Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

bias

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

See also is for similar events, so it makes sense that those are attacks against Israel. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Noticed that too. However as long as you have the sufficient citations then the Israeli attacks on Gaza during the war can and should be included. Civilian casualties in Gaza are barely mentioned in the news anyways The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Shani Louk

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

I recall there was a dispute regarding Dual Nationals. Furthermore, in the absence of a specific notability (standalone article), outing her full name in this page could constitute a WP:MEMORIAL violation. Borgenland (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
From https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/07/middleeast/israel-gaza-fighting-hamas-attack-music-festival-intl-hnk/index.html:
CNN has confirmed the identity of the woman as Shani Louk, a German-Israeli dual national. CNN has reached out to her family for comment but has not yet received a response. Borgenland (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This was also cited at the tail end of the credit card. I suggest you read the entire thing fully before making such unfounded conclusions. Borgenland (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I can see now that you have a source, that information wasn't in any article that I'd checked. My intention was to add the Business Insider source, which for some reason got lost in my edit. Hence, my invitation inviting you to explain your actions. From the same CNN article:
So CNN is contradictory, the other source simply quotes CNN, so it would appear to be A) circular and B) somewhat unconfirmed.
Also WP:MEMORIAL states:
This incident and her identity is being reported in multiple news sources. Your interpretation of that policy appears flawed but I didn't actually make it an issue. I can imagine the pain her family is going through, so had no intention of disputing it. WCMemail 11:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Not to speculate but since the mother appears to be based in Germany, she would probably be identifying the victim as German first. Borgenland (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Shani Louk and her mother moved from germany to israel and are indeed dual-citizens of israel and germany. She was not a german tourist. "Die Welt", a german news channel, wrote about her in this article. Her mother also made a public statement to the german news channel "Bild". They're referenced in the "Welt" article. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
And you know why her mother gave that video appealing for help in finding her daughter, in German? And not say, Hebrew or English? Because it was meant to appeal for German political support and deceive a bit the public into thinking she was an innocent German tourist murdered. As I mentioned in the next discussion, dual citizenship is very common as most Israelis have it, especially with European countries, either from ancestry, family ties, many have retained or were given 'back' their citizenship from ancestors who were expelled. It is illogical, and in my opinion decietful, to mark each fallen Israeli with their dual nationalities. User6619018899273 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Dual Nationals

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

Disagree. It should not and does not matter to any country if their citizen has a dual citizenship, or is strictly a citizen of their country.
I am a dual citizen of switzerland and croatia. I got my dual citizenship last summer. I was born, raised and lived in switzerland for my entire life, YET if i would be killed, injured or lost in any conflict inside switzerland or as a tourist in another country, i would've be counted as a croatian casualty. If i would be kidnapped, it would be in interest of croatia to help me. Now, as im a dual citizen of switzerland and croatia, i would be counted as a casualty of both countries. If i will be kidnapped, it will be in the interest of switzerland AND croatia to get me to safety.
Dual citizens SHOULD be counted, no matter how much time they spend in any of both countries. Poles Ragge (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Kibbutz of "Sufa Beheri"

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

I've pinpointed the conception of the term "Sufa Beheri" to page 12 of 14 of the cited Guardian liveblog, in an apparent transcription from blogger Bethan McKernan of an Israeli television broadcast. It's mentioned that seven communities had come under Hamas control, but only six are named, granting further credence to the theory that the two names have been amalgamated into one here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@SaintPaulOfTarsus
Thanks for pointing it out, I've separated the two locations. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Cheers, @KiharaNoukan. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli tank and vehicle losses in the infobox

@Stephan rostie: I have reverted[1] your edit which stated that Israel had lost "a number of" tanks and vehicles because it consists of a weasel statement (How many?). Furthermore infobox is not to place to add every single detail about the article. It aims to be a brief summary of the key facts. Please see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Ecrusized (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized Regardless. You don’t have any right to revert it per WP:1RR. I am assuming a good faith and giving you a chance undo your revert before reporting your violation. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Stephan rostie: "I am assuming a good faith and giving you a chance undo your revert before reporting your violation." I have been on this website long enough to know that's not how things work. Are you not willing to discuss this issue at all? Ecrusized (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
There are exceptions to being able to revert such as vandalism or disruptive edits Bobisland (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Lebanon in infobox

@WeatherWriter: The attack from Lebanon today wasn't done by the Lebanese state or the Lebanese Army. It was conducted by Palestinian Islamic Jihad[2] and the retaliatory Israeli strike killed a Hezbollah fighter.[3] Ecrusized (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Number of militants killed in Israel

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

If you have an idea of how to address the overlap (or of course, a better source) I'm all ears. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I would have already placed it if there was any source for it. I also don't like merging Palestinian and Israeli estimates into one. Ecrusized (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree they should probably be disaggregated, especially the Lebanese one as well. To account for the imprecision, the Israeli claim could be written as "hundreds" rather than an exact number. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Lebanese casualties are still too few compared to Gaza's (6). Separating it will create undue weight in the infobox. If Hezbollah enters the war however it should be separated. In a manner similar to the casualties listing of the Yom-Kippur War article. I'm not a fan of adding weasel statements like "Hundreds killed, per Israel". Because infobox style is meant to be brief and concise, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Additionally I believe Hamas and other groups will announce their casualties in a few days from now as has been the case in other Gaza conflicts in the past, like the 2014 War. Ecrusized (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible truce talks

