Jump to content

Talk:7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Mohammed deif speech

Should the Mohammed deif speech, or excerpts from it, be included in the background? His October 7 speech does summarise all the ‘justifications’ comprehensively, and I believe it is worth mentioning or including, and in fact it was there for a while The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is covered in Israel–Hamas_war#Hamas_motivations, so I would either link to that section of use the excerpt feature. Obviously we should strike a balance between Hamas justifications and the reasons for the attack according to experts. Alaexis¿question? 07:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@Alaexis I don't think excerpt from there is the right approach, more detail is warranted here. We could expand on it here and then {{excerpt}} in the other direction maybe? MWQs (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
For what they did, third party sources more credible, But for WHY they did it they say is the best we've got. Some mcommentary is warranted (the sources on the main page include a translation with footnotes explaining some of the things he refers to), but not wp:false balance. I think a rather high level of scepticism is warranted for experts saying "their real motive was…" as an outsider, reading minds is impossible, so that needs a lot more supporting evidence than "an expert says", they need to give a good reason for why stated notive is inaccurate. MWQs (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The enxtra sources that are warranted would be to get multiple sources within Hamas / Al-Qassam: Deif's speech is the definitive, but also spikesmask Abu Obeada, Sinwar, Haniyeh. And possibly Osama Hamdan and Basem Naim, fairly minor figures, but they are the most articulate in English and thus we avoid things nnbeing lost in translation. Not warranted to quote all in the quoting all in the article. But maybe using the "quote =" field in references and add as extra refs if they say the same thing. MWQs (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria I thought I already added it? Or was that Israel–Hamas_war #Hamas_motivations? As well as the motivations we should also include "begin marching now towards Palestine" (times of Israel quote him when they re-released that bit, if we need secondary sources) because a lot of sources paraphrased him in ways that implied they called for global attacks, when they didn't call for anything violent except against Israel iself. MWQs (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe it was included at one point, notable things to include are what he cites as the reasons for it (such as the blockade, West Bank occupation, complete neglect of international law and international silence), it does seem to be very comprehensive. The part you’re mentioning might have been mistranslated, he was calling the world to rise up against Israel (he also called on “those in the West Bank, the Triangle, the Negev, the Galilee”) overall for the background what he cites as context for the attack is very much comprehensive and because he is not a nobody (he is the leader of Hamas’ armed wing), it definitely seems worth including The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Title

I believe a more fitting title for this article would be "The October 7th Attack" being that it's much more rememberable and easy to say. JamesCook1728 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I am able to move the page. I will not until there is consensus. NesserWiki (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we should use the name that Hamas gave it since it is the only “operation name”, which is the “operation Al aqsa flood” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
More neutral sources seem to avoid adopting that name. I'm not sure exactly why, but I assume it has to do with not wanting to legitimize the attack, or create an appearance of alignment with Hamas. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The only reasons I can see using the Hamas given name is the lack of other “official” names for the attack (maybe invasion? Not sure of it counts) and because of such a large-scale, never seen before type of attack which too everyone by surprise being the first “invasion” into Israel since the 1948 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I think they'd see it as a reclamation, not an invasion? MWQs (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria no, because that's name for the whole war. Al-Aqsa Flood belongs in the "part of" section of the infobox maybe? The hashtag #طوفان_الأقصى is on social media for updates from today. The Electronic Intifada podcast was "Al Aqsa Flood day 250" on some platforms but not others (YouTube but not Spotify). A couple of others had similar titles or headlines from the past week. If you've got something saying "Operation Al Aqsa Flood" was more specific and just the start of "Al Aqsa Flood" then maybe? But I think it's just an abbreviation? Being an abbreviation is probably why "Al Aqsa Flood" by itself is in more informal contexts like hashtags and podcasts. I should look for the long version, I've not seen it for a while, but I don't think it was supposed to be just the start. MWQs (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It appears to be two names, the initial october 7 attack was called operation Al aqsa flood, while the overall war itself is called the battle of Al-aqsa flood. The reference to a war as a 'battle' is consistent with the other wars waged on Gaza, being the battle of Al-furqan, the battle of the withered grain (rough translation), and the battle of Jerusalem's sword for the 2008, the 2014, and 2021 wars respectively The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd say it would be best we avoid using the Palestinian name or Israeli name at all costs in order to promote a more neutral presentation of the conflict, hence I said "October 7 Attack" which is a much more international name. JamesCook1728 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I’m not opposed to using “October 7 attack”, so I’m not against your suggestion. I was only suggesting the Palestinian given name as it appeared to the be the only “official” name for the attack The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@JamesCook1728 no, "7 October" is a neutral international term, but "October 7" is an Israeli / USA name for it, or even a propaganda slogan. "7 October 2023" is the way to write dates everywhere except the USA, when the news in Australia or the UK calls it "7 October", it's just a date. But when a British Israeli like Eylon Levy or an Aussie Israeli like Mark Regev says "October 7" that's something else, that's "this is our September 11 and we're determined to copy every mistake the USA made after that" (or something like that) I am maybe being a bit dramatic, but it is distinctly more loaded to use the "September 11" form and not the "7 October" normal international date form. MWQs (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that, 7 October Attack would be better. JamesCook1728 (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria is that mostly in Arabic? What's the word they use for battle? I've not seen it at all in English. And I probably would have missed it in Arabic because it's not a word I know. MWQs (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The word for battle is معركة، they call the whole war معركة طوفان الأقصى The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Is Israel doing something similar? I've heard "operation swords of iron" and "war of iron swords", but i thought they were almost synonymous, or at least symaltanious (i.e. the operation is the thing they are doing in the war). MWQs (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@JamesCook1728 currently being discussed below. MWQs (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Article title

So, very willing to have Wiki rules thrown at me on this;

Why are we still describing this as an “attack”? By the vast and overwhelming sources already cited in this article, it’s very clear that, where “attack” might imply some sort of targeted assault by one armed group against other, this is not what happened.

