![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
References
Yes, there should be a denialism section, even a denialism page. Drsruli ( talk) 03:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Clear consensus here for removal. Note that BilledMammal has not engaged with the arguments made. JDiala ( talk) 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
the attack took place outside of the occupied territory
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)
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)
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)
October 7 Al Jazeera Investigations with transcript (1 hour) Selfstudier ( talk) 17:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
We really should not use that NYT article as a source. 129.219.21.241 ( talk) 15:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
There appears to be edit warring. My view is that Hamas is a 'resistance' group and Hamas is a 'terrorist' organization. It can have multiple labels because, in RS-world, it has multiple labels. What I don't understand is why people would edit war over it. No label use is always an alternative. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Interesting the attacks have been called a "bruising defeat" by AP. [17] Makeandtoss ( talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree the overall attack should be defined at the opening on both aspects. Its known, sourced and most of the (differing even) comments here point to a deliberate targeting of civilian towns and-separately from military bases; while the later was also a surprise attack and against previous peaceful-negotiation desicions. "Coordinated armed incursions" encapsulate deliberate targeting of different types of locations but needs to be spelled out clearly, as part of the definition. + as the request's opening statement - an RFC which determines this under the "list of major terrorist attacks" (adding this article's "See also"), makes impact and logicality to describe also as terror in the lead. If "coordinated armed incursions" isn't established by sources from comments above, I would still support finding another sourced definition alongside terrorist attack.
I can also suggest and support that the lead's 2nd para also describes "massacred civilians and attacked military bases" which can be placed as the opening definition (while the 2nd para sentence which includes details of which civilian communities, can be rearranged in its opening). Also, this is reinforced by the different angles of coined terms at lead's 1st para (named "Operations Al Aqza", "Simchat Torah Massacre"). Started this while sitting down to read the previous comments and thinking of views and options, when clocking to post ran into an edit conflict, and the asking for this to continue on a new thread. אומנות ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-EC input and associated responses
|
---|
I would also in this light strongly support renaming the article to "October 7th attacks" or "October 7 attacks". These are what the attacks are referred to in the vast majority of media sources: from the pro-Israel Jerusalem Post to the anti-Israel al-Jazeera, amidst all the other international media sources like CNN, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc. So this is not a POV issue of "trying to 9/11 rebrand it" as was suggested above (aside from all those little similarities such as it being an unprecedented Islamic terrorist attack on a Western country). Last i checked, no one ever calls the 9/11 attacks the "2001 Al-Qaeda-led attack on the United States", or the "2008 LeT-led attack on Mumbai" or the "2015 Islamic State-led attack on Paris" And the notion that because the attacks had a military component/objective, that it should not be regarded as a terrorist attack is flat-out wrong. Camp Speicher massacre done by ISIS in 2014 is regarded as a terrorist attack, even in the Wikipedia article and the second-deadliest one at that. And that, despite it having a military component as part of the Northern Iraq offensive; it is clearly stated that it was a terrorist attack according to the Wikipedia article, and other Wikipedia pages as well. Vhstef ( talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That's because 911 did not involve an invasion!this is the position we take in the first sentence of the article (unlike 9/11 which is described as a terror attack
We duly report the facts and reactions as stated by reliable sources. Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Hamas was far more discriminate than Israel. The bias against Hamas here is honestly insane.
The dead were mostly noncombatantsdoes not affect the outcome of something military-wise. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The Islamist Palestinian militant group Hamas's 7 October attack on southern Israel from Gaza, in which roughly 1,200 Israeli civilians and security personnel were killed, often gruesomely, and more than 200 hostages were taken, was a generation-defining event that has left Israel deeply traumatised, Palestine in even greater distress, and the region itself dangerously close to all-out war. The assault was as much a Hamas military success as it was a comprehensive Israeli failure.
How do people feel about putting the Nat Turner Rebellion in the "See Also" section? Norman Finkelstein for instance is a proponent of this comparison. JDiala ( talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
If the number is known, would it be better to separate them in the casualties infobox? I am suggesting something like
Number soldiers captured or POW’s
Number civilians taken hostage The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 06:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
In the last month, 2 Israeli civilians that were believed to have been taken hostage on Oct. 7 were later declared dead after their remains were identified in Israel. [19] [20] Therefore, the total number of Israelis killed on Oct. 7 needs to be updated to 1,145 and the total number of those taken hostage needs to be reduced to 251. Nathan1223 ( talk) 03:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Please consider extending this. Drsruli ( talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October attack – The obvious common name here is the 7 October/October 7 attacks. On Google, there are 117,000 results for "Hamas-led attack on Israel" (even less if you include the year), 252,000 for "7 October attacks" and 1,600,000 for "October 7 attack". October 7 and 7 October even are used by themselves as shorthands for the attack. Ex: "What Really Happened on October 7?" (1), "How Changes in the Israeli Military Led to the Failure of October 7" (2), "October 7th: Through Their Eyes" (3).