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

Turkey has expressed willingness for acting as the mediator [4]. --Mhhossein talk 20:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Qatar is playing that role if anyone is. kencf0618 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Fraud and economy

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

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

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

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

Issues with Casualties under Palestine section

The first sentence of the section is followed by an accidental repetition of "reported an unspecified...". Médecins sans frontières is linked twice, once in English, while the French name is written incorrectly lacking the accent, with the English mention possibly being a repeat of the same report from a different source. XeCyranium (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Basic law 40

one can mention the legal grounds for the state of war, which is #40 37.252.92.97 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

 Not done It is mentioned in the article, and there is a stand-alone article (which you linked to) with more details. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Gap in explaining the intial blockade

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

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

 Not done The article cannot explain every detail of the past 20 years of history in the region. The wiki-link to Blockade of the Gaza Strip is sufficient for this article. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist attack?

There are multiple other sections on the talk page about how to use the word "terrorist" in the article; this one has more heat than light. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2023 (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.

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

See discussion here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Not wanting to violate WP:FORUM but how is killing 260 people at a psytrance rave not terrorism? Somebody please explain! Synotia (moan) 20:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
it is terrorism by every definition of the word, the people who claim otherwise are terrorist apologists and/or terrorist sympathizers. Mark28482 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
ok kahanist 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
You think your attempts at 'insults' work here? this isn't social media IP. mind your language or you'll be IP blocked AbiquiúBoy (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
how is blowing up a marketplace full of civvies "defending yourself"? Amazing how Israel supporters can never answer those kinds of questions. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if you are correct, that would simply mean both sides have conducted acts of terrorism, in theory. Denying the acts of Hamas as terrorism has no grasp in reality. How can you think intentionally raping, killing and systematically executing BOUND civilians, is beyond me Doombrigade (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Raping and executing bound civilians cannot be explained even in theory as having a military goal, like "Hamas was shooting rockets from there".
What are you going to say, that there was an IDF airbase inside them? It's so obviously barbaric that I can't think of a pretense for an excuse. Synotia (moan) 06:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
no, this is by definition a terrorist attack. it targeted civilians, brutalized, raped, humiliated and murdered people who had nothing to do with the ongoing conflict. denying this fact makes a person complicit in what is happening and makes them a terrorist sympathizer and a terrorist apologist. Mark28482 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Please use reliable independent sourcing to clarify rather than your personal opinion. WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
this is not my personal opinion, this is the definition of the word and complexly neutral use of english words. what do you think is an "opinion" Mark28482 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
A statement without reference to any sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
my source is the Wikipedia article itself that clearly states. do you refute that this was a terrorist attack? you already refused to condemn the attacks because you claim they are justified? Mark28482 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
First WP is not a source. Second, As it says at the top of this page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
okay, you clearly have personal opinions and personal biases concerning these terrorist attacks. i recommend you recuse yourself from this discussion as you are unable to contribute in an unbiased way. Mark28482 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Another statement of no value. I recommend you stop making them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
this is my final warning in good faith, if you refuse to add to this discussion i will report your violation of ethics. Mark28482 (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I believe I made my position clear. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Mark28482, I suggest you read WP:PETARD. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You still have no reliable sources. I second SelfStdier's recommendation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
In looking objectively at this issue, there are reliable sources citing to these acts as terrorist acts. See Woman abducted by terrorists recounts harrowing experience | CNN. Also, by definition, terrorism is defined as "the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective." See Terrorism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Given this definition, and the reported accounts from reliable sources, the use of the term of terrorism to describe the taking of hostages for political purposes does not seem exaggerate the use of this term and I would support its use in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, sadly the person above was not looking for reasons or justification or an explanation, they are just contrarian and most likeley terrorist apologists and/or sympathizers. Mark28482 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
MOS:TERRORIST "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Green

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

This comment appears to be referring to an image which is no longer in the article; and is thus moot. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

the conflict name

There is an existing section for discussing article title changes; however, IP editors can not participate in those discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2023 (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.

in Israel we call this conflict the iron swords war so please change the name of the topic 91.205.154.117 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already an ongoing discussion about changing the article name further up this talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
They call it the Palestinian Genocide in Gaza, it should be called that. 24.63.171.94 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

Under "Analysis", in the section: "They predicted the PLO's further decline if the status quo held. Citing the Israeli intelligence failure, which some observers attributed to the incumbent government focusing more on internal dissent, the judiciary reform, and efforts to deepen Israel's occupation of the West Bank, some commentators criticized Netanyahu for putting aside the PLO and popping up Hamas,"

"popping up Hamas" should be changed to "propping up Hamas"

Godstar23 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted. Thanks! --AntiDionysius (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Title

There is an existing section for discussing article title changes; however, IP editors can not participate in those discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2023 (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.