Given that this historical parallel doesn’t work, the closest I can think of is the roaming Einsatzgruppen, whose methods of murder were utterly terrible but also less terrible than the Palestinians responsible in this article.

“Attack” suggests that this was some sort of properly co-ordinated military operation. We know from every article sub-linked here that this was not the acse. it was from the start intended to be a massacre of civilians. There was no point anywhere in the planning of it in which anyone said that “this should not be a massacre of civilians.” And why would they? The whole point was to murder, rape and kidnap as many civilians as possible. KronosAlight (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you suggest something with "massacre" in the title? I think there's probably a reasonable case that "massacre" is accurate (despite that some military bases were also targeted), but it seems very clear that the broader term "attack" is accurate, so why not stick with it?
In terms of policy, WP:POVNAMING and WP:NPOVNAME encourage "neutral" names, though with exceptions when there's a very clear WP:COMMONNAME (which I don't think there is here).
See also Talk:Tel al-Sultan massacre#Requested move 27 May 2024, a somewhat related (different scale of course) discussion where I also argue for "attack" over "massacre". — xDanielx T/C\R 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Massacre is too broad for October 7. This is like naming the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip a massacre. Yes, there were massacres, but there were also genuine military confrontations, such as in Beit Hanoun, khan yunis, shujaiyya. Likewise on October 7 there were several confrontations such as Hamas wiping out the border guard, as well as battles in sderot and ofakim, seizing military bases. The whole operation itself can be called an attack as a massacre is too broad, and the massacres themselves, such as Re’im, obviously retain their names The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Massacre is too narrow more than too broad. Mainly because of the hostage taking. They certainly weren't "take no prisoners"? I wouldn't argue with the individual locations described as massacres, but I agree it's not a good way to characterise the plan as a whole. MWQs (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
There were several military targets that were neutralised on October 7, which is how Hamas were even able to reach the civilians in the first place. All of the border crossing outposts were captured and soldiers in there killed or captured, all the kibbutzim who were overrun had their military bases captured (such as Re’im and be’eri), 370 out of 1,100 killed were soldiers on the field, there is a very significant military aspect on October 7 that cannot be overlooked but when we look into the individual cases we can make the distinction, which is why Nahal oz who was captured and had its military bases defeated, with most of the people being killed being soldiers is named an “attack”, while Re’im, where 360 festival goers were shot dead is labeled a “massacre” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The article really needs to improve how well it covers the military bases. It only even really mentions Nahal Oz? e.g. They're all missing from the table except that one, but there was definitely more than one. If you're familiar with others maybe add them to the table, it's a start. There was something at Zikkim I think? And a second lookout base. At least half a dozen. MWQs (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking at it it seems to be the bases at the border, even areas where civilian massacres took place there had been military bases such as in Re’im and kissufim and if I recall correctly, be’eri The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@KronosAlight no, "attack(s)" doesn't "suggest that this was some sort of properly co-ordinated military operation" because "attack" also covers a chaotic "terrorist attack" and "attacks" covers hundreds of lone wolves individualy attacking people. The only plausible alternatives would be uprising / revolt but I don't think they'll get support? "7 October" is the most common name, but we need to add something because that's in use for "on this day", adding "attacks" is the broadest and least biased option. MWQs (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Weasel words under ‘Allegations of Genocide’

“Genocide experts” who? Please clarify NeutralASP (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There are citations with details. This is not the best way to format edit requests. See WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
New to editing, sorry about formmatting. I’m struggling to see how in this instance it’s ok to use weasel words. Also the link you sent is not working. NeutralASP (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Never mind I get it now. If you could resend the link though that would be much appreciated. NeutralASP (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The WP:EDITXY redirect was vandalized. It's fixed and protected now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:47, 17 June 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. — kashmīrī TALK 16:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The recent request move

I thought that the request move was to change the article from 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, not to 7 October attacks. It appears that the article has been unilaterally moved to a different title all together. I would have been less inclined to support the move had I known. User:Extorc, why did you move it to a different title all together? There has been other notable attacks on the date 7 October in the region such as the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid and the 2004 Sinai bombings, both of which occurred on the 7 October. That's why I supported a move to the title 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel as it was specific about which attack on the 7 October. IJA (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a somewhat unexpected decision. In general closes should only decide on the original proposal, since it's difficult to determine consensus regarding mid-discussion suggestions that not everyone noticed and commented on. In this case I don't think it was entirely unreasonable though, since it was a small discussion and at least three editors commented on the 7 October attacks option, with two preferring that option and one not being opposed to it. Not sure I fully agree with the call, but at least it seems like a good-faith close by a (non-admin) uninvolved editor. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I certainly don't think it was a bad faith closure and subsequent move, however, I do think it lacks consensus. Additionally, with 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid and the 2004 Sinai bombings, both of which also occurred on the 7 October; I do think this causes some confusion. I still believe that this article should be moved to "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" and that is what was being proposed in the RM. IJA (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree, this should be taken to move review, as in addition to lacking widespread consensus, this was closed by a non-admin, in contravention of WP:BADNAC. Most worryingly, the closer is involved in the topic area [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on the linked edit, I don't think this user can really be considered "involved in the topic area", to be honest. HaOfa (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The close very clearly violates 3 out of 4 points outlined in WP:BADNAC: 1- involved editor 2- controversial move 3- little WP experience at 6,000 edits. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this is quite a controversial move, therefore I think we have grounds to take it to Wikipedia:Move review. IJA (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

Have a look at the first sentence in the "Events leading to the attack" section:

Over the course of 2023, before the attack, increased settler attacks had displaced hundreds of Palestinians, and there were clashes around the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a contested holy site in Jerusalem.[1]

1. Displaced whom exactly? Is there a citation for this?

2. "Settler attacks"? Are we going to completely ignore the numerous attacks by Palestinians throughout 2023? Just to name a few:

  • May 12th - Hundreds of rockets launched towards Israel.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-palestinians-strikes-jihad-0d9d56b5c4fc2e8999105b05c8d30a2f

  • January 27th - Palestinian gunman killed 7, including 70 year old woman.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-israel-government-palestinian-territories-benjamin-netanyahu-fb2251b5b6c8ef73a21f87620d20090c#:~:text=JERUSALEM%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A%20Palestinian,killed%20by%20police%2C%20officials%20said.

