apply to Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza and their dahiya doctrine The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me how your comment is relevant to the edit request or what you are in fact suggesting. It seems fairly unhelpful and counterproductive for the purpose of resolving this specific issue. Noamthinks (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a battlefield in which we air our grievances, but attempt to improve the article before us. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course. We look at language use, and the bias exists. In Operation Cast Lead, Israel struck multiple targets in the Gaza Strip from 11.30 am onwards, wiping out 40 cadets (ignoring the larger no. of bystander casualties) as they stood in their graduating ceremony, 9 schoolchildren in central Gaza waiting for a bus, and numerous other civilian targets (police are civilian forces). In any man's terms, the beginning of that war, after the endemic tit-for-tat between Israel and Hamas, began by an assault that included in its targets large numbers of civilians. That was the opening step in what became the 2008 Gaza War, and no one reported it, as a 'massacre'. While I agree that 7 October constitutes a massacre - self-evident, similar initiating events in the past, when Israel has suddenly resorted to an invasive military campaign, are never described. That is our systemic bias. To Israel anyone in Hamas's employ is a 'terrorist' and we should be careful in mimicking this usage.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • “Coordinated Armed Incursions” is a better terminology for what occurred, since several non-civilian targets were captured (military bases and outposts). Terrorist attacks occurred, but the attack as a whole was not a full terrorist attack, but rather an attack which involved paramilitary to military (actual warfare) & paramilitary to civilian (terrorist attack massacres). So I do not support a rewording. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
A P.S. note, the full original reasoning for this edit request (the RFC) uses a Wikipedia-consensus “generally unreliable” source for the reasoning. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
By this logic, 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, since a major military installation got bombed and 55 military personnel were killed during the attack on the Pentagon. Vhstef (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
By this logic, 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, since a major military installation got bombed and 55 military personnel were killed during the attack on the Pentagon. Vhstef (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Vhstef:, 9/11 did not involve the physical capture and occupation of territory and military bases/outposts, this did. This event is more like a military invasion (like the Invasion of Poland), which had no formal declaration of war. During the invasion, Germany directly attacked and killed civilians and also attacked and captured military outposts/bases. By definition, the overall attacks would not be a terrorist attack, but rather terrorist attacks occurred amid the larger attack. The Washington Post even sort of stated this idea with "It was, by both Palestinian and Israeli accounts, a staggering and unexpected Hamas victory and an indictment of Israel’s vaunted military and intelligence services." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the "physical" component of the attack matters for it to not be described as terrorism. A similar example of a more physical attack, though obviously with a lower death toll, would be the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which itself were described as "12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks" in the Wikipedia article. And yet, the terrorist component of the attack is clearly highlighted. All in all, it's perfectly legitimate to describe this as an invasion, as it clearly parallels what happened 50 years before in '73. But to downplay the terrorist nature of the attacks by simply putting it in the last paragraph nd only referring to what 44 countries say, is also inaccurate.
Something like "On 7 October 2023, Hamas and several other Palestinian militant groups launched a series of coordinated terrorist attacks, during the first invasion of Israeli territory since 1948." Perhaps not perfect, but the terrorist nature should be clearly spelt out in the lead. Vhstef (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The Mumbai attacks were terror attacks. 7 October was a resistance operation against an illegal occupation. It is important to be clear in our terminology. JDiala (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide sources for this POV? Is this the consensus of secondary sources? I can find numerous sources that describe the event as the "October 7 terror attacks" or "October 7 attack". I suspect this language represents a supermajority of sources, but am unsure how to go about proving that other than compiling a massive list of sources for that language, which seems to me redundant, since nobody is disputing that this language is used widely by prominent sources.
How many can secondary sources you find that call it a "coordinated armed incursion"? Per WP:UNDUE, if this is a minority view, it should be easy to find prominent adherents, especially considering the high degree to which this event has been covered in the media. I understand that there are alternative ways of viewing the attack, but I don't think "coordinated armed incursion" represents them, but rather seems to be a random and ill-defined placeholder. Noamthinks (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The attacks are regularly described as an "invasion" or "attack" generically without the terrorist descriptor. One example is e.g., Reuters: A surprise attack by Hamas on Israel, which combined gunmen breaching security barriers with a barrage of rockets fired from Gaza, was launched at dawn on Saturday during the Jewish high holiday of Simchat Torah. Note the phrase "coordinated armed incursion" isn't explicitly used, but our writing on Wikipedia need not be verbatim identical to that of reliable sources provided it captures the spirit. An "armed incursion" is effectively synonymous to a "breach by gunmen." JDiala (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no consensus to make the change, which is not a simple one, so the non-EC edit request is answered as not done. If EC editors think this should be continued elsewhere as a consensus forming discussing, I would suggest that they start a new talk thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to this edit and to the labelling of the 7 October operation as a "terror" attack in the lead. It is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV and not really reflective of the views of WP:RS. I've given more specific rationales in elsewhere in this thread and the thread below. JDiala (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel/Archive_6&oldid=1225342426"