Please note the title of this article is inaccurate and implies untrue content. The title needs to match the title of this same article in other Languages - "Hamas invasion of Israel" 2A02:8084:D002:A580:E5B9:38CC:C7DE:9468 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, Not every language has the same title translated in their languages. But many are similare.
English: October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict (for reference)
Italian: Conflitto Gaza-Israele del 2023 (Gaza-Israel conflict of 2023) (same as in english)
Dutch: Gazakrigen 2023 (Gaza-war of 2023)
Spanish: Conflicto israelí-palestino de octubre de 2023 (Israeli-palestine conflict of october 2023 (the same as in english))
Afrikaans: Gasa-Israel-konflik van Oktober 2023 ( Gaza-Israeli conflict of october 2023( again, same as in english))
German: Angriff der Hamas auf Israel 2023 (Hamas attackmon Israel in 2023)
French: Attaque du Hamas contre Israël (Hamas Attack against Israel)
Croatian: Napad Hamasa na Izrael (2023.) (Hamas attack on Israel 2023)
Serbian: Izraelsko-palestinski sukob (2023) (Israeli-palestinian conflict 2023)
These languages are either ones i can speak (german, english, croatian, serbian and french) and those who are similare to those who i speak and on the same language tree (dutch, italian, afrikaans and spanish).
9 languages, 8 excluding english,
NONE of these 9 have the word "Invasion" in them. The word "attack" is similare but not the same as a invasion.
The definiton for attack i found from WikiDiffis:
Noun
(
en noun
)
  • An attempt to cause damage or injury to, or to somehow detract from the worth or credibility of, a person, position, idea, object, or thing, by physical, verbal, emotional, or other assault.
The definiton of Invasion:
English
(
wikipedia invasion
)
Noun
(
en noun
)
  • A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.
As of the time of my writing, we do not know why Hamas exactly attacked Israel (motive). Some speculate that it is because of the Israeli-Saudi peace agreement that was in the talks before the war and that broke down because of it. If attack or invasion would be better is another discussion.
But for those 9 languages, none used "invasion" as you claim (to be fair, they are 9 out of 48 available languages).
Also, how is the "October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict" inaccurate?
  • It happend in October of 2023 (when?)
  • Its between Gaza and Israel (who?)
  • Its a conflict (what?)
It's a good name to have for this article. It says When it happend, what happend and who is involved (primarily).
If you think invasion or attack is more reasonable, then say it. Don't just say "because other languages have it that way". Poles Ragge (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subject on war crimes tab

Shouldn’t the war crimes tab be intertwined with the Palestinian offensive and Israeli reaction? Seems it would be smoother for the wiki page Bobisland (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

3rd party involvement

@My very best wishes: Thanks for removing the United States from the infobox. I also think that Iran should be removed. Infobox is for belligerents and no third party has been militarily involved in this conflict as of yet. Ecrusized (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We should include United States under armament support. Military aid has already went to Israel from the United States. [5] FellowMellow (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
No, why should we include armament support in section "belligerents"? Selling or providing arms does not means someone being a party in a war. There are many suppliers to both sides. In addition, we only have one small paragraph on the page about USA moving ships. They move ships all the time, that does not mean to be at war. I am also not sure that Iran should be included at this point, but we do have strong RS saying that it has been almost certainly involved in planning and preparing the operation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The u.s is currently providing arms, not “selling”, adding arms supplying to infobox of belligerents is standard for Wikipedia war info boxes Bobisland (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream media has also reported the warships were moved in support of Israel, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/us/politics/israel-aid-pentagon-us-hamas.html and there was already a talk page to reach consensus on the issue Bobisland (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
"adding arms supplying to infobox of belligerents is standard for Wikipedia war info boxes". No, such info might be present on some pages, but this is not a rule. See Russo-Georgian War, Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc. If USA starts firing "tomahawks", then it will have to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox military conflict does not include field "suppliers". My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I know I meant standard as in culturally in wikipedia, there are no rules against it and it can be found across Wikipedia war infobox articles, unless your saying since there is no mention of it in guidelines it shouldn’t be allowed? Bobisland (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
That field of the template is reserved for combatants. Placing something else to this field is wrong. One must change the template by including new field for suppliers in a proper place if there is a consensus for including such field. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: quote not found in source

Under 9th october timeline: "Human Rights Watch called the order "abhorrent" and called on the International Criminal Court to make "note of this call to commit a war crime." " - there is no mention of HRW in either (unrelated) source for this statement, which seems abnormally inflammatory and suspicious. Request removal of this by an approved editor unless a relevant source can be located. 2601:983:8080:90:E608:A8D0:39DE:283D (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post source says exactly that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-war-gaza-violence/#link-ZY5JY3JP4NCXXAK3JYNMMSRUEE David O. Johnson (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Times of Israel?

Why is the Times of Israel even being used as a source. It is not even close to being a reliable or balanced source. 2601:601:8582:8FF0:8CA0:5725:639A:86B3 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Media Bias lists Times of Israel as a "High Factual" and "High Credibility" source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/ Hawar jesser (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF soldiers casuality update

The Israel Defense Forces names another 38 soldiers killed during fighting. This brings the official toll of dead IDF soldiers to 123 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-releases-names-of-38-more-soldiers-killed-in-gaza-war-official-toll-at-123/ Hu741f4 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

ISW

he started to publish about the war too

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-9-2023 שמי (2023) (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

White Phosphorus Claims in Warcrime Section

The claim is

"The Israel Air Force's use banned chemical weapons in Gaza. Based on the video that shows the munitions descending from the sky, it is clear using the white phosphorus bomb on civilians that is considered a war crime."