It is clear that the name involves "October 7" or some variation + "attack". Of course, October 7th has a higher search rate because of the American date format, but in my opinion, we shouldn't name it that.The attack happened in Israel, and in Israel the format is dmy. An example of this is the 7 July 2005 London bombings. In American media, the attack was referred to as the July 7 bombings. Ex: "July 7 2005 London Bombings Fast Facts" (1), "London Marks the 10th Anniversary of the July 7 Terrorist Attacks" (2). But the article name is 7 July, because that's what the format is in the U.K. I think the same principle should be applied here. Personisinsterest ( talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
References
Yes, there should be a denialism section, even a denialism page. Drsruli ( talk) 03:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Clear consensus here for removal. Note that BilledMammal has not engaged with the arguments made. JDiala ( talk) 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
the attack took place outside of the occupied territory
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)
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)
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)
October 7 Al Jazeera Investigations with transcript (1 hour) Selfstudier ( talk) 17:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
We really should not use that NYT article as a source. 129.219.21.241 ( talk) 15:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
There appears to be edit warring. My view is that Hamas is a 'resistance' group and Hamas is a 'terrorist' organization. It can have multiple labels because, in RS-world, it has multiple labels. What I don't understand is why people would edit war over it. No label use is always an alternative. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Interesting the attacks have been called a "bruising defeat" by AP. [17] Makeandtoss ( talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree the overall attack should be defined at the opening on both aspects. Its known, sourced and most of the (differing even) comments here point to a deliberate targeting of civilian towns and-separately from military bases; while the later was also a surprise attack and against previous peaceful-negotiation desicions. "Coordinated armed incursions" encapsulate deliberate targeting of different types of locations but needs to be spelled out clearly, as part of the definition. + as the request's opening statement - an RFC which determines this under the "list of major terrorist attacks" (adding this article's "See also"), makes impact and logicality to describe also as terror in the lead. If "coordinated armed incursions" isn't established by sources from comments above, I would still support finding another sourced definition alongside terrorist attack.
I can also suggest and support that the lead's 2nd para also describes "massacred civilians and attacked military bases" which can be placed as the opening definition (while the 2nd para sentence which includes details of which civilian communities, can be rearranged in its opening). Also, this is reinforced by the different angles of coined terms at lead's 1st para (named "Operations Al Aqza", "Simchat Torah Massacre"). Started this while sitting down to read the previous comments and thinking of views and options, when clocking to post ran into an edit conflict, and the asking for this to continue on a new thread. אומנות ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-EC input and associated responses
|
---|
I would also in this light strongly support renaming the article to "October 7th attacks" or "October 7 attacks". These are what the attacks are referred to in the vast majority of media sources: from the pro-Israel Jerusalem Post to the anti-Israel al-Jazeera, amidst all the other international media sources like CNN, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc. So this is not a POV issue of "trying to 9/11 rebrand it" as was suggested above (aside from all those little similarities such as it being an unprecedented Islamic terrorist attack on a Western country). Last i checked, no one ever calls the 9/11 attacks the "2001 Al-Qaeda-led attack on the United States", or the "2008 LeT-led attack on Mumbai" or the "2015 Islamic State-led attack on Paris" And the notion that because the attacks had a military component/objective, that it should not be regarded as a terrorist attack is flat-out wrong. Camp Speicher massacre done by ISIS in 2014 is regarded as a terrorist attack, even in the Wikipedia article and the second-deadliest one at that. And that, despite it having a military component as part of the Northern Iraq offensive; it is clearly stated that it was a terrorist attack according to the Wikipedia article, and other Wikipedia pages as well. Vhstef ( talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That's because 911 did not involve an invasion!this is the position we take in the first sentence of the article (unlike 9/11 which is described as a terror attack
We duly report the facts and reactions as stated by reliable sources. Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Hamas was far more discriminate than Israel. The bias against Hamas here is honestly insane.
The dead were mostly noncombatantsdoes not affect the outcome of something military-wise. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The Islamist Palestinian militant group Hamas's 7 October attack on southern Israel from Gaza, in which roughly 1,200 Israeli civilians and security personnel were killed, often gruesomely, and more than 200 hostages were taken, was a generation-defining event that has left Israel deeply traumatised, Palestine in even greater distress, and the region itself dangerously close to all-out war. The assault was as much a Hamas military success as it was a comprehensive Israeli failure.
How do people feel about putting the Nat Turner Rebellion in the "See Also" section? Norman Finkelstein for instance is a proponent of this comparison. JDiala ( talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
If the number is known, would it be better to separate them in the casualties infobox? I am suggesting something like
Number soldiers captured or POW’s
Number civilians taken hostage The Great Mule of Eupatoria ( talk) 06:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
In the last month, 2 Israeli civilians that were believed to have been taken hostage on Oct. 7 were later declared dead after their remains were identified in Israel. [19] [20] Therefore, the total number of Israelis killed on Oct. 7 needs to be updated to 1,145 and the total number of those taken hostage needs to be reduced to 251. Nathan1223 ( talk) 03:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Please consider extending this. Drsruli ( talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October attack – The obvious common name here is the 7 October/October 7 attacks. On Google, there are 117,000 results for "Hamas-led attack on Israel" (even less if you include the year), 252,000 for "7 October attacks" and 1,600,000 for "October 7 attack". October 7 and 7 October even are used by themselves as shorthands for the attack. Ex: "What Really Happened on October 7?" (1), "How Changes in the Israeli Military Led to the Failure of October 7" (2), "October 7th: Through Their Eyes" (3).
It is clear that the name involves "October 7" or some variation + "attack". Of course, October 7th has a higher search rate because of the American date format, but in my opinion, we shouldn't name it that.The attack happened in Israel, and in Israel the format is dmy. An example of this is the 7 July 2005 London bombings. In American media, the attack was referred to as the July 7 bombings. Ex: "July 7 2005 London Bombings Fast Facts" (1), "London Marks the 10th Anniversary of the July 7 Terrorist Attacks" (2). But the article name is 7 July, because that's what the format is in the U.K. I think the same principle should be applied here. Personisinsterest ( talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)