  • February 10th - Palestinian driver killed 2 Israelis (including a 6-year-old boy) and injured 5 others.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-10/ty-article/.premium/several-injured-in-suspected-ramming-attack-in-jerusalem/00000186-3b1c-dfa7-afee-ff7fc3e00000

  • April 7th - shooting attack in Tel Aviv, Italian tourist killed, several others wounded.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-april-7-2023/

  • June 20th - Palestinians opened fire on a group of Israelis, killing 4 and injuring 4 others.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-06-20/ty-article/at-least-1-israeli-wounded-in-suspected-west-bank-shooting/00000188-d8fb-d5fc-ab9d-dbfb7e9e0000

  • August 1st - Palestinian shot and wounded 6 Israelis.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-01/ty-article/man-shot-after-suspected-shooting-attack-in-west-bank-settlement-near-jerusalem/00000189-b124-ddac-a3cd-b575ba010000

  • August 5th - Palestinian killed an Israeli.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/middleeast/palestinian-shooting-israel-tel-aviv.html

  • August 19th - Palestinian killed 2 Israelis.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/19/two-israelis-killed-by-suspected-palestinian-gunman 3. Maybe explain why there were clashes near Temple Mount?

Here is my proposal:

In the months leading up to the attack, Palestinian violence against Israelis escalated significantly, including hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza towards Israeli cities, as well as numerous shooting and car-ramming attacks that resulted in multiple Israeli fatalities.

Citations:

2A0D:6FC2:4000:400:97EC:26:BBEC:F991 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SYNTH? A reliable source that directly supports the proposed wording is required. Do any of your sources do that? In other words, we can't conclude, based on individual samples, that a pattern or trend exists and write things like "In the months leading up to the attack..." etc. A reliable source has to do that. Then we can cite it. We are not reliable sources. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
1. I agree with you. Can we conclude, based on 0 samples or citations, that "Over the course of 2023, before the attack, increased settler attacks had displaced hundreds of Palestinians"?
2. If we're going to include the Temple Mount clashes, and we want a complete background, then we should also include the "numerous shooting and car-ramming attacks that resulted in multiple Israeli fatalities" that my sources support, as well as the May 2023 war launched by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 2A0D:6FC2:4000:400:97EC:26:BBEC:F991 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The current text is supported by the AP article. You'll need to find a source that discussed the attacks by Palestinians in 2023 prior to the start of the war. Alaexis¿question? 17:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Israel declares war, goes after Hamas fighters and bombards Gaza". Associated Press. 7 October 2023. Archived from the original on 8 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.

Result

We cannot have the result say 'inconclusive or Hamas victory'; that is in direct violation of the rules regarding a military info-box. I’m not even trying to be political, but it does not make sense to say, 'well, you see, Hamas either won or didn’t win, we don’t know.' I keep saying this: an info-box can only say X Victory, Y Victory, or inconclusive. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think such instructions in infobox docs can be ignored when there's a good reason, but in this case I'd support just removing the field, since the result is a matter of perspective and we can't fit any meaningful assessment in a few words. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we need a new infobox - "Infobox mass atrocity". I don't really like the binary choice between "civilian attack" and "military conflict", as they don't capture the spectrum of incidents (for instance, the term "civilian" can be ambiguous – in a huge number of contexts we'd prefer combatant vs non-combatant). — kashmīrī TALK 19:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Update, the new resulte is no better. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

the war crimes and atrocities section should be updated following 2 reports from HRW

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/17/october-7-crimes-against-humanity-war-crimes-hamas-led-groups https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/07/17/i-cant-erase-all-blood-my-mind/palestinian-armed-groups-october-7-assault-israel Monochromemelo1 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 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. — kashmīrī TALK 17:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Final Israeli Missing Person Confirmed Dead by IDF

The page states "1 missing", but I believe this to no longer be the case, as Bilha Yinon was found to have been killed on Oct 7.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-confirms-woman-listed-as-missing-since-oct-7-was-killed-during-attack/

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/ry1ticj9r

Tamirco (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The table of foreign civilian deaths needs to be updated

That or the 71 foreign civilians killed figure is inaccurate. NesserWiki (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas' own words

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? Specifically the sentence: "Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, rising Israeli settler violence, and recent escalations." This should, at the very least, have a link to their own Press Release. Mcdruid (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been moved to the background of the Israel hamas war page The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades

The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades are listed as one of the units involved in Operation al-Aqsa Flood with a Bianet article cited as the source. I do not speak Turkish so CMIIAW but the article states something to the effect of "the Ebu Ali Mustafa Brigades ... also supported the 'Aksa Flood' operation". Support ("destek") does not mean involvement. Iran, Syria, and the Party of God are also described as giving full support ("tam destek") and they most definitely were not involved in the Operation. Without any corroborating evidence for the claim that the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades were militarily involved, I suggest it is removed from the "units involved" list. AethyrX (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, the al-Ahed News article cited in the "belligerents" section doesn't state anything about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine's military involvement, instead affirming the organization's support for the Operation. AethyrX (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
A biased source, but the PFLP did attack some border outposts on October 7
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/pflp-involvement-in-the-october-7-atrocities/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
"There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."
2 irrelevant sources (i.e. they don't make the claim they're cited as making) + 1 unreliable source ≠ 1 reliable source AethyrX (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