The sources provided show a white phosphorus attack in Syria back in 2018, NOT in Gaza in 2023. Not to mention the lack of proper possessive pronouns, and the editors Arabic contribution history...

The second source does not provide any evidence to substantiate its claims. Even if the linked video is from this conflict, there is no evidence that this is being used on civilians, and I find it hard to believe that such an atrocity would only have a single video to its name in this context.

HRW image used as FAKE proof of an attack: [6]https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/09/incendiary-weapons-heed-calls-strengthen-law MarkusDorazio (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This should be added to the "Misinformation" section, as it is becoming a widespread rumor distributed through social media and state-sponsored media.
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/10/09/712401/israel-white-phosphorus-use-Gaza-bombing Hawar jesser (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I think this would help stop this from spreading. MarkusDorazio (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete Economic Reactions Section

One of the problems with news papers is that they tend to print anything and seldom add context. So yes, the price of oil is up from where it was three days ago, but it's also down $5 from where it was just a week ago. If the situation develops to the extent that there's an oil embargo like in the 70s that has wide ranging economic consequences then of course that should be included, but including daily securities prices doesn't add anything to the article and also tends to be misleading.

Kind of the case and point for the irrelevance of this is posting that the price of gold increased by $20 or 1%: what does that add to the article?

What's more is that it's also WP:OR because it's attributing a price increase just this event where as for global commodities prices there are a range of factors.

The more full explanation of the oil price increase is: "oil prices rised as the prospect of a diplomatic deal between Israel and KSA which would include a lessening of production cuts decreased and fears about secondary sanctions on Iranian oil increased" but even then oil is still down 6% from where it was just a week ago and this article is not about daily fluctuations in commodity prices and what I wrote is WP:OR. 176.198.203.252 (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Are you being sarcastic? Based on their actions they are just as terroristic as Israel. Using the blanket statement of “terrorist” over Palestinians is the justification they have been using to shell and target Palestinian civilians for the past 16 years. Label the terrorists as terrorists, not every Palestinian fighter that ever existed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
i am not sarcastic, attack the argument, not someone personally. the argument you proposed here are null. those who carried out these attacks were Palestinian terrorist groups. you try to change the subject and blame others to justify this, and none of that is relevant to this request.
additionally you try to change the meaning of my statement by putting words in my mouth, nowhere did i say any blanket statements over Palestinians, i pointed out that those who carried out the terrorists attacks are in fact terrorists. Mark28482 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think you’re aware of what you’re arguing about. If the militias are to be completely labelled as terrorists, then so should Israel because both of their actions fall under the definition of terrorism, only difference is Israel has been doing it on a far bigger scale. If you are talking about individual events like the re’im massacre then of course the perpetrators are terrorists committing terrorism.
“ change Palestinian militant groups[e] to Palestinian Terrorist Groups to reflect what they are under the definition of the word. the current usage of the word causes several problems, being apologist and justifying what happened amongst them. It is important to use the correct words in these cases, and they are terrorists by every single definition of the word” doesn’t seem to specify the terrorists that carried out the acts, unless I am missing something The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
what you said has nothing to do with the fact that those responsible were terrorist groups. you keep saying other people are bad and have done bad things. that is not what this request is about. go ahead and make a request for such changes but this is not the place. i do not wish to argue with you any further, you keep attempting to change the subject and justify what has happened to fit your rhetoric which is not impartial in this situation and you should recuse yourself from further editing and contributing this article because you are unable to maintain a impartial view. you have strong personal beliefs that affect this and trying to justify what has happened which is not appropriate. Mark28482 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I am referencing your initial statement of renaming Palestinian militias “terrorists”. If you don’t want to argue that’s up to you queen, first you mention the renaming them all then you’re talking about specific massacres and now I’m trying to justify what happened (justify what? The uprising or the massacres, I’m not sure what you’re talking about sweetie)
In short:
label the entire Palestinian militias as terrorists? No
label the specific militants that perpetrated massacres as terrorists? Yes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't call me names. I understand English isn't your first language, and you don't understand the English words that are being used here which makes it very difficult to explain this to you. I have never spoken about militias anywhere. My request stands, please rename the Palestinian militant groups that orchestrated these attacks to "Palestinian terrorist groups", because these attacks are by definition terrorist attacks. Please don't bring anything else into this argument and please don't attack me personally or call me anymore names. Mark28482 (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I haven’t called you any names (unless “sweetie”, “queen” and “bestie”, are insults I missed out on) and yes I do struggle a bit with understanding some wordings, as long as the specific perpetrators of the massacres are referred to as terrorists it should be correct The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
What sources are you using to support the claim that both of their actions fall under the definition of terrorism? eyal (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
This suggestion is the most POV suggestion I've ever seen on wikipedia Abo Yemen✉ 13:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
After reading this comment, I dare you to condemn these attacks. Mark28482 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mark28482 I won't condemn the attacks. You have no right to change my political opinions Abo Yemen✉ 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
do you feel the attacks were justified and acceptable since you refuse to condemn them? Mark28482 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mark28482 judging by the fact that the Israelites have been doing the exact same thing to the Palestinians for decades, then yes i do feel that the attacks were justified and acceptable Abo Yemen✉ 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mark28482 i can use the same argument against you as most arabs (not talking about the governments) consider Zionists as terrorists Abo Yemen✉ 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mark28482 also Wikipedia is a neutral website. I edit the same articles as the israelis do without showing my personal/political opinions or getting into racial discussion (like what you did here) or removing sourced information because i dont like what it says Abo Yemen✉ 18:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You're saying that the Re'im music festival massacre was justified?! Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I can't see how you can edit this article without POV bias when you have expressed the belief that the mass murder/rape of israeli civilians/children on internationally recognized israeli territory is justified. I'd say the same thing for the same reasons about someone editing The Holocaust while expressing the belief that the the nazi's had the right idea with the whole "jewish question" thing. No reasonable person can can justify the murder of children.
With that being said; the wikipedia policy on contentious labels specifically states that calling an organization or person a terrorist group/terrorist is to be avoided unless there is widespread use of that term in reliable sources. There is not widespread use of that term in reliable sources when referring to Hamas as a terrorist group or referring to the individual actors as terrorists. However, the policy doesn't specifically state that you can't apply the term to actions. It doesn't state that you have to have widespread reliable sources calling an attack a terrorist attack. There's at least one NYT article calling this a terrorist attack.
This is definitionally terrorism. It uses violence and fear to achieve political (palestinian statehood/a one state solution with palestine as the one state) and ideological (islamism) goals. If 9/11 was terrorism, and we have widespread agreement in reliable sources that this is "Israel's 9/11" (I've seen that a LOT recently, though I suppose you could argue that it's not widespread enough), then I don't see how you can justify not labelling this terrorism. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't condemn, we report what independent reliable sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier exactly Abo Yemen✉ 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Per the Manual of Style, we generally avoid phrases like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" except when directly attributing them. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

