Jump to content

Talk:List of major terrorist incidents/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RfC on including Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 23:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

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

Criteria for standalone lists of terrorist incidents

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

Redirect this page

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

Poor section

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

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

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

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

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

Reeim party massacure on Oct 7th should be added

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

This a horrendous attack, but should it be covered here or elsewhere? This list states, “This is a list of major terrorist incidents conducted by violent non-state actors, i.e. excluding state terrorism.” Does this count as a state attack or not? Difficult question. I don’t know.
Do we have reliable sources calling this terrorism or do they use different language? Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/10/8/7423202/
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk5oq3rlp
These are examples for articles saying it's terrorism A3811 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Almost everyone is calling it militants, there seems to be very few sources calling it a terrorist attack. And it doesn't seem to be a terrorist attack but more of a military style campaign instead. Additionally this article is for non-state actors, but Hamas is definitely a state actor controlling all the politics in Gaza. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail:
  1. Hamas was designated a "terrorist organization" by the UK, US, EU, Canada, Japan, NZ, and others.
  2. The attack, which primarily targeted civilian population (including women, children, and the elderly) and resulted in over 1,200 dead and more than 100 hostages (including at least one 85 y/o grandma and several teens, children and toddlers [2][3][4]), has been called a "terrorist attack" by various sources.[1][2][3][4][5]
  3. "Military style campaigns" do not generally involve murdering unarmed party goers,[5] throwing grenades into civilian hideouts,[6] burning babies alive,[7] or streaming someone's murder on her Facebook page.[8]
  4. Can you source your claim that Hamas is a "state actor" anymore than ISIS, which "controlled all politics" across much of Syria and Iraq, was? François Robere (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Some fair points there yes, and I can't refute them all. Interesting though is that Israel isn't calling it a terrorist act, but a military one. As for what isn't done in military style campaigns, most of those have been done before yes in many ways. Was the Wech Baghtu bombing a terrorist act them? Ultimately I really don't mind either way, it's just since Hamas does appear to be a a state actor for a state that is recognized around the world by 2/3 of UN members it doesn't seem to belong on this list under its current inclusion criteria. And I'll note nothing Hamas has done before appears on this list. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The PLA is recognized as a state actor (of sorts), not Hamas
If the list is missing, then it should be expanded. François Robere (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It should 100% be added, Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by almost all major world powers. Joweph (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This is related, but doesn't provide us with a solution! Bondegezou (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hamas is widely designated as a terrorist organisation, but not everything a terrorist organisation does is necessarily terrorism. That's not a persuasive argument.
A few reliable sources calling it terrorism, but most not is not persuasive either, because WP:BALANCE. Do we have a preponderance of sources calling this terrorism? I am not persuaded we do.
List of war crimes exists and these attacks may well qualify for that list, although again we would need appropriate sourcing.
These attacks are already covered in List of events named massacres and Lists of battles. Both of those seem appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you wrote. With regards to preponderance - "googling" the following strings yields the following approximate numbers of results:
  • Hamas terrorist - 246,000,000
  • Hamas militant - 111,000,000
  • Hamas fighter - 93,000,000
  • Hamas peace - 77,500,000
Enclosing the strings in quotations marks, or searching just for recent news items, again yields more results for the first string than for any of the others. Of course, this isn't an accurate measure, and one would prefer to check some of the results themselves: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
To me this suggests not only a preponderance, but a variety of reliable sources that refer to these events as acts of terror (in some wording or another) in their own voice, which should be satisfy the criteria for inclusion. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
How much of that Google hits was pertaining to the current situation under discussion and how much was just "Hamas XXXX" which draws no relation? Also a lot of your links above aren't making any claims about the current situation being terrorism, or even equating Hamas to terrorist. Most actually just call it a war. Yes the word terror is sometimes in the stories, but it's not making a point. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say with them as I don't really see any of them discussing the incident that's under discussion for this article. And the article that's being linked that's under discussion doesn't primarily describe it as a terrorist attack. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday we were discussing 2023 Israel–Hamas war; now there's an article dedicated just to the terrorist attacks that instigated the war, so consider that instead.
How much of that Google hits was pertaining to the current situation under discussion Limiting the general search to pages from just this week:
  • Hamas terrorist - 18,500,000
  • Hamas militant - 7,530,000
  • Hamas fighter - 4,240,000
  • Hamas peace - 6,030,000
a lot of your links above aren't making any claims about the current situation being terrorism As noted earlier, those 11 media refer to Hamas's actions as terrorist acts very clearly, and they do so in their own voices. Some examples:
If this doesn't support the inclusion of the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel in a list of "major terrorist incidents", what does? François Robere (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The topic and goalposts keep changing for what people want to include and the replies here are now talking about multiple different things. For what people do wish to include the question and inclusion criteria is do the majority of reliable sources describe it specifically as terrorism? Not causing terror, not a terror attack, as that is not a definition of terrorism and happen in war all the time and aren't described specifically as terrorism. Do the majority of reliable sources describe it as terrorism specifically over anything else? And can you supply reliable sources that state that Hamas, despite being acknowledged as the state rulers of Gaza and the majority party of Palestine, do not represent the state of which their are leaders of. This is the criteria for inclusion in this article and probably explains why there are no other Hamas incidents in this article. Canterbury Tail talk 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
AFAIC it's very clear: something like this edit (with up-to-date numbers and sources), and this link.
Do you have any sources that establish Hamas as "acknowledged... state rulers"? François Robere (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As you know the onus for obtaining consensus and proving it meets the inclusion criteria lies on the editors wishing to insert material. But yes, the government of Palestine is acknowledged by approximately 2/3 of the world. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Obviously Include. This was described by Sky News as ' worst terror attack in Israeli history' , described by fox news as ' worst civilian massacre in Israeli history'. President Biden compared it to the 9/11 attacks . It has trigged a full scale war. If this is not a major terrorist incident I don't know what is. Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it must be included but it will not. There is not a single terrorist attack in Israel mentioned on this list. If that doesn't show an anti semitic bias here nothing does. Numerous suicide bombings in Israel are not on this list and only antisemitism explains that.

References

  1. ^ Oshin, Olafimihan (2023-10-09). "US, allies express 'steadfast and united support' for Israel". The Hill. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
  2. ^ Hutchinson, Bill. "Death came from sea, air and ground: A timeline of surprise attack by Hamas on Israel". ABC News. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
  3. ^ Wine, Gaby (2023-10-10). "Sunak condemns those who refuse to describe Hamas as 'terrorists'". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
  4. ^ Chiappa, Claudia; von der Burchard, Hans (2023-10-10). "Macron hints at Iran's involvement in Hamas attacks". Politico. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
  5. ^ Groppi, Michele (2023-10-09). "Hamas has achieved what it wanted by attacking Israel: terror, escalation, and disruption to the international order". The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-10-10.