There seems to be inconsistency in who is included in the "commanders and and leaders" infobox. Why include random mid level commanders like Wissam Farhat and Roi Levy? On the Israeli side you should have the defence minister, prime minister, chief of staff, head of southern command and maybe the commander of the gaza division. On the Palestinian side, you should include Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif (who should be listed as dead according to Israel, to be consistent with main Israel hamas war article) 2A13:54C2:F000:759B:AA58:2F9B:F56B:5084 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the October 7 attacks so it is a localised part of the wider war (where the leaders are shown). The commanders listed were those who were present on the battlefield of commanding The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but there 20 more officers of equal or higher rank in the same sector that aren't listed, the article lists only those who have been killed on the Israeli side, which is odd. 2A13:54C1:F000:16FD:6549:9F37:844A:7B4A (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but there 20 more officers of equal or higher rank in the same sector that aren't listed, the article lists only those who have been killed on the Israeli side, which is odd. 2A13:54C1:F000:16FD:6549:9F37:844A:7B4A (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
You could do an "Israeli officers killed" section I guess, and include the current list. 2A13:54C1:F000:16FD:6549:9F37:844A:7B4A (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The pictures should be blurred unless you click on them, and should come with a graphic content warning

This is so that people don't see the graphic pictures in this article if they don't want to 100.16.156.64 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia does not do that. There would need to be a change of the policy or guidelines if this suggestion was agreed as-is, although there are various considerations that can apply. Relevant places that discuss this are WP:Offensive material, MOS:OMIMG, MOS:SHOCK, Help:Options to hide an image, WP:Content disclaimer, and WP:No disclaimers in articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Investigation

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skttxumcr#autoplay Hundreds of thousands of videos and testimonies have been analyzed in the past year by the Lahav 433 unit, which was tasked with investigating the October 7 atrocities. 2.55.188.160 (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2024

Increase number of dead civilians in Israel by 7, and increase wounded civilians by 10, in light of the recent mass shooting in Israel claimed by Hamas. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. You need a reliable source (WP:RS) to cite (WP:CITE) this change. --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
This article is solely about the attack on 7 October 2023, those deaths would need to be added to the Israel–Hamas war article Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2024

Add the 'Killed in action' sign to Salman Habaka in the commanders section in the infobox. Yeshivish613 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done  Done, but he died after, and not as a result of, the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. please include source(s) supporting your requests in the future. Mason7512 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reports of sexual violence

The section covering the reports of sexual violence is messy and poorly organised. Especially jarring is the sentence that Al jazera ‘concluded’ the claims were false. Are they a reputable source? How did they reach this conclusion? I failed to see why this sentence is included at all. 188.211.161.234 (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera (in English) is reputable but biased towards the Palestinian side. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
"Biased" is a severe understatement. But what do you expect from Wikipedia? Everything relating to Jews or Israel is horribly misconstrued. 24.228.89.67 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved.

This RM consisted of two related discussions occurring in parallel.
The first discussion was about whether to prefer the year or the day and month in the title. Supporters of day and month demonstrated that this formulation is much more common in reliable sources; some doubt about the value of this argument here was raised, but the argument was not compellingly refuted. Supporters of year argued that day and month is less recognizable and that it would continue to become less recognizable as the event recedes further into history. Against the first argument, weak anecdotal evidence was provided and not refuted, and it was suggested that the second argument violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL; while not directly relevant (WP:CRYSTAL is about article content), the heart of the contention—that we cannot be confident of what will happen and should not base our decisions on that—is valid, and we can always change the title again in the future if circumstances warrant. Finally, supporters of both positions cited consistency arguments; those favoring year noted that including the year is common for our descriptive titles, and the standard if any temporal information is included, but those favoring day and month noted that there is precedent for using the day and month for events sufficiently famous to render the day and month recognizable. Overall, I believe the sum of arguments' weights favors the day and month side, and this is certainly reflected in the votes, where those favoring day and month outnumbered those favoring the year 2:1. Thus there is robust consensus that it is better to favor including the day and month in the title rather than the year. (Although the two are not mutually exclusive, dissatisfaction over the current title's length precludes any serious discussion of including both.)
However, the finding of a consensus in this discussion is complicated by the emergence, especially toward the end of the discussion, of a preference toward a shorter title based on the day and month formulation. Among these, 7 October attack(s) was the most prevalent suggestion, although alternatives like 7 October attacks on Israel were also proposed. Proposals for a title along these lines were supported by a robust criteria analysis that was not refuted, and by the end of the discussion, one third of participants explicitly favored a shorter title based on the day and month. However, despite this strong polling and the strength of the arguments, it would be hasty to move the article to a shorter title now; the lack of arguments against the shorter title surely results from how shortening the title was not the primary focus of the discussion, and the only way to ascertain whether compelling arguments exist is to directly discuss the question and see what emerges.
In light of the foregoing, I find a consensus to move the article as originally proposed. I also find it necessary to hold another RM on the proposed shorter title, which I will begin shortly.
As a final note, the question whether to favor October 7 or 7 October was raised but barely discussed. Absent a consensus to the contrary, I believe it right to follow the date format used in the article which, in accordance with the MOS, favors the local dmy variety. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as:

  • Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..."
  • Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..."
  • CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..."
  • CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..."
  • Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..."
  • France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..."
  • ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..."
  • Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..."
  • NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..."
  • NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..."
  • Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..."
  • Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel."
  • The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... "
  • WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..."

Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a different suggestion: why not title the article just "October 7th attacks." It seems rather pointless to mention that Hamas carried out the attack. The 9/11 oage isn't title "September 11th Al-Qaeda attacks", after all. So, why should the standard on this page be any different? NesserWiki (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • attacks and *page
NesserWiki (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, virtually all the major RS use the date "October 7" when describing Hamas' attacks, it's pretty weird we are the only ones we don't. Galamore (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. The quotes and sources provided above confirm what I thought was true for a long time: the words 'October 7' must appear in this article title. I can add to this list a recent report from Human Rights Watch which uses also use it "October 7 assault".[4]
I'd also support a move to October 7 attacks, which is more concise so better in my opinion, but 'October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel' is okay too. HaOfa (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same reasons as those already mentioned. The attack was not just for one day, and it is unclear whether it will receive the same status as September 11 in popular usage as time goes on. Also there has been repeated consensus not to move for this very reason, and nothing has changed since then. Lf8u2 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Come on, obviously it has the same status as September 11th. Proof: Look up "October 7th" and see what comes up Personisinsterest (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    Go out on the street (assuming you are not Israeli) and ask random people what they think about October 7 (or 7 October), see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    Where I live, it would work, but I’m German, so… FortunateSons (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    I just checked in with two friends, they say that their other European countries would work too. I’m not sure about other continents, but I’m guessing the odds that October 7 would have comparable or better recognition compared to „2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel“ in North America, large parts of Europe, and large parts of the English-speaking world are pretty good. FortunateSons (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    More than 20 years after 9/11, the corresponding article gets 5 times the number of page views as this article ([5]). There is no way "October 7 attacks" is recognisable in the same way "September 11 attacks" is. To the average reader October 7 is just a date like any other. Vpab15 (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, but „not as recognisable as one of the most recognisable dates ever“ isn’t the measure we use here. Here are a few other singular date uses that exist, with metrics: Link FortunateSons (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    The way I know that "October 7" is recognizable by readers is that it's used so often in the headlines/titles of sources. I posted 30 examples of this below. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    https://www.britannica.com/on-this-day/October-7 Don't see it there yet.
    World Architecture Day, National Inner Beauty Day, World Habitat Day, Team Margot Stem Cell and Bone Marrow Awareness Day, National LED Light Day etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    WP:BRITANNICA is not an RS :-P I'm not sure that they have any 2023 events in "on this day" -- and I can't tell when was the last time it was updated. I checked and they do have the 2022 invasion of Ukraine [6], but they also have Mueller's 2019 Russian interference report [7], which I think we can all agree is way, way less important than Oct 7, 2023. The only thing that the absence of Oct 7 on Britannica's OTD tells me is that Britannica hasn't updated its OTD yet. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    Neither are headlines RS WP:HEADLINES Half the population doesn't even read the press anymore. Seriously, average joe a) doesn't know and b) doesn't care. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    WP:HEADLINES refers specifically to news headlines, not to the titles of academic works (which is what my 30 examples are). News headlines may not be WP:RS in terms of using them as sources for the content of articles, but the titles of academic works are very good examples to look at when determining WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRECISION... basically our article titles should follow our sources' titles. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    Don't get me wrong here, I am not objecting to the date inclusion per se, I think the year needs to be there and the rest that was always there, the Hamas led attack on Israel (people will recognize that more than the date), Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    This would literally work, I live in Brooklyn Personisinsterest (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support to October 7 Attacks only. Including "Hamas" in the title is already questionable as many sources point to it being a joint operation and one that has received meticulous planning by the wide range of resistance organizations in the Gaza Strip. "Israel" is unnecessary as there's only one attack widely known to have happened on October 7. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Kashmiri It is definitely the common name, but just 7 October, not the proposed title. I agree with you about consistency, we should do common name OR consistent description, not mix them, the proposed title is a bit of a mess that isn't common or consistent. We can't just call it 7 October but as @DecafPotato points out, adding just "attacks" to be 7 October attacks would be consistent with others. But I very strongly support 7 October not October 7, the others were in the USA, this wasn't, The month first thing is used more often in sources with POV problems (e.g. Eylon Levi), day first is common in a wider range of sources and is more readable to most of the world. MWQs (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Struck input of banned sockpuppet.
Also, putting all those elements in at once (7 October + Hamas + attack on Israel) sounds like the introduction to an Eylon Levy speech (he tended to pile in 3 different slogans before he got to a verb). To me "Hamas" sounds weird, because the attacks were the Qassam Brigades, Hamas is more the name for the political party, it's like saying Sinn Fein did a bombing spree instead of attributing that to the IRA. We can justify "7 October" OR "Hamas" being included as the common name in English, but both sounds like Eylon Levy. MWQs (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @DecafPotato I just noticed you did find cases where people had written that combination of words, the Eylon effect is just the effect of saying it out loud. But I agree with @Kashmiri that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" won't be said in the 2030s, because by 8 October 2024 anybody adding that much detail will add the year. But there is a precedent for 7 October attacks by itself persisting as a common name, but not your proposal. MWQs (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I prefer "7 October attacks" over the current title, for what it's worth. In the initial comment I conceded that it's likely a more common name than my proposed title but made an argument about WP:PRECISION in favor of including "Hamas-led" and "on Israel." But if editors disagree with that argument my position is very amendable to "7 October attacks." DecafPotato (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, I was have been considering suggesting a chang from "Hamas-led" to "Hamas-initiated" because some of it was planned but "go that way and do some violence" describes their leadership for about 2/3 of it. Changing it to just 7 October attacks solves the led vs initiated problem as well. MWQs (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kashmiri, this attempt to include the 7 October date has already failed a couple times in favor of formulations like the current title. This date is not meaningful to the average English speaking reader or if it is now, it will not be by this time next year.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. "October 7" is the natural way to refer to the most recent October 7. If the yearless form lasts beyond its anniversary like "September 11" did, then it may be time to rename. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I do believe that October 7 is the common name and that it is more recognizable than "2023". I reject the consistency argument and also reject that This date is not meaningful to the average English speaking reader. Especially when "Hamas-led attack on Israel" remains in the title, there should be no concern that readers won't know what we're talking about. However, I am not sure whether the move target should be 7 October or October 7. The local date format is, in fact, "7 October", but the English-language sources provided by the nom above show that reliable sources lean towards "October 7". Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose on conciseness and long-term significance grounds. "7 October" is noticeably longer than "2023", and the possibility of Hamas launching another attack on another October 7 cannot be ruled out as the Gaza war is a current event. NasssaNser 14:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    The second part of your comment is not only WP:CRYSTALBALL but also contradicts itself — how does the possibility that Hamas attacks Israel on the next October 7 mean that the title is too imprecise when Hamas attacked Israel many times over the course of 2023? DecafPotato (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support October 7 (or 7 October) is generally the most commonly used term by national and international newspapers, to the degree that it would even meet the requirements for a non-neutral title. But it’s not, and therefore the requirements are more than met. It’s also the way the term is colloquially used in political discussions and sometimes on wiki, which is a decent indication that it will remain the commonly used term at least in the near future. While we can’t know the actual future (and therefore any arguments that there might be a different name in the future hold limited weight), one could also argue that events commemorating this attack will likely use the same language that is utilised by Israel and other western countries, which is generally Oct. 7.
FortunateSons (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The vast majority of international media refers to the attack as the 7th October attack (or some variation of the date), therefore, it would appear that this is the WP:CommonName. A lot of weight is given to the date (7th October) when referring to the attack. I don't think I've ever seen anyone described the attack as the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel; the current title is certainly not the WP:CommonName. IJA (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support but prefer October 7 attack on Israel or simply October 7 attack for brevity. Not sure why the title was changed back. October 7 attack seems the common name to me and seems uncontroversial and entirely free of POV concerns. My only concern would be what further specification is needed to differentiate it from other events internationally, and I think "on Israel" suffices. Unbandito (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
7 October 2023, but other than that I agree with this. Loymdayddaud (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Support October 7 attacks per COMMONNAME Prodrummer619 (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support proposed title; the replacement of “2023” with “7 October” in the title is a prime example of precision. In fact, if 7 October Hamas-led attack and/or 7 October attack on Israel were commonly used in RS, I would support those instead, but they’re not, so the proposed title is as precise and concise as we can get ATM.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose proposed title as overly long. But I would support 7 October attack, since it's arguably the WP:COMMONNAME and (2023) can always be appended later on if any DAB is needed. Lewisguile (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Support - 7 October is WP:commonname, not 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 08:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Original close, overturned to "relist" at move review
The result of the move request was: Moved to 7 October attacks. There was clear consensus to move away from the current title as the date was found to be an important part of the WP:COMMONNAME. The arguments opposing the move largely relied on the idea of another attack on 7 October 2024 which was demmed WP:CRYSTALBALL by the discussion. No prejudice against another discussion between the original proposoed title and 7 October attacks. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
In order to not distract from my main argument, I've struck out that part.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose 7 October attacks or any title that is less WP:RECOGNIZABLE than the current one. It is a very significant event by all means, but it can also be seen as an escalation in a regional conflict that has lasted more than 100 years. In comparison the September 11 attacks were a pivotal moment in world history that make that title instantly recognizable. The same cannot be said about the term "7 October attacks" or similar, even though the event is much more recent. Vpab15 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We need a name, not an abstract, 7 October attacks was possibly a bit too non-specific, but 7 October attacks on Israel of 7 October 2023 attacks would be enough to disambigute it. There are other attacks on Israel that happened on the 7 October in other years, but they're not known by date? So it's not genuinely ambiguous. The only case that comes close is the October War, but that started with an attack on 6 October. MWQs (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, incitement is not leadership, so "Hamas-led" is not very accurate (nb - this as a criticism of them, not an excuse), but the date and the target are indisputable. MWQs (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Levivich (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich agree with you on having "October 7" in the title. But given the sources that you present that have the year in them, shouldn't you oppose removing the year from the title? Likewise, some of the sources you present actually include "Hamas" in the title ([49]) or "Gaza" ([50]) or "Israel" ([51]). Some of the publications are Israel-focused (Israel Studies) where the meaning is obvious. The fact that some of the sources you cite refer to the event as only "October 7" ([52]) – a title we must absolutely reject – should indicate that the lack of qualifiers in a source does not imply we must similarly discard them.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@VR: 18 sources I posted don't have the year in the titles, 10 do (unless I miscounted). I wouldn't oppose a title that had the year in it ("October 7, 2023 attack") but I think we can omit the year as an unnecessary disambiguator, in the name of WP:CONCISE. While the sources use the words "October 7" in a variety of different forms ("October 7 attacks," "10/7," "7 October massacre", etc. etc.), I think when we apply WP:AT to this set of slightly different titles, some variation of "October 7 attacks" is the one that fits WP:AT criteria best. It includes a necessary disambiguator (e.g. "attacks") but omits unnecessary ones (e.g. "2023," "Israel," "Hamas," "Gaza," all of which are used by some sources but none of which are so predominant so as to become part of the common name). It's precise enough, as evidenced by the sources using the same level of precision (month and day) and as concise as possible (can't drop the third word) while still being recognizable (as evidenced by its usage in many sources), natural ("[date] attack"), and consistent (at least with September 11 attacks). Levivich (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich, see my !vote above. In the early days sources referred to the event as "Saturday's" or "last week's" attacks. Then it became "last month". Sources don't use the year now because the event is less a year old. I expect the number of sources using year will only go up, esp after October 7, 2024.