AntiDionysius (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
i believe by the definition of the word, especially the massacre at the concert for peace, was in fact terrorism. i don't believe the term should be avoided because it hurts their feelings. words have definitions and means and should only be used appropriately. Mark28482 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Please re-read the policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
If you would like to propose a change in the Manual of Style you are welcome to do so in the relevant place. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
the attacks of September 11th 2001 are called terrorist attacks here on Wikipedia. the attacks in Israel (including a massacre at a peace concert) are not called terrorist attacks. would you be so kind and explain the difference and why the term is appropriate to be used for one, but not the other. Mark28482 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is not about whether to describe the attacks as terrorist attacks. It is about whether to describe people and groups as terrorists.
There is also a difference between ongoing events and past events, and in the level of contention likely to be generated when discussing Al Qaeda versus Palestinian militants. ----AntiDionysius (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
the organizations involved are designated as terrorist groups by the following:
Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
They were the following groups: Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Democratic Front and Lion's Den
Denying that those are terrorist organizations is ethically and morally bankrupt. Mark28482 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware they are defined as terrorist groups by those states, yes. That's the point of the bit about attribution above. You could say "Hamas, which the US classes as a terrorist group". AntiDionysius (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
which the entire free world classes as a terrorist group. but this argument is ridiculous. there is never going to be an agreement, someone will also be on the wrong side. do you think the nazis looked at themselves as the bad guys? as a hate group? they justified themselves but it is still universally understood that they were the bad guys. Mark28482 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You'll notice that pages about Nazism on Wikipedia do not include any text saying "these were the bad guys". We trust readers to make such judgements on their own. We also trust them to make judgements about this ongoing conflict on their own. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
not if you are unable to use the correct words because you are afraid it might hurt someones feelings. words have meanings and we use them, thats how we communicate. Mark28482 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
OK AntiDionysius (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
No one cares about people's feelings here. YOU don't care about how the Palestinians feel and I don't care about what the Israelis feel Abo Yemen✉ 11:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
your accusation have no merit, i very much care about civilians but that is not the topic of this conversation. feel free to start a conversation about that and we can discuss it. imagine we are discussing if a rook is a strong chess piece and like an animal you run in, foaming at the mouth, screaming that i dont care if the knight is a strong piece, too? makes no sense. you are a terrorist apologist and sympathizer and you will get what you deserve. Mark28482 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Following the discussions here about the use of the word "terrorist" and the strong pushback has been very eye-opening and quite frankly appalling. In the past 72 hours, I've witnessed countless world leaders, experts and intellectuals condemning the terrorist attacks by Hamas. Why hasn't anyone already compiled a list of references to those condemnations? Are we waiting for some special arbiter on what is/isn't considered terrorism? I'm not a wiki contributor, but the disparity in the language used describing 9/11 and this attack is glaring. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
its because wikipedia is owned and promited by anti semites, therefore they try to protect and shield terrorists, terrorist sympathizers and apologists and protect them at any cost if the targets Jewish and/or in israel. make no mistake, wikipedia is an extremely political and morally bankrupt resource and should be viewed as such. Mark28482 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Who precisely do you think Wikipedia is "owned" by? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Maryana Iskander -- an arab. Mark28482 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Incredible. Both incorrect, and deeply offensive! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Iskander does not own Wikipedia. She is the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation, which is run by a 16-member board owns Wikipedia's physical infrastructure but does not direct its day-to-day running or determine its specific policies. I am extremely confused as to what her ethnicity could possibly have to do with anything. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
you asked, i told you, and i did not say anything about whether that is a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing. that offends you, calling terrorists what they are offends you, but what has happened in israel does not offend you? i dare you to condemn the terrorists attacks publicly to prove you are not a terrorist apologist and sympathizer Mark28482 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn't ask you about her ethnicity. You brought it up unprompted. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
To be quite frank, a blanket term of "terrorist" would be incorrect since this coalition of militants come from different ideological groups and therefore it would be presumptive to declare them all a label of an exactly same M.O. Johnny Conquest (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
They're all Palestinian nationalist militant groups; some are also Islamist or communist. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is objecting to the description "Palestinian militant groups". There is even a category for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_militant_groups Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Split the article into 2 - One regarding the war, The other regarding the initial invasion and terror attack.