Suicide Bomings with 20+ people murder in Israel

Each of these had more than 20 Murder victims, so it is major by the standards we already used. And the ridiculous argument that Hamas is a state player doesn't apply because this was all way before they took over Gaza. We must add these ASAP

If there is no reasoned objection by Monday I'm adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yestyest2000 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yestyest2000, I suggest you refer to the list criteria at the top of this page. The list criteria was decided by an RfC. Also I remind you again that the WP:ARBPIA4 topic area, which you suggest you are going to edit in, has general sanctions which applies to it. You should make yourself aware of the general sanctions.
Notably only three of those article which you are suggesting including in this list uses "terrorist" in the article voice. They are Jaffa Road bus bombings, Dolphinarium discotheque massacre and Passover massacre. Even then I have my doubts. Note: I removed the word terrorist from another article because it was a clear violation of MOS:TERRORIST and the three that remain I'd probably think are the same but I'm being conservative. TarnishedPathtalk 12:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Needs inclusion of Nellie and Mandai massacres

No inclusion of the 1983 Nellie Massacre and the Mandai massacre, despite them being major terrorist incidents in India, and, numerically, some of the largest in world history. Rishabh06 (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Those events weren't terrorism. TarnishedPathtalk 08:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
List of riots would seem the more appropriate article -- check there. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I dare say so. TarnishedPathtalk 08:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2023

- 82.13.12.59 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please state your changes in a clear X to Y format as described by Wikipedia:Edit requests. TarnishedPathtalk 01:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was a request for comments on whether the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel should be included in this list of terrorist incidents. This discussion was a particularly unfocused one owing to the large proportion of editors arguing from their own perceptions of the incidents in question, rather than from reliable sources. Therefore, extracting a consensus in the Wikipedia sense from this discussion required consistent application of relevant policy and other principles.

Closing a discussion requires the closer to discern to what extent each argument presented therein is relevant to Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and other relevant guiding principles. In this discussion, there were many arguments from both sides that I perceived to not be relevant when held up against such principles, especially Wikipedia:No original research. In particular, I paid significantly less attention to the following kinds of arguments:

  • Personal reflections about whether or not the events were terroristic
  • "Hamas are/are not terrorists, therefore the attack is/is not terroristic"
  • Arguments about whether or not the attack was justified

The arguments I gave the most weight, are those which address whether or not there is a consensus among reliable sources that this attack was terroristic, as specified in the inclusion criteria at the top of this page. Here, two highly relevant sub-problems came up during the discussion:

  1. What is a "consensus of reliable sources"?
  2. How should we consider news outlets that do not describe incidents as terrorism as a matter of editorial policy?

As a closer, I certainly would have wished for more focused discussion around these points, rather than the rather lengthy arguments falling in the previously enumerated categories. In any case, positions on these two questions seem to have been important in informing participants' opinions on the RfC question. Editors who favoured inclusion generally presupposed that the very significant number of sources describing the attack as terroristic is enough to make a consensus, and that media that do not describe events as terrorism in their own voices should be given little weight in this assessment. On the other side, those who oppose inclusion presupposed that a higher degree of agreement than the present is needed to establish a consensus (perhaps even "no significant dissent"), and that sources that do not call anything terroristic should be considered equally.

The lack of agreement on either of these central questions leaves us with few shared starting points for an assessment of consensus, and I must proceed to my least favourite part of closing: tallying votes. After applying policy as described above, I found that of comments using the most relevant arguments, the ones for inclusion outnumbered the ones against by a ratio of a little over 2:1. I take this as an indication that the pro-inclusion perspectives on the above central questions enjoy significantly wider acceptance among editors than the views which inform those who opined against.

Having done this assessment, and considering the all the facts at hand, I find a consensus for including the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in this list. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