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support a title with "October 7" and no year, per Hameltion and Levivich's common name analysis, with preference to "October 7 attack" (no additional qualifiers). Very clearly the common name. Used by sources no matter where you look. The Britannica article, a tertiary source like Wikipedia, uses just "October 7 attack", for instance. C F A 💬 04:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    You say it's "Very clearly the common name" but where is the evidence for this claim? IJA (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    Above. I have seen no evidence as to why "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the common name here. As far as I can tell, it was a name invented by Wikipedia editors. C F A 💬 15:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    The current name is a descriptive title, not a commonname. It was "invented" because immediately after the Hamas attack, that component was split off from the main war article and at the time, everyone was just referring to that part as the Hamas attack. In the future, no-one (outside of Israel) will remember the year unless we include it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    You stated that the proposed title is "Very clearly the common name". I asked you to provide evidence for this claim and you have avoided doing so. Now please answer the question, where is your evidence that the proposed title is the common name? This shouldn't be difficult for you, as you have claimed that this is "very clearly" the case. So far, you have vaguely listed "sources" and "Britannica". This is hardly sufficient evidence to support your claim. As to your point, I don't think that the current title is the common name, nor have I claimed that it is. I don't think that there is currently a common name for the attack at present. I think that the current title is a descriptive NPOV title for the attack. If someone can provide evidence of a common name, I'll happily support changing the name of the article to that common name. But so far, that has not happened. IJA (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    per Hameltion and Levivich's common name analysis Levivich (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the overwhelming use of 'October 7 attack' in reliable sources, it makes sense to adopt the same term on Wikipedia for consistency and clarity. Waqar💬 19:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. As supported by the sources, 7 October is as much a concept as 11 September. It's the COMMONNAME. Even more than 11 September, since no alternation with the number dates. This discussion addresses the FAILURE that the date currently isn't included in the title. 7 October attacks or similar would even be better as it is the PRIMARYTOPIC. The rest is not really needed. Yet supporting the proposed also as is, as a real improvement over the current name. gidonb (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Heavy Support. This is a notable event in the Near East conflicts/Israel and Palestine conflicts. This might be a bad example, but just like the Six Day War, the Suez Crisis, and the Yom Kippur War don't have the year in their names, this attack doesn't either. Colloquially no one will say the "2023 attack", people just say "October 7th attack" and people know what it is, but this could be because it is a recent event. Either way, I still support. Alexysun (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support October 7 attacks per COMMONNAME and also no need to use a longer title than necessary (September 11 attacks is not titled 2001 al-Qaeda-led attack on the United States!). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support a title containing "7 October" or "October 7". If the title September 11 attacks isn't a good model because it leaves out the year, what about a title on the pattern of Insurrection of 10 August 1792? (That could be a good style for the article we currently have at January 6 United States Capitol attack, too.) Attack(s) of 7 October 2023? Attack(s) of October 7, 2023? Hamas-led attack(s) of 7 October 2023? Attacks(s) of 7 October 2023 on Israel? Ham II (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It's also important to note that October 6 has historically referred to the Egyptian (not Hamas) attack on Israeli forces that started the 1973 Yom Kippur war (sometimes called the "October 6th war"[53][54]). So historically significant is the October 6 attack, that we have a city called 6th of October (city), a bridge called 6th October Bridge, a district called 6th of October Governorate etc. I think we need to consider "long-term significance" here and add a qualifier (either "2023" or "Hamas-led" or "on Israel").VR (Please ping on reply) 07:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel Personisinsterest (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds good, though I think it could also be "October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" (or October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel). Loymdayddaud (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support any title including October 7 due to inclusion of the date in sources when talking about this event. I do think the proposed title is a bit wordy but is an agreeable next step at the moment. Yeoutie (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Not only do I believe that we have the sources which support a move, but from my own personal experience many people, both on the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sides of the conflict, refer to the attacks as October 7th. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support "October 7 attack" per common name and concision guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "Strong Oppose:" Changing the title to "7 october Hamas-led attak on Israel" is unwarranted and undermines the clarity and long-term recognition of the event. Unlike "September 11," the date "7 October" lacks immediate global resonance and is unlikely to gain the same historical significance. The current title, "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel," is concise, widely understandable, and accurately situates the event within its broader historical and geopolitical context.
Moreover, there seems to be an deliberate attempt to associate this attack with the 9/11 attacks, needless to say that such POV-pushing is just a product of false equivalence. StarkReport (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: it seems perfectly established that the most common reference is indeed "October 7." That said, October 7 happens every year, and while such a reference is absolutely suitable for news media (where the name was established), it is absolutely not suitable for encyclopedia which is supposed to be essentially timeless. For that reason, I am opposed to changing the title. The proposed name is a good name for a redirect that would facilitate finding this article, but not a good name for the article itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Conditional support for 7 October attack, oppose 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel. The support is pending it being accepted as common per WP:COMMONNAME - my opinion is that it is a common name by this point and that "7 October" unqualified is recognisably associated with this attack, but my opinion is not an evidential basis and I'd wait for conclusive analysis of the RS corpus and consensus. However, if "7 October attack" is considered a common name, then it is the common name in its own right. The additional "Hamas-led attack on Israel" formulation is not one used consistently or uncontroversially (some RSs I've seen use the date alone by metonymy, some alternate phrasings such as "Hamas attack" vs. "Hamas-led attack"). If that additional qualifier information is really necessary, then that formulation is not a common name by Wikipedia standards at all in the sense of "the name that is most commonly used". At that point a descriptive title should be used, of which the current title remains the best option. Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - separate to my above opinion, I would note that "October 7 attacks" would need to justify the date to be in month-day order as part of the common name or established as "Strong national ties to a topic" under MOS:DATETIES. Otherwise, the order should rightly be "7 October attacks" in a day-month format, retaining what is currently used in the article per MOS:DATERET. Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as an improvement over the mediocre current title, but its too long so I actually prefer 7 October attack on Israel as that is shorter and conveys enough info (and doesn't go into which organization actually did what, which that stuff is for the body of the article not the title). For the purpose of getting a consensus, put me down as OK with whichever of those two seems most popular.
See WP:AT; "7 October attack on Israel" best meets the PRECISION criterion ("unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects") whereas just "7 October attack" is just too short -- we do want CONCISION, yes, but "7 October attack" doesn't make it unequivocally and instantly clear to future readers what the article is about. After all the very famous and important Battle of Lepanto was on October 7, as was the famous and pivotal Second battle of Saratoga and the pivotal Battle of Kings Mountain, as well as other notable battles. And of course all battles are attacks, or anyway include and start with attacks. The famous attack on Matthew Shepard was on the night of October 6-7, possibly after midnight I guess. Inmates at Auschwitz attacked their guards and killed three on October 7 1944. The famous Achille Lauro hijacking (an attack) was on October 7, as were all sorts of other events such as the 1958 Pakistani military coup and so on.