(non-admin closure) Already being discussed at Talk:October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict#Proposed article split for the initial attack? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:37, 10 October 2023 (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.

Mid its terror attack, and due to a high amount of dead, kidnapped, and injured, Israel declared war against Hamas.

The initial attack is regarded as one of the deadliest terror attacks. Therefore, it should have its own article.

While after the declarence, mid terror attack, began the war.

This article should talk about the war, while the other article should talk about the terror attack, that has theoretically ended or is still continuing at a low rate (due to terrorists still trying to invade, and murder Israeli-unrelated citizens, compared to a military against a military war) רם אבני (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: Also it should be included in the article that it is one of the deadliest terror attack in both world and Israeli history. It keeps getting removed even though it is reliably sourced. I guess some people continue to be in denial that this was in fact a terrorist attack. Undescribed (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kfar Aza, not Kfar Aviv | Israeli Casualties

It states "At least one civilian death was reported in Kfar Aviv," however the CNN article that was cited mentions Kfar Aza—not Kfar Aviv. - MateoFrayo (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Yue🌙 22:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

I suggest that it be renamed the "2023 Israel-Palestine War", as it is more accurate. Rawkstar777 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Please see the recently requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4#Extended summary of RM close for why this title was chosen. - Fuzheado | Talk 02:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be renamed Israel-Palestine war?

Given the amount of civilian casulities on the Palestinian side, it's pretty clear that Israel is not just fighting Hamas, but the Palestinian people more broadly. Calling it the Israel-Hamas war biases it towards the Israeli propoaganda POV. Also, Hamas isn't a country. Jingle38 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Please see the recently requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4#Extended summary of RM close for why this title was chosen. - Fuzheado | Talk 02:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (2)

Please change "crumbing Israeli army" to "crumbling Israeli army" in the last sentence of the "International" subsection within the "Reactions" section. (typo) Jboward13 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Yue🌙 04:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of hostage execution

There seem to be growing evidence of intentional execution of bound civilians, both at the rave and in various kibbutzim and settlements. I'm newish to wiki so I'm not sure where this would fit in. Doombrigade (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Casualties section", with cited source in accordance with WP:V. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Since I can't edit, would it be possible for someone else to add?
Source:
https://twitter.com/GLNoronha/status/1711504185756180962?t=4p-_wbWe_ewuHMVI5YWxzQ&s=19 Doombrigade (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Iran in infobox?

Should Iran's alleged involvement be mentioned in the infobox? While Israel has accused Iran, Iran has denied involvement[7]. Of RS, only the WSJ directly accuses Iran, while most RS are cautious in covering any allegations against Iran with attribution.VR talk 21:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: No I think. Also see Talk:October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict#3rd party involvement. Infobox is purely for belligerents and neither US or Iran has been directly involved as a combatant yet. Although both have possible provided some degree of arms support both during and prior to the conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized:, Iran may have provided arms support prior to the conflict, but has it provided any arms support during the conflict? Do any RS say that?VR talk 11:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Not to my knowledge. The latest U.S. and Israeli estimate says that Iran was not involved.[8], [9] Ecrusized (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Trump / Biden

October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict#Misinformation:

"Soon after the Hamas attacks on Israel, former President Donald Trump and other Republicans tried to cast blame on Joe Biden because of the prisoner release deal with Iran; however, these funds under the supervision of the United States Department of the Treasury are used only for humanitarian purposes, and there is no evidence that they have had an impact on Hamas."

Does this piece of internal US politics really belong in an article about events in Israel and Gaza, if it has no direct impact? It's not misinformation about what's happening where the attacks and the conflict take place. To illustrate, this is of course making it into internal Swedish politics as well – who supported whom, claims about international aid and so on. But it would seem absurd to add it to this article. Similarly, since this isn't misinformation about the event but about US politics, it feels out of place. /Julle (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been wanting to say this too. Obviously I don’t want revert more edits to not violate Wikipedia’s policy, it’s just American editors trying to shove their partisan politics garbage into everything that is currently trending The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, I have no strong opinion about it, but this is a pretty serious accusation (i.e. that the US President indirectly funded the attack by terrorists), and yes, indeed misinformation. This was also widely published. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t wish to revert the edit more, since that would violate Wikipedia policy, but this looks like downplaying the entire course of a war for some random unrelated Americans to shove their politics into every corner and topic that ever existed. Though the accusations are serious Trump hasn’t been president for almost 3 years, this is Wikipedia not redit The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It is! But the facts that it is widely reported or strong accusations don't really mean it is key information about this topic, since it's arguably misinformation about something else. /Julle (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Great Mule of Eupatoria I added it and I'm not American Parham wiki (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I have not reverted again and I am specifically referring to the trump Biden catfight (not the entire misinformation section). It seems to be removed by another editor who cited the Wikipedia policy it went against The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas militants

not premised but is there proper proof that there were 1,500 bodies of hamas militants in Israel? you could write that Israel claims to have found 1500 bodies instead 1.178.117.172 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