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

Discussion

  • Yes. For an entry to be added to the list, it must be a "major terrorist incident conducted by violent non-state actors":
  1. "Terrorist incident": many RS qualify this as a terrorist attack in their own voice:
    RS quotes
    • "Wie sind die Terroristen vorgegangen?" ("How did the terrorists do it?") - Süddeutsche Zeitung
    • "Shock Hamas terror attack" - France 24
    • "a campaign of terror" - Foreign Affairs
    • "The Hamas terrorist offensive" - CNBC
    • "Hamas' bloody terror attack" - CBS
    • "a campaign of terror" - Politico
    • "massacre of civilians by Hamas terrorists" - NYT
    • "Hamas terrorist attacks" - USA Today
    • "massacre of Israelis at the hands of Hamas terrorists" - ITV
    • "terrorists in Gaza", "terror attacks" - PBS
    • "a terror attack" - CNN
    • "Hamas terrorist attack" - The Telegraph
    • "terror attacks on Israel by Hamas" - DW
    • "24 hours of terror", "terror on wings", "terrorists" - The Guardian
    • "a terrorist organization", "terrorist attacks" - Yascha Mounk at The Globe and Mail
  2. "Major": the attack has been equated with the September 11 attacks,[20][21][22] and the sheer number of victims makes it the biggest such attack anywhere in the world since 2014 or 2015.
  3. "By violent non-state actors": sources are unanimous in stating that Hamas is: a violent, militant organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip by force from the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority.[23][24][25][26][27][28] Wikipedia itself states that "the Fatah-led government... has been recognized as the official government of the Palestinian Authority", and that Hamas merely exercises "de facto control" over Gaza. No source that I've come across describes Hamas as a legitimate state actor.
This establishes the attack as a "major terrorist incident conducted by violent non-state actors", satisfying the criteria for inclusion. François Robere (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The criteria is actually The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism". You need to show that there is a consensus (meaning no significant dissent) among RS.VR talk 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see my comments below that many RS describe Hamas as a state actor.VR talk 21:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Some folks are pointing to the BBC and saying, "Hey, look, the BBC says this ain't 'an Act Of Terror', this is 'an attack'". But in my book, those folks are off the mark. The BBC, like, totally understands in their heart, supporting those "freedom fighters" is actually against the law in the UK, they have a list for those brave soul groups. It's more of a style thing, and it's got them even censoring in titles what their Royals say, if you can believe it. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
So, which RS explicitly say that "the attack by Hamas was not a terrorist attack"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
CBC News, BBC News and The Guardian seem to have deliberately avoided calling it a terrorist attack. We don't sources to say it was "not a terrorist attack". Sources almost never say that.VR talk 18:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The Guardian: "embraced the use of terror tactics", "has never balked at using terrorism";[29] "24 hours of terror", "terror on wings", "terrorists".[30] François Robere (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
'Terror' and 'terrorism' are not synonyms - the first simply means extreme fear and may be induced by many situations other than 'terrorism'. Pincrete (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The elephant in the room that is being ignored by every commenter here is that the majority of reliable sources explicitly have a policy in recent years against describing anything as terror. If Wikipedia is going to refer to terrorist incidents, then there is no way the criteria can be whether most reliable sources refer to it as a terrorist attack, since nothing would ever meet that criteria. For example, the BBC guidelines explicitly state "We should not use the term ‘terrorist’ without attribution."[31] This is a global policy that applies in all circumstances. Similarly, the CBC writes "It is the CBC's practice – and it has been the practice in CBC newsrooms for over 30 years now – to try to avoid using the words ‘terror' and ‘terrorist' on their own as a form of description without attribution."[32] Per WP:ARBECR
If the criteria were that most reliable sources refer to the act as terrorism, then nothing would be considered terrorism. For example, let us examine the two most recent acts added to this list. Per WP:ARBECR
2023 Peshawar mosque bombing: When searching for "2023 Peshawar mosque bombing," these are the five first news results: CNN, AP News, BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters. None of them refer to the attack as a terrorist act in their own voice. Per WP:ARBECR
October 2022 Mogadishu bombings: NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeera, VOA News, AP News. None of them refer to the attack as a terrorist act in their own voice. Per WP:ARBECR
You would find the exact same result if you examine any terrorist attack from the last few years. Per WP:ARBECR
So Wikipedia has a choice. They can either follow these news organizations and stop referring to anything as terrorism, or they can choose some criteria that is not based on whether most reliable sources refer to the act as terrorism. Per WP:ARBECR
If anything can be considered a terrorist attack, then obviously the massacres committed by Hamas were terrorist attacks. The massacres were a deliberate plan to maximize civilian casualties and explicitly targeted homes, schools, youth centers, and other civilian targets.[33] The only question is whether they are state actors, and virtually no source, even if they recognize Palestine as a state, describes Hamas as representatives of that state. This is an absurd conversation. Of course these were terrorist attacks. Y2K-96 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Per WP:ARBECR
Sources? My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The Israeli blockade of Gaza and it being near impossible to leave? It’s not called the “biggest open air prison” for nothing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/12/palestinians-can-t-just-leave-gaza-during-israel-hamas-conflict/21fa3714-68b8-11ee-9753-2b3742e96987_story.html The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
'Prison break': Hamas war stirs Arab world’s antipathy to Israel Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If you truly believe it, then you need to include it to List of prison escapes. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
No. The article doesn't endorse the "prison break" meme, which it clearly attributes it to "viral posts" on "Arab social media"—just as it explains that the “open-air prison” metaphor is one employed by "Arabs and human rights activists", not by FT itself. It should go without saying: an RS quoting a flat-earther is not an RS reporting that the world is flat. ElleTheBelle 18:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. It's been called “open air prison” with abbriviation cause it is not a real prison but a slang to describe it. Also, it has a few check points with both Israel and Egypt that are open - not everyone can come and go, but this is the same as with any other country boarders to my understanding Rafah Border Crossing Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:ARBECR
No. Note relevant 2A02:14F:17A:F5C5:45CD:786C:C5:8BC9 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) WP:ARBECR
  • No, most sources recognize the it as a war not an incident, palestinian resistance militants took down hundreds of israeli occupation armed forces including tanks and armored vehicles not just civilians, it is a full war between Palestine and Israel that many militants and civilians on both sides have been killed, and war crimes have been committed by both sides of the war not just one of them, it basically a war not an “incidents”. It is also worthy to note that western politician fire speeches and sometimes lies (as biden did when he claimed to have seen images) or whatever they “recognize” don’t represent the international community nor outweigh superior global organizations like United Nations that represent the international community and what is “terrorism” and what is not.
Stephan rostie (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, page 2023 Israel–Hamas war should be categorized as a war. But we are talking here about the attack itself, i.e. page Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The split was made after a limited consensus (low WP:CONLEVEL ) and was not made for the purpose of then being able to include that bit of the war in this or that list (or maybe it was....) Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I assume that no one is going to nominate the newly created page Operation Al-Aqsa Flood for deletion because it describes a separate and highly notable event. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not new, it was previously merged with 2023 Israel-Hamas war (then called something else). Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we have a larger problem: compare our 15,000-word September 11 attacks article with our 10,000-word War on terror entry.
Israel was not at war with Hamas when the terrorist attack occurred—it's what prompted Israel to declare war for the first time since 1973. And while there certainly needs to be mention of the Hamas terrorist attack as the inciting incident in our 13,000-word 2023 Israel-Gaza war article, much of what's currently in that article needs to be moved to what's now only a 2,000-word Operation Al-Aqsa Flood article.
A similar issue is found in our 8,700-word Russo-Ukrainian war article, which is dwarfed by the massive 15,600-word Russian invasion of Ukraine. Surely there's a better forum for this larger discussion, but it's one that's worth having, no? ElleTheBelle 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree it turned out to a war. However, what started it all was the incidents on Saturday the 6th of October that can be phrased as a terror attack. Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:ARBECR