Yeah I know the Gaza war is hot news now, and "October 7 attack" will likely mainly refer to the 2023 attack for maybe forever, but not to the extent that all those other events are nothing and all or almost all readers will always understand that "October 7 attack" can only refer to the 2023 event. We really want to minimize readers having to be like "now wait, what is the article probably about?" But even "October 7 attack" would be preferable to the current poor title. Herostratus (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I also noted 7 October attack on Israel, but the main problem with this is that it’s not commonly used in reliable sources as much as the other titles. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
But we have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to pay any attention at all to sources for our style choices and that includes titles. For facts we of course must follow sources, but that's way different. For style and wording choices we have our own MOS and article title rules. If every single source said "October 7th" we would still say "7 October" and so forth. I don't give a care about what the title writers at the Los Angeles Times etc. etc. like to do.
(That being said, of course we notice the format used by sources and IF there is a GREAT preponderance of one particular style and it would be a data point and we might consider "why is most everybody using a different wording than we would do, and is it clearer to the reader?" and "is the reader going to be surprised by our title choice>"
I don't think 7 October attack on Israel would be any more confusing or unclear to the reader or more surprising than any of the other choices, and in fact is probably the least so of any other concise title. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support This is a more recognizable, concise, and commonly used name. Whizkin (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 7 October attacks per sources and WP:CONCISE. In contradistinction with some above who don't think this rises to the level of September 11 attacks, 7 October was a watershed event which saw an Arab force invade and occupy Israel proper for a short while, leading to thousands of deaths and the utter devastation of Gaza, triggering proceedings in the ICC and ICJ and a wider conflict with Hezbollah and Houthis. Even if the conflict ended tomorrow, enough has happened already for this date to live forever in infamy. On that last point, December 7 attacks is rightly a redirect to Attack on Pearl Harbor rather than to a disambiguation page including other martial engagements which occurred on that date such as Battle of Montgomery's Tavern, Operation Frankton and Battle of Sylhet. Havradim leaf a message 12:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 7 October attacks per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. "Hamas-led attack on Israel" is ridiculously long; as someone stated above, the September 11 attacks aren't called '2001 al-Qaeda-led attack on the United States'. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    Support Completely agree with this @Icantthinkofausernames. Dhantegge (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current, descriptive title should be preferred; it's appropriately concise and preserves neutrality. It’s also not evident that the proposed change is the WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. a “single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used”. Attempts to analogize the events of last October to 9/11 are misplaced; it’s simply too early to say whether the 7 October name has the same sort of staying power. The proposed change also raises the question of why “7 October” would be preferred over “October 7”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WillowCity (talk • contribs)
  • October 7, 2000 was also the date of the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this may be a date that resonates with Israel and Israelis, but I don't think it is a common name across English language sources that we should be using it as a title. The disambiguation of 2023 is more in line with our standard naming conventions, and unless 7 October Attacks were a common name across English language sources we shouldn't deviate from that. nableezy - 15:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
    The initial posting seems to show otherwise; its use is clearly widespread. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    NYTimes: last October’s Hamas-led attacks, the anniversary of the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack on Israel. BBC, the mass killings and abductions carried out by Hamas on 7 October 2023 ... the Hamas attacks a year ago, The Guardian: This week marks one year since Hamas militants and allied groups unleashed its heinous attack on southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostage., In the wake of the attacks, Israel declared war in Gaza. None of these are using October 7 attacks as a name, they obviously say it happened on October 7th of last year, but the claim that this is a common name is not one based on reality. nableezy - 17:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    The NY Times article you cite literally says "the Oct. 7 attacks" in the first few sentences. As for other sources that use the term "7 October/October 7 attack" or something similar, they are abundant:
    Times of Israel: Relatives and supporters of hostages taken by Hamas in the October 7 attack
    BBC: But now, post-7 October, the collective is splintered
    France 24: Hamas's October 7 attack...
    CBS News: It has been one year since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack
    The Jerusalem Post: ...a proposal to set a national memorial day for the October 7 massacre
    ITV: to mark the first anniversary of the October 7 attacks
    La Croix International: Remembering October 7, one year later
    The Jewish Chronicle: Thousands remember the victims of October 7
    And most of these are from this month alone. TRCRF22 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    WP:HEADLINES, the subheadline isn't part of the source. And yes, Israeli papers will call it the October 7 attack, but France 24 is using it as a date, not a name. Of course sources say what date it happened. But if they are not using it as a name then it is not a common name here, and our normal rules on disambiguating are what we should be following. nableezy - 21:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support An easily identifiable nomenclature is required for future generations to remember the atrocities committed on that day PastaMonk 05:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support There isn't much more to add to what Levivich stated. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support I have seen enough evidence from reliable sources to say that October 7th attack is the common name for the event or at the very least equal to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Support "7 October attack(s)" - As of October 8, 2024, media outlets are still using the term "7 October" to describe the attack, so the common argument that it will not last past its anniversary is clearly not true. As such, this is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME and should be reflected in the title. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

Please add Category:Terrorist incidents in Israel in 2023. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it is already under Category:Hamas attacks, which is under Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups, Category:Terrorist incidents attributed to jihadist groups, and Category:Terrorist incidents by perpetrator Batrachoseps (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: that's not how WP:CAT works. We cannot describe as a fact (that's what that category is suggesting) what isn't mentioned in the article as such. M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

The first sentence of the background section should be omitted. It is improper to refer to the territories as "Palestinian territories" as prior to 1967 the referenced territories were under the control of Jordan and Egypt and were thus not "Palestinian territories". Also, if the goal is to provide historical background then why stop/start at 1967? If referencing the territories then perhaps it should begin with 1948 with the establishment of Israel. Also the term occupation seems intentionally misleading given that the note attached to it admits that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and neglects to mention that Egypt also has enacted a blockade and controls a land border with Gaza. 100.34.147.138 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  •  Not done These are controversial changes that would need discussion, and the current uses seem to be supported by reliable sources. If you wish to add content, you'll need to provide the specific wording and sources, but bear in mind that this article is very, very long and it's unlikely that tangential details will gain support for inclusion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel/Archive_7&oldid=1258228663"