According to news sources, the IDF claims to have found 1'500 bodies. Poles Ragge (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Confusing

Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced a "total" blockade of the Gaza Strip that would cut electricity and block the entry of food and fuel, adding that “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly." Human Rights Watch called the order "abhorrent" and called on the International Criminal Court to make "note of this call to commit a war crime."

Which order? 94.246.228.132 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the "order" referenced is the order for a "blockade" described in the previous sentence. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

POV

per somewhere above, the groups dont need idea logical caveats in this article. Yet we have "Th

The PFLP, another Palestinian socialist militant group, and the Lion..."s' Den 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

In the context of the article as it is, I think it's informative and relevant to include this description. The paragraph begins by talking about DFLP, which is another left-wing militant group. I removed an earlier mention of "socialist" to describe PFLP in the lead of the article because none of the other militant groups had any ideological descriptors in that context. There's nothing wrong with describing the PFLP as a socialist group, if that's what they are. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Jprg1966; the sentence is fine as-is. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Title discussion following RM close

@Fuzheado: Shouldn't it be in alphabetical order, as "2023 Hamas–Israel war"? See 1948 Arab–Israeli War, 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, Gaza–Israel conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Arab–Israeli conflict. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
As the reliable sources which Fuzheado quoted show, usage of "Israel–Hamas" is far more common than "Hamas–Israel". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that was the rationale. For reference, the RM close and the list of the reliable sources can be found here - Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (3)

Add wikilink to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article in the See also section. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, per WP:NOTSEEALSO; Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is already linked in the article body. Yue🌙 04:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza-Israel or vice versa?

Do we list it in alphabetical order or do we not? 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict has it the other way round, but then again, that may be the wrong one. Bremps... 01:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a standard here. I believe it's up to editor's preference. KlayCax (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think we should go with alphabetical order unless a different order clearly predominates in RSs. That's what we do in bilateral relations articles (e.g. Germany–Israel relations rather than Israel–Germany relations). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and move the 2006 page. Bremps... 03:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I think this is handled by WP:AND: "It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang. If one concept is more commonly encountered than the other, it may be listed first, as in Electrical resistance and conductance. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such as Relegation and promotion) should be redirects." LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
According to ngrams, "Israel-Gaza" is far more common; infinitely so in the case of "Israel-Gaza conflict". BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
It should be done alphabetically, that just makes more sense. BlueOcean02 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I DIASGREE - CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC, Channel News Asia, New York Times, Sky News are all going against this and using reverse order. They are using Israel - Hamas War or Israel-Hamas war. Wikipedia should not make up its own language. 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker 0001 (talk • contribs)

I closed the requested move with this same rationale - we should go by what reliable sources (in this case, news sources and not books) call the conflict. You can find the analysis here where the vast majority of outlets use "Israel-Hamas." - Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 4 - Fuzheado | Talk 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Deserted island" Netanjahu quote may be wrong

See https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56101/did-netanyahu-recently-say-we-will-turn-gaza-into-a-deserted-island — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appgurueu (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged the quote as "disputed". If al-Jazeera is the only translation using a provocative phrasing, we should not be highlighting it. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Latin America in the Western World?

I'm looking at this edit summary. My understanding is that the Latin American world's being part of the West is geographically true, but not necessarily politically true; there's a bit of distinction (even if one is a Huntingtonian on this sort of thing). Should we refer to "Latin America" separately in this context? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Global South so I'd say yes. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't it also make more sense to mention blocs instead (EU, NATO etc)? Mellk (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Turkey's reaction seems to be distinct from that of its NATO partners. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Huntington makes a distinction between "the West" and "distinct civilizations intimately related to the West", with Latin America being a part of the latter; but says that in general researchers consider that the West has three main components (European, North American and Latin American). Compare Western world#Latin America. I suggest we circumvent the issue, by either following Mellk's suggestion, or to simply use the three components mentioned by Huntington, and say "most countries, including European, North American and Latin American nations and India". Renerpho (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Not getting into the most controversial aspects but I personally would disagree with the edit. In a geopolitical sense, which is the relevant context here, Latin America is mostly treated as a part of the global south and not of "The West(ern World)". And look at the list of major non-NATO allies, they're obviously not only Western countries Major non-NATO ally#/media/File:American major non-NATO allies.svg . Inteloff (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Chile for example is a OECD country. I don't like the term western myself though. I prefer developed. 82.147.226.240 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Woa, of course Latin America is the West, culturally and geographically. Looking at the Wikipedia page, it is striking how the entire argument that it is not relies on… references to Samuel Huntington’s work! Paragraph after paragraph of material "explaining” why it is not the West all rely on Huntington. I should edit that page and bring other perspectives. In the meantime, for the purposes of this page, yes, Mathilda, Latin America is part of the West. XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Help needed to retain article neutrality