  • No - While I think it will be included as a Terrorist incident in the fullness of time I would avoid categorising it until RS have settled down on the subject. We are still at the 'News' stage. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    If that's really that case, why the article at all—given that WP:NOTNEWS? If an encyclopedia can't even broadly categorize the subject of an article, isn't it malpractice to publish it? ElleTheBelle 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - it's "Israel's 9/11" per RS. Andre🚐 17:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • At this point No. The Guardian reports (emphasis added): The attack also inevitably revived demands for news organisations to follow the White House lead and call Hamas terrorists, not only because of the nature of the killings but because the US, EU and UK governments have banned the group. Kenneth Roth, the former head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, criticised the White House stance. “It is not helpful to use the term ‘terrorism’ in a war when the White House only ever applies it to one side. Better to remind both Hamas and the Israeli government that humanitarian law makes it a war crime to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians,” he said. I tried searching if The Guardian, a major newspaper, called the attacks terrorist. I couldn't find anywhere that it did, although it did quote others making that allegation.VR talk 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. If WP followed such BBC policy, we would not have any pages with word terrorist/terrorism in the title. According to WP:TERRORIST, Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter .... It does not mean we can not have any pages on the subjects of racism, sexism or terrorism (e.g. this page) and call them as such. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Major news orgs (NYT, AP, BBC, etc) don't use the label so it does not meet the definition given in MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh no, of course NYT calls them "Hamas terrorists" [35]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Well, like, obviously there ain't any top-notch scholarly sources yet, but news reports are solid, don't you agree? And honestly, don't expect scholars to drop some major revelations here. So, we got these editorial rules about not calling Hamas militants "terrorists" 'cause Wikipedia's gotta think about the whole world reading, and we're trying not to seem like we're taking sides, but when they're out there doing some pretty atrocious stuff, it gets tricky. The way to handle this is to talk about those actions as "Acts of Terror" and back it up with some legit sources that call Hamas terrorists, but we ain't doing that in Wikipedia's voice. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Infinity Knight: A "yes" would mean that you're calling Hamas terrorist in wikipedia's voice.VR talk 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
      • @Vice regent:, We label some seriously messed-up things as "Acts of Terror" and we've got credible sources that tag Hamas as terrorists. It's in line with Wikipedia's rules and lines up with the BBC's policy too offset=@5:30, you know? Infinity Knight (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
        • @Infinity Knight: but that interview you linked above is saying the opposite: that BBC will not call Hamas terrorist.VR talk 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
          • @Vice regent:, The BBC's editing policy, although intriguing as a symbol of neutrality, holds no relevance in this context. They effectively address the issue by characterizing the incident as an "Act of terror," particularly in this instance. In fact, the interviewer's query pertained to the BBC's choice not to designate "terror group Hamas" as a terrorist group. To be succinct, I'll reiterate one final time: we possess a comprehensive list, we categorize these incidents accordingly, and it's essential to acknowledge that we possess credible sources supporting the inclusion of this particular event. Unless there is a valid argument asserting that the event fails to meet specific inclusion criteria for the list. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. "Terrorism" is an English word with an accepted meaning, and this latest example perfectly meets that definition. To suggest that Hamas killing Israeli civilians isn't "terrorism" because Hamas and their apologists say it isn't is beyond bizarre and completely unmoored from reality. Hamas slaughtered more than 250 defenseless civilians at a music festival in cold blood, butchered and burned alive kibbutzniks in their homes, fired more than 3,000 rockets at population centers for the express purpose of terrorizing and killing civilians, and took scores of civilian hostages to exchange for their comrades imprisoned for terrorism—if all that doesn't meet the definition of a "terror attack", then nothing does. More broadly: our encyclopedia is going to lose every shred of credibility if we continue down this path of laughable far-left political bias. ElleTheBelle 17:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Ellethebelle: But wait, bombing, slaughtering, and burning the civilians (including women, infants and children) have been done by Israeli forces during the past decades, if that's the only criterion we should rely on. --Mhhossein talk 09:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No - Considering that "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" is an ongoing military operation of various Palestinian factions and does not meet the criteria of "terrorism". This operation is not even an "incident", it is a campaign. The operation may presumably last months or years, and no neutral person labels them as "terrorism". MOS:TERROR
Counter point - Netanyahu's "Operation Swords of Iron" should be regarded as a campaign of mass-terror, considering that the IDF chief categorised Palestinians as "human animals" Nazi-style and Netanyahu has ordered the ethnic cleansing of 1.1 million Gazan civilians. "Israel tells 1.1 million Gazans to evacuate south. UN says order is ‘impossible’" (CNN, 13 October 2023)
How about that? A few more days or weeks into the conflict, the world might be potentially looking at a genocide in Gaza. If wikipedia dehumanises the Palestinian side as "terrorist", that will be one of the best propaganda tools of the far-right Netanyahu regime.
I am sick of these newly created Washington DC war-propaganda slogans like "Israel's 9/11", "Hamas is ISIS".
MOS:TERROR, WP:POVPUSH
shadowwarrior8 20:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The series of Hamas massacres against Israeli civilians finished within a day. It is the series that is getting designated as a major terrorist incident. Each massacre many involved barbaric actions (see my vote below for a list). The massacres satisfy any objective definition of terrorism that exists. Even ISIS and Al Qaeda have their defenders, though they’re incidents are on this list. The pure savagery by Hamas prompted Netanyahu to describe them as human animals. See my comment below for my thoughts on a hypothetical Israeli genocide against Palestinians. Closetside (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thats not what the RfC is about. Full stop. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Operation Al Aqsa Flood is the 2023 Hamas invasion into southern Israel. Whenever they could, they massacred Israeli civilians. Barbaric massacre after barbaric massacre in one town after another. The invasion in essence was just a massacre campaign. Closetside (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
How about the series of israeli “operations” of apartheid occupation, massacres and bombardment of women and children, murder and bombardment of journalists, attacking civilians with white phosphorus. If you would call the palestinian resistance military operation against their occupiers a “terrorist attack” because some massacres took place (while neglecting that 300 IDF occupation army were attacked and neutralized including their tanks and armored vehichles). Then you really have to call all israeli occupation massacres and war crimes they are doing and did in their “military operations” a holocaust and ethnic cleansing. Either use the same standards or search for another one … for now, the international community represented by UN don’t consider the palestinian resistance operation as a “terrorist attack” nor recognize the armed palestinian resistance groups as “terorrists”. Western POV is exclusive to the west alone, it neither represent the world nor dictate definitions and jurisdictions. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Similar response to allegations of ethnic cleansing. The relocation order is temporary and all evidence suggests it will be receded after the war. If the order is never receded and northern Gaza is entirely populated by Israeli settlers after the war, that would probably warrant wide consensus on designating the order as an instance of ethnic cleansing. If such consensus existed, I would support reflecting it on Wikipedia. Right now, allegations that Israel intends to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza is confined to fringe extremists. Closetside (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually no. Considering that the Zionist state was founded on ethnic cleansing of Palestinian natives, oppose attempts of Palestinians to return to their homeland, implements various racist laws and has been condemned internationally as a state that implements apartheid, allegations of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians are completely valid.
Infact, Zionists are attempting to initiate the early stages of their ethnic cleansing programme in Gaza and these are reported widely all across media outlets.
"Israel accused of trying to ‘ethnically cleanse Gaza Strip’ as 1 million ordered to evacuate" (Independent, 13 October)
"US corridor proposal sparks concerns of ‘ethnic cleansing’" (Dawn, 12 October)
"Netanyahu told 1.1 million Palestinians they had 24 hours to evacuate. What is that if not ethnic cleansing?" (The Guardian, 14 October)
"House progressives lash out against Israel's Gaza evacuation request" (ABC News, 13 October)
"Progressives Warn of Israeli 'Ethnic Cleansing' in Gaza, Widening Rift With Mainstream Democrats" (The Haaretz, 13 October)
"Arab UN envoys call for Gaza ceasefire, warn of ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians" (Arab News, 13 October)
Also, if the Israeli state doesnt plan to ethnically cleanse Gazans, why doesnt it permit the entry of Gazan refugees towards Haifa, Tel Aviv or West Bank? Netanyahu regime advocates the forced expulsions of Gazan residents to Egypt.
"As Israel pummels besieged Gaza, Egypt resists opening up to refugees" (Washington Post, 13 October) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
categorised Palestinians as "human animals" Nazi-style - they called Hamas "human animals", not all Palestinians.
Netanyahu has ordered the ethnic cleansing of 1.1 million Gazan civilians. - source? from what I read, altough he ordered on further strikes as part of the war he urged the citizens to move to the south of the strip, outside of Gaza city where most hamas related properties are. https://www.ft.com/content/8ea2374e-c21c-4232-bc69-615e36b26caa
@Shadowwarrior8 And may I ask, I understand it may be a sensitive topic but why are you sick of what you called the propaganda slogans of "Israel's 9/11"? in terms of numbers it is equvivalent to 7000 americans in one day which is higher than 9/11 Sunshine SRA (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:ARBECR
How is it the "equivalent" of "7000 americans in one day"? After 6 days of the start of "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm", the number of deaths of Israeli citizens is around 1300 (which includes both civilians and combatants) and nowhere near 7000. When it comes down to the first two days, nearly 700 Israelis were killed (according to Reuters). Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Per capita. Although, 7000 is low; the real per-capita equivalent would be 43,000. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, you are right, it's a mistake cause I accidentally compared it with the UK not US. I used to be an analyst many years so for me it's all about the numbers.
Here are the correct numbers:
Population in the US - 330 million , in Israel - 9 million.
People killed in the first 2 days in last Hamas attack on Israel - 1000. The same ratio in the US will be equivalent to more than 30,000 americans (more than 10x worst than 9/11, in which 3,000 killed).
So the actual number is even worse than my previous comment. Sunshine SRA (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:ARBECR
These are American-centric takes, Sunshine SRA. Would you say the same about the Palestinian deaths which have surpassed 2,200? I guess not.
You describe the Palestinian side of the war as "terrorists" and keep reiterating Zionist propaganda which says "Hamas is guilty!" as IDF bombs Gaza and forcibly displace hundreds of thousands. (Already more than 420,000 people have been forcibly displaced)
Due to the prevelance of Western-centric systemic bias in this "online encyclopaedia", "terror allegations" get constantly thrown by certain editors in here against anti-Western groups. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@Shadowwarrior8: That's the point to amplify. Both sides should be handled equally. Only in 2014 "more than 2,100 Palestinians were killed, mostly civilians" (Reuters-2023). --Mhhossein talk 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No per shadowwarrior8. If the evaluation of the attack as terrorism is under doubt, and it is as not all news sources are using that term, then no. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes . This string of massacres of at least 500 Israeli civilians started the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Therefore, the argument that there were wartime killings is invalid; the massacres began the war by inciting a sweeping Israeli response. These series of massacres, which included killing women and children, taking obvious innocents as captives, looting, house burning, person and corpse burnings, and beheadings. Such barbaric acts are obviously an act of terrorism by any objective definition of terrorism that exists. Defense of these massacres is confined to extremists who claim that Palestinians have the right to resist “by any means necessary.” Extremists defend ISIS and Al Qaeda too. Closetside (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Extremists who use the “by any means necessary” defense ironically enable Israel to defend a hypothetical genocide against Palestinians by claiming they are just defending themselves from a hostile group out to kill all its soldiers and civilians. Speaking of an Israeli genocide, if there will be a wide consensus that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians, I would support fully designating Israel’s actions as such. Right now, the allegation of an Israeli genocide against Palestinians is confined to fringe extremists, where it will most likely stay forever. There are no masses of Palestinians dying from the effects of Israeli blockade escalations at this time. Heck, Israel will terminate its blockade escalations on Gaza if Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad released all of their Israeli captives.Closetside (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Editors have provided many sources describing this as a terrorist attack; while some sources, like the BBC, have refrained from doing so, it is their policy to not name any event a terrorist attack and thus their failure to do so here is not indicative. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Support. Recent events raised a wave of criticism demanding the BBC to change their policy. For example times-for-the-bbc-to-call-hamas-a-terrorist-organisation Sunshine SRA (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:ARBECR
    That the BBC have refrained from calling this terrorism is indicative. That they apply that policy broadly doesn't change its indicativeness. They're not saying "we don't know". They are explicitly choosing not to use a label, which has implications for our decision whether to use the label (as we follow what RS do). Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    MOS:TERRORIST agrees with the BBC (and AP), avoid or attribute (even if widely used). Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes– the fact that most reliable sources describe this as a terror attack is sufficient. It may have started off a wider war, but so did 9/11 and that doesn't make that any less of a terror attack either. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 07:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes We have more than adequate coverage of this in RS as a terrorist attack. The main counterargument I'm seeing above revolves around Hamas' disputed designation as a terrorist group. This is immaterial to the discussion. Whether or not Hamas is classified as a terrorist group, the attack was indisputably a terrorist incident. I'm also not seeing any sound reasoning to support the notion that the attack was a "war", as some users have claimed. The Israeli side seems to have declared war as a result of the attack. Could someone explain why that means that the attack itself was not a terrorist incident? Until such a rationale exists, it seems pretty clear that inclusion in the list is warranted. AlexEng(TALK) 09:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Because if Islamic State's Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) isnt regarded as a "terrorist incident", then Hamas's Operation al-Aqsa Storm also isnt a "terrorist incident". These are military campaigns.
    Specific attacks are not the equivalent of a campaign. As far as I have seen, military campaigns have never been equated with "terrorist incidents" in wikipedia.
    Certain military campaigns in history have been labelled "campaign of terror", "mass-terror" etc. but the whole campaigns are never described as "incidents".
    Do you agree that "Operation al-Aqsa Storm" is an ongoing campaign? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Per descriptions descriptions from reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No Some of the individual attacks that were part of this operation may qualify for inclusion in the list but the entire operation itself should not as it includes other events in addition, the capture or killing of soldiers for instance. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Out of the 31 locations that were attacked by Hamas militants, 23 were purely civilian, three were mixed-use, and only five were purely military. Attackers targeting those locations were instructed to attack civilians, elementary schools and even a youth center, "kill as many people as possible", and take hostages for use in future negotiations.[36][37] At the same time, their compatriots were indiscriminately firing >3,000 rockets at civilian populations. This "operation" was deliberately planned to result in the slaughter and terror of the civilian population. François Robere (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • So, like, these Hamas operation documents are starting to pop up, shedding some light on what they're all about. I haven't delved super deep into the sources, but from what I can tell, it's cited in the intro Hamas had studied kibbutz near the border and made extensive plans with the goal of maximizing Israeli civilian deaths, capturing hostages specifically targeting youth centers and elementary schools, and rapidly transferring the hostages to Gaza. It's pretty key to know that we've got some legit sources backing up why this event should be in the list. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No — So it is true that secondary reliable sources are mixed on whether or not this was a terrorist attack. Given this inconsistency, I look towards the United Nations for what the international community states. On the United Nations Fact Sheet: Israel and Palestine Conflict, published on 9 October, the UN mentioned “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” in the following sentence: On Saturday, 7 October…Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, a coordinated assault consisting of land and air attacks into multiple border areas of Israel. In the fact sheet, they did not mention the operation as a terrorist attack, but instead described it more as a calculated and planned military assault. If this was a terrorist attack, it would have to be the largest in history, given the UN fact sheet notes up to 5,000 rockets were launched & over 1,000 militants were involved, meaning a terrorist attack more than 52 times larger than 9/11. Given that, I have to go with No, this should not be added to the list of major terrorist attacks. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Hey, just wondering, do all the other items on the list have references saying the UN called them terrorism? Is that like the rule for getting on the list? I just checked out the second entry: Nine years after the Munich Massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and after a request by the Secretary‐General for the General Assembly to act on the problem, the General Assembly reached a general consensus on a terrorism resolution. [38], so maybe it's not the right time yet? That whole math argument feels like a total original research move. Maybe the UN will condemn the event later on. 😉 Infinity Knight (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • The UN most certainly does not describe the attack as a "calculated and planned military assault":
      • "Nothing can justify these acts of terror and the killing, maiming and abduction of civilians" - Secretary General Guterres
      • "Deeply shocked and appalled by allegations of summary executions of civilians... horrifying mass killings... reports of killings and the desecration of [bodies]" - High Commissioner Türk
      • "Horrific scenes of violence and many Israeli fatalities and injuries... heinous attacks targeting civilians" - Special Coordinator Wennesland
      • "Horrific crimes committed by Hamas... deliberate and widespread killing and hostage-taking of innocent civilians" - UN expert group
François Robere (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Clearly you missed the section where I quoted the UN saying "coordinated assault". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC) ((Joke comment, do not take seriously — BREAKING NEWS!!! “Coordinated assault” does not mean planned!!! Who would have guessed! You can somehow coordinate a military assault without any planning!) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Zelensky said It is obvious that the key institution of the world which must ensure coercion of any aggressor to peace simply cannot work effectively. @3:30 and even if the UN were a highly efficient organization, do the rest of the entries on the list all include references where the UN called them terrorism? Is that like the standard for making it onto the list? Joke disclaimer: Oi, mate, this 'ere 'coordinated assault' ain't rubbin' the Royals the wrong way, innit? But 'ave terrorism at the full text, 'cause the BBC chucked the noun out the title, ya know? Infinity Knight (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
In all seriousness François Robere, my choice of wording was correct that it was “calculated and planned military assault”. Even a terrorist attack (if this is classified one) has to have tons of planning, and one of this scale (being able to capture several towns, launch up to 5,000 rockets, & battle and capture military bases) takes tons of planning. Even the UN stated it was a “coordinated assault”, which, all jokes aside, takes planning to do. My reason for opposition to the list was based on the UN not saying it was a terrorist attack on their fact-sheet (what I quoted from) & the shear scale/military aspect to it. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip militarily speaking and they attacked Israel, capturing multiple Israeli military bases during the operation (some of the attacks are known as “Battle of (town)” and have Wikipedia articles even). Whether or not X UN person or X news outlet says it is a terrorist attack, I cannot, due to the shear scale of it combined with the military aspect of it. If I was writing a paper towards my history degree, I wouldn’t classify this as a terrorist attack, but rather military attack. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter: I'll clarify: the problem here isn't that the action wasn't planned, but that it wasn't military. The difference between a military action and a terrorist one isn't that one is well-planned and the other isn't - terrorist attacks can be months and years in the making (cf. September 11 attacks, 2011 Norway attacks) - but in what they intend to achieve, by whom, and by what means. Kydd & Walter (2006) define "terrorism" as "the use of violence against civilians by nonstate actors to attain political goals" (incidentally, they mention Hamas in the same sentence as Al-Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers). Here we have a non-state actor that intentionally attacks 23 targets that are purely civilian, and only five that are purely military;[39] that instructs its "fighters", sent to rural farming communities, to "kill as many people as possible";[40][41] that has special code words for events like "killing all hostages", "using human shields", and "setting houses on fire";[42] that massacres at close range hundreds of unarmed party goers,[43][44] entire families,[45] and even pets;[46] that takes hostage mothers with their babies,[47] hiding youth[48] and disabled elderly;[49] and that - to add insult to murder - then posts a record of all this to social media.[50][51][52][53] This ticks all the boxes for a "terrorist action"; the fact that they also targeted soldiers is of little consequence: the key factor is that they also targeted civilians.
But that is all beside the point. As Wikipedians, we're obliged to follow the sources; here at least 15 independent media outlets (see above), 40 governments,[54] the EU,[55][56] UN[57][58][59][60] and NATO,[61] have all called this a "terrorist attack", and - Iran's opinion notwithstanding - not a single source has been presented that even comes close to justifying it as a "military assault". WP:WEIGHT is very clear on what we should do. François Robere (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes – Just because the UN doesn't consider the Hamas to be a terrorist group doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. So what then is the UN all of a sudden the "golden rule" for what determines what is and isn't terrorism? It doesn't even make any sense. Especially when 2/3 of all countries in the world are calling them terrorists. Also, to the user who mentioned that if this is considered a terrorist attack then both the Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) and 2014 Eastern Syria offensive should also be considered terrorist, why is that? Neither of those events involved this many civilian deaths, which constitutes terrorism. Also, the whole Islamic region of Syria, Iraq, and Iran had already been at war for a long time before these offensives took place, whereas Israel was at peace before this initial attack. So there are some very big differences with this event. Undescribed (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    This is not about Hamas, this is about whether the article Operation Al-Aqsa Flood should be included in the list. Fyi, the main article, 2023 Israel-Hamas war has by consensus of many editors, studiously avoided the terrorist label for Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Its the same argument. The controversy is in regards to whether or not the initial attack constitutes terrorism and should be included in this list. If it is eventually determined that it was indeed terrorism, which by no means has any consensus yet whatsoever (looks about 50/50 to me), then that would obviously merit inclusion. Undescribed (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    "Operation al-Aqsa Storm" is an ongoing military campaign. Currently IDF has announced the deaths of 279 soldiers and Israeli police has announced the deaths of 51 police officers (thats a total of 330 combatants).
    The operation itself started as a military assault through sea, land and air.[1] Its disingenuous to focus solely on some of the (alleged, confirmed or debunked) massacres or terror incidents of the first 3 days, while ignoring the fact that Palestinian fighters were actively capturing territories. That is conventional warfare. And the operation is ongoing. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, per OP's arguments. The arguments against it lack merit in my view. Yes, soldiers were killed as well, but we know already about hundreds of dead civilians and many more who barely escaped. A war can be triggered by a terrorist incident, there is no contradiction here. Alaexis¿question? 20:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • COMMENT The discussion seems to be focused on is this considered a terrorist action, however there are three inclusion criteria that need to be discussed. 1) is it terrorism or something else? 2) Is it major? Fairly sure there's absolutely zero dispute on that one so it really doesn't need discussing. 3) Is it by a violent non-state actor? This is the one that has me really scratching my head. Does Hamas, the org that governed Gaza for good or ill and is the major force in Palestine, constitute a state actor or not. This final point isn't being discussed and I think it needs to be as well as the is it terrorism angle for inclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    See the article Hamas government of October 2016. "The Hamas government of October 2016 is a faction of the Palestinian government based in Gaza". Also read the article Palestinian Legislative Council. "since 2006 Hamas and Hamas-affiliated members have held 74 of the 132 seats in the PLC"