I've read across all of the talk page and seen obviously pro-Israel users doing everything they can to slant this article towards making the Palestinians look bad and Israel look good. From making the Gaza borders dotted lines implying the territory is disputed, pushing the use of obviously biased sources like times of Israel and calling this a terrorist act when war was declared. Is it possible to get a truly neutral admin to mediate here please? I would just like this to be a balanced article. 2405:DA40:435D:4500:48A5:963C:B249:C5A7 (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete suggestion of an improvement you'd like to make to the article or anything specific that you'd like to cite as a reliable source or an example? I find Al Jazeera quite reliable. Andre🚐 08:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia protocol with contentious subjects like this. I just wondered if there was someone higher up the Wiki foodchain that might be able to adjudicate on additions to the article to make sure neutrality is maintained, if that makes sense. 2405:DA40:435D:4500:48A5:963C:B249:C5A7 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The main examples in my mind is how articles relating to massacres committed by hamas are immediately labelled massacre and terrorism, but when Israel attacks 2 refugee camps it’s renamed to just “air strike” (see Shati camp masscare, which was renamed “air strike” even though the sources referred to it as a massacre). What part of bombing refugee camps isn’t considered terrorism? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether you or I think something is justified or horrible, it matters whether that term is described that way in the material. Please cite a specific source and then we can talk. Otherwise, WP:NOTFORUM. Andre🚐 09:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It isn’t really about opinions here, because the sources I cited for the air strikes referred to both the Shati and Jabalia refugee camp attacks as “massacres” yet it was all changed to “air strike”. I wonder if that wouldve happened if the Palestinians did it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a known systemic bias, just have to live with that. Need to examine the sourcing to see what's appropriate, not infrequently "massacre" articles get name changed when that is done. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The way I see it, it's the complete opposite - for example under "Reactions in Israel" there are quotes from ONLY two sources - the most left-most arab-party member of the Knesset, and the most left-most newspaper Haaretz, both of which are small and unreliable Shovalis (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It can't be called "Invasion by Hamas". Facts and evidence says something else.

It can't be called "Invasion by Hamas". Facts indicate that this country was established by few countries and as per UN regulation, Israel has occupied territory more than it was granted and UN recognise. Hamas is resisting the occupation and trying it regain control over it's own land. The Invasion was done by Israel by occupying Palestinian land that was granted by UN council.

The same scenario is going in Ukraine but resisting Ukrainian peoples are being hailed and the movement is being called with term "resistance" against russia. In ukarain milita mostly small groups of peoples are participating in wars alongside Ukrainians forces against russia. Here, In this scenario, Hamas is a milita mostly of Palestinian population that are resisting incursion and occupation of Palestine again israel.

The term "invasion" by Hamas or or with it's any ally name should be changed to "resistance" or more favorable and right term. 103.187.75.29 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you by any chance trying to push a particular WP:POV? Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
He is 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The petitioner is negating that the land Hamas attacked was de jure UN-recognized territory of Israel since 1949. Borgenland (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Very slightly so LOL Ronsiv8 (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that "invasion" is not the right term. "Barbaric terrorist attack" is more appropriate. No need to reply. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Alphabetic order in title

Shouldn't we use alphabetic order for the title, 2023 Hamas–Israel war? This is the general practice for descriptive, and not proper, names in Wikipedia. For such version we have the argument of alphabetic order, while for the current one, well it's just arbitrary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Check above: #Title discussion following RM close. Yue🌙 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023 (2)

You have to make it clear that this is a TERROR ATTACK! It’s not controversial, it’s a fact and it’s so important. People gotta have the full, correct story. This is urgent!!! 2A02:14F:16E:8115:8DF2:9B75:30BE:C985 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2023 (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. We "have" to do nothing. We're a neutral encyclopedia, not a news source. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


To avoid doubt, does the term TERROR ATTACK also relate to the IDF bombing of innocent civilians in 'self defence'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.27 (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting information available

Change "The attack, which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, appeared to have been a complete surprise to the Israelis." to "The attack, which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, appeared to have possibly been a complete surprise[1], though Egypt had declared they warned Israel of "something unusual, a terrible operation"[2] 10 days prior to the attack. Israel denied this had occurred[3]." 24.63.171.94 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

also shin bet knew or arms smuggling Just last month. Not much of a surprise. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231007-sirens-heard-as-dozens-of-rockets-fired-from-gaza-towards-israel
  2. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
  3. ^ https://nypost.com/2023/10/09/israel-ignored-warning-something-big-was-coming-egyptian-official/
 Not done This is just rumor-mongering. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Those rumors directly contradict the subject matter. 24.63.171.94 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention a large swath of news outlets have reported the very same thing. 24.63.171.94 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

9/11 moment

The article currently reads Some analysts have described this war as "Israel's 9/11 moment". That's verifiably true, but I think it's a bit misplaced to have this in the "Names" section, which otherwise seems dedicated towards describing, well, names of the event rather than a comparison point. Is there somewhere we can move this, or is this already covered elsewhere? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You could move it after the line "The day was regarded as the deadliest for Jewish civilians since the end of the Holocaust.". Names section doesn't make sense. Ben Azura (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_5&oldid=1197332307"