    While Hamas is not the equivalent of Palestinian Authority, it governs an autonomous administration within the State of Palestine. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Canterbury Tail, actually the inclusion criteria is at the top of the page. It was decided by an RfC. It is :
    Clearly there is no consensus amongst reliable sources about whether this was terrorism or not so this can not be included on this list. People who are voting yes along the lines of 'Hamas is a terrorist organisation and this was a bad thing' aren't addressing the inclusion criteria. Hopefully whoever closes this RfC properly considers the previous RfC which determined the current inclusion criteria for this list when closing this RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 04:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No - but Re'im music festival massacre should be. The overarching article on the initial attack covers both terrorist and straight up military targets. As far as it started a war, a blockade is an act of war, and Gaza has been under blockade since 2007. nableezy - 03:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    A blockade is not necessarily an act of war. It varies by national law. Also recall why Gaza was blockaded (by Egypt as well) in 2007: it was taken over by an antisemitic terrorist group which advocates for the annihilation of the State of Israel and the genocide of its Jewish population. JM2023 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Egypt closes its border, it does not blockade Gaza's territorial waters or control its airspace. Kindly leave your personal opinions on your blog. nableezy - 23:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Right, personal opinion: Human Rights Watch has said Israel turned Gaza into "open-air prison", with *Egypt's help* by Reuters. Infinity Knight (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
    The personal opinion was everything after national law. And yes, Egypt closes its border, thats the help. I believe I said that already? But as your source says, Egypt, which shares a 12-km border with Gaza, has largely supported the blockade, viewing Hamas as a threat to its own stability. Not that Egypt imposes a blockade, supports it. nableezy - 00:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
    Since 2007, the Gaza Strip, an occupied Palestinian territory, has been under an Israeli and Egyptian siege. Terrestrial and nautical blockades [62] Sources are bangin' on about this blockade for donkey's years now, and they've got a load of proper reliable scholar sources to back it up. And to top it off, Egypt's given Gaza the block from the sea, and that's why it's all "nautical blockade".Infinity Knight (talk)
    The Palestinian territory of Gaza has been under a suffocating Israeli blockade, backed by Egypt. Im sorry though, is this the talk page for Blockade of the Gaza Strip? Or would you like to talk about the open air prison that Israel has created (with Egypt's help)? nableezy - 01:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No -it was a military operation.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Hamas is not the military of Palestine as you are very well aware. Their armed forces are universally described as a 'gunmen' or 'militant group' and never an army. Marokwitz (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
    yes exactly you've said it yourself, they're a militant group and not a terrorist group. Abo Yemen✉ 15:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No: the attacks by Hamas entailed horrific atrocities. They are already listed at List of events named massacres and List of war crimes, both of which seem appropriate to me. But does the whole campaign belong here? Terrorism is, as our articles discuss, ill-defined and often used to condemn, rather than to be definitionally consistent. In other words, it's often hard to decide what counts. This list defines itself as about non-state attacks. Hamas in Gaza is a quasi-state, so it's unclear whether they count. I recall when Islamic State was in control of significant territory and acting like a state, it was involved in multiple battles and skirmishes, all of which initially got listed as terrorism on Wikipedia (seemingly on the grounds that IS is a terrorist group, ergo everything they do is terrorism). We rejected that premise and removed the attacks/battles. The parallel here is not exact, but it shows some precedence. This list also contains incidents. It is hard to see Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, involving 2500 fighters along four fronts, as an incident. We call this a war elsewhere. A large-scale attack from one territory into another does not look like the other things in this list. Maybe, as per Nableezy, there are incidents within the operation, like the Re'im music festival massacre that could be included here, although I note we don't include here things like Safsaf massacre or Sabra and Shatila massacre (again, parallels not exact). Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    This just doesn't add up, does it? I mean, there were like a bunch of places (maybe more than a dozen?) where terrible things were happening to innocent folks. Do we really need to list all of them? The sources are talking about a coordinated assault, so we shouldn't act like these were all separate, unrelated incidents. Plus, the sources say the goal of the operation was pretty much in line with what terrorists would want. Those brave souls seemed to think it's a smart move to take down the security forces so they could do their messed-up stuff more effectively. Is it a surprise? Infinity Knight (talk)
    Most of those arent major incidents in the meaning of this list though. nableezy - 23:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes per François Robere and related comments. JM2023 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No: It should be conisdered part of a wider and older conflict between the states in war. It was a military operation to take back the occupied lands. M1nhm (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
    • In actuality, according to sources, the attack took place across the line that many hope will one day become the international border of Palestine, assuming peace is established with Israel. As a hypothetical, if a fanatical Ukrainian militia were to cross into Russia and engage in disturbing activities with Russian civilians, I'm confident that Zelensky would condemn those individuals and take legal action. I would certainly denounce such individuals. It's worth noting that Hamas has been responsible for numerous acts of terror in the past, and we likely have a category for those incidents. The recent situation is not surprising, those individuals who crossed the border did not resemble or behave as a conventional army, and there is ample evidence from various sources to support this. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Hamas has been responsible for acts of terror in the past, but that doesn’t make everything they do a terrorist incident. We have previously decided not to label everything Islamic State do as terrorism. The Hamas fighters did not, in some ways, behave as a conventional army, but there aren’t only 2 options (conventional army or terrorism), so that isn’t a strong argument either. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Sources describing it as a terror attack are numerous and weighty. Sources that avoid the word "terror" are not affirming "not terror" - they are opting out of making that judgement. Only a very few sources are explicitly denying that this is terror. Furthermore, calling this a terror incident doesn't imply Hamas must be described only as terrorists, and doesn't imply the wider conflict isn't a war, and doesn't imply that the use of terror was not justified: it is possible for groups that are not predominantly terrorist groups to carry out terrorist incidents, and possible that a war might feature terror incidents, and possible to conceive of a terror attack in service of a legitimate end. Finally, if this isn't a terror incident, then I wonder whether anything can be a terror incident and what the purpose of this list article is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think something being a “terror attack” automatically means it is a non-state terrorist incident. Terrorism is not defined purely in terms of carrying out a terror attack. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
No: As an event it was a mixed bag. It was a military operation of significant scope - unprecedented scope, in fact, hence its wide-ranging impacts. That some of these impacts could individually be characterized as terroristic does not make the operation as a whole terroristic in nature. It's within the scope of an active conflict/war. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Not everything a terrorist group does it automatically terrorism. We need to consider specific incidents on their own terms. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organisation by most Western nations. They are not legally recognized as the rulers of Gaza. Around 1300 civilians were murdered/killed on the 7th of October by Hamas, most targets were civilian. It has been described as Israel's 9/11. Therefore it seems to be rational to describe this as a major terrorist attack/incident. homerethegreat 19:17 16 October 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homerethegreat (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
No, this is a war. Either both sides should be called terrorists or no one gets called anything Abo Yemen✉ 05:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is not a recognished basis for editing Wikipedia articles. TarnishedPathtalk 04:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Here is The First Hours of the Israel-Hamas War: What Actually Took Place?. it's an incomplete record but plenty of military action in there. Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. This unequivocally fits the criteria of a major terrorist incidents. It's unmistakable. When 1,300 individuals, predominantly civilians, are killed in a single day by an organization known for targeting non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims, it undeniably constitutes a major terror attack. Hence why the event is extensively labeled as such in numerous WP:RS. LUC995 (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)— LUC995 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Tombah (talk · contribs). TarnishedPathtalk 05:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No. It's a legitimate uprising against an occupying power that has consistently violated, and continues to violate, its obligations under the Geneva Conventions.[63] Yes, civilians have been deliberately targeted, much like civilians have been deliberately targeted by different occupying powers during Kunduz hospital airstrike, Bucha massacre, the My Lai massacre, and many others. However, in serious publications as Wikipedia strives to be, war crimes should never be mislabelled as terrorism, irrespective of various propaganda efforts. Note also that the BBC has consistently refused to label Hamas as terrorists.[64] — kashmīrī TALK 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment - BBC? You mean the same network that is calling the Hamas "freedom fighters"? LOL Yeah...I think its safe to disregard their opinion on what constitutes terrorism and what doesn't. ISIS was an occupying power for a time as well and we still refer to them as terrorists. What is the difference? Besides, the countries that are calling the Hamas "militants" rather than terrorists are the same countries that support the Hamas antisemitic attacks against Israel, so I'm not sure we should be going by what they say either.
    Undescribed (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Undescribed: Be advised what you just said goes against Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Per WP:RSP, the BBC is considered a reliable source of information, confirmed by 17 different discussions (all listed at WP:RSP). Editors are not allowed to "disregard their opinion" as Wikipedia has deemed them a reliable source of information. If you believe the BBC is not a reliable source of information, you need to start a formal discussion (the 18th one) at WP:RSN. Your ideology of disregarding their opinion violates WP:NO OR and is considered WP:CHERRYPICKING. I would recommend you strike that part of your comment or if you wish to keep it, start a discussion at WP:RSN before continuing the discussion here. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
      • @WeatherWriter: BilledMammal has correctly suggested that [if] it is their policy to not name any event a terrorist attack... [then] their failure to do so here is not indicative [of whether it was or wasn't one].[65] It is a valid point for a more general policy discussion, though. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @François Robere: While that statement is debatable (maybe true or maybe not true), that was not the reason for my policy correction. The comment from BilledMammal that I was replying to was them saying “BBC? You mean the same network that is calling the Hamas "freedom fighters"? LOL Yeah...I think it’s safe to disregard their opinion on what constitutes terrorism and what doesn't. Note: I added the bolding for the specific phrase I commented about. No one can just “disregard” a source confirmed (by 17 different discussions) to be considered a reliable source. Sure, the BBC is not like a “one all, break all” source. But, even you have to agree that having the ideology of overruling 17 discussions just because you don’t agree with them is not based around Wikipedia policy. That was what my comment was directed towards. Not the comment you added in here. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not a valid argument because "a legitimate uprising against an occupying power" and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. Terror/terrorism is merely a tactics. For example, Narodnaya Volya (a classic terrorist organization) always considered themselves freedom fighters and they were considered as such in the Soviet historiography. And it was not unreasonable: the oppression in the Russian Empire was terrible. Consider the Pale of Settlement as one of many examples. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, yes, they are mutually exclusive in international law. Attacks on enemy infrastructure or security personnel and installations are considered legitimate actions irrespective of the tactics used (suicide squads, etc.), even though the attacked countries usually decry them as "terrorism" (and national media repeats the narrative). What's disallowed are attacks that target non-combatants – they would be considered a war crime. Terrorism, on the other hand, happens outside the context of legitimate wars – terrorists' aims are always considered as illegitimate.
So, the My Lai massacre wasn't terrorism, nor were Viet Kong's attacks against the US military (even as Viet Kong was a militia, not a regular army). — kashmīrī TALK 06:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No: This is literally a war. This is a war against an occupying power that has repeatedly disregarded its obligations, like those outlined in Geneva Accords. This conflict is best understood as a continuation of a much longer and more intense struggle between Israel and Palestine. Anyway, Wikipedia requires acting based on the WP:RS, which means there should be enough reliable sources for making such a big claim. --Mhhossein talk 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
War and terror (terrorizing the civilian population) are not mutually exclusive. Taking and executing hostages, which is arguably a terrorism tactics, was widely practiced during Russian Civil War and other wars. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In any sane world, the IDF response in Gaza (not just currently) would be classed as (state) terrorism but the way the law works, it favors state actors who "merely" get accused of war crimes. Neutrality, rather than an understandable desire to cast one's opponent in the worst light possible, dictates we accuse both sides of war crimes (which is what is done at the main article) and avoid the jingoistic politicized labeling. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
looks like we aren't living in a sane world then Abo Yemen✉ 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In the sane world of Hamas Head of Political and International Relations, Basem Naim no civilians have been killed by the militant group. When asked about 'civilian casualties on a horrendous scale' during the Hamas attack, Naim responded, 'It is not acceptable, it is really shameful to discuss while now 3000 Palestinians have been killed in massacres by the Israelis.'" Per sources in this section. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This mirrors Israel's communication tactics by the way. "We don't target civilians, but our civilians are targeted" [66] — kashmīrī TALK 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes: per 2023 Israel–Hamas war, backed by RS: At least 44 nations denounced Hamas and explicitly decried its conduct as "terrorism", including a joint statement by the United States, France, Britain, Italy, and Germany. Also for consistency as it's already included in Category:Terrorist incidents in Israel in 2023. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No. We are talking about the entire operation, which includes war and other acts, not just those events that were terrorist in nature or how Hamas can be characterised. CurryCity (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hamas's attack on Israel was legitimate in international law, as the two countries are undeniably in a state of an armed conflict. Israeli authorities have termed it a "war", which further added legitimacy to the attack. The Re'im music festival massacre was a war crime committed by the Hamas side; one in a long pattern of war crimes (and various other crimes) being committed by both sides.
In international law, attacks against enemy infrastructure or security personnel and installations are considered legitimate actions irrespective of the tactics used (suicide squads, etc.), and it doesn't matter that the attacked countries usually decry them as "terrorism". Attacks targeting non-combatants are considered war crimes. Terrorism, on the other hand, happens in a different context – it is when the attacker's aims are illegitimate, outside of a legitimate armed conflict and outside the scope of the Laws of war. Terrorism is purely a criminal matter.
So, the My Lai massacre wasn't terrorism, nor were Viet Cong's attacks against the US military, even as Viet Cong was a militia, not a regular army. When Viet Cong killed US civilian contractors, they were war crimes, not terrorism.
Same here, par analogiam. — kashmīrī TALK 06:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: not only is this factually wrong for a variety of reasons that have already been discussed, but it is entirely WP:OR. Unless you have sources that justify this as a legitimate act of war, then per WP:WEIGHT we must side with the many sources that state otherwise. François Robere (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Let's put it this way: do you have quality sources (academic publications preferred over press) that would conclude that it's illegal for an occupied nation (here, Palestinians) to engage in armed struggle against the occupying power (here, Israel)? For, everything is legal in international relations unless expressly prohibited by treaties or violating customary international law.
Besides, it's not the amount of sources that matters most for legal analyses; it's their quality. — kashmīrī TALK 11:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Here we've got Basem Naim, who is the head of political and international relations for Hamas, talking about the release of what he's calling in English 'civilian hostages.' Is that like the official international law jargon, or what?
Austin, Mark (16 October 2023). "Israel-Hamas war: Hamas official 'doesn't know' if hostages are alive". Sky News.
Obviously Infinity Knight (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you want me to comment on some guy talking nonsense to Sky News? No, sorry, wrong call. I was talking about academic sources. — kashmīrī TALK 12:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not just some random dude; it's the old health minister in Gaza, and now he's all about being the foreign minister. You'd think he could recite the Hippocratic Oath in his sleep, right? So, like, is this in line with all that international law jargon, you think? Infinity Knight (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Let me state it again: I was talking about academic publications, as it's a complex matter at hand. Because government ministers are sometimes clueless about their portfolios (ever heard e.g. Matt Hancock speaking?). — kashmīrī TALK 21:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment So, we're diving into some recent stuff here, but check this out, the scholars and international law experts break it down for us like this: A major chunk of the international crowd, including heavy hitters like the United States called this attack straight-up terrorism. Then the source lays it out, saying, it is all about showing how Hamas gets labeled as a terrorist player and its connections with other big-deal terrorist groups that everyone knows. Plus, the source is digging into how this whole thing could shake up the world of international terrorism. And they drop the mic with the question, Hamas's rep as a terrorist crew and how legit they are on the global stage? Yeah, that's probably gonna get reevaluated worldwide, the source says. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thats an article by a PhD student? nableezy - 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    While I'll acknowledge it's not the best scholar source, I'm curious about the time that's elapsed since the attack? But here's the thing, it's not some random news blurb; it's written by someone who's an expert in international law. So, let's wait and see what those with their full PhDs and PostDocs have to say when they start bringing in their papers. Nonetheless, we should not pretend that there is a shortage of high-quality papers that predate the attack and are similar in nature. "Identity, International Terrorism and Negotiating Peace: Hamas and Ethics-Based Considerations from Critical Restorative Justice" offers a high-quality historical examination of international terrorism, particularly focusing on the emergence and maintenance of membership-allegiance within a militant extremist group. This paper delves into the case of Hamas and its manifestation of Palestinian identity. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. This is the sort of detailed, analytic, tertiary source we should be using. And it firmly comes down with an answer of "maybe"! It doesn't say the attacks were terrorism, but it does note their relationship and Hamas's relationship to terrorism. Which at least shows that we're not alone in having difficult knowing what to do here! Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. The first two criteria aren't at issue -- Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is notable and has a stand-alone page. The third criteria, "The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as 'terrorism'" is just stupid. What kind of absolute moron would suggest editors try to determine something as vague and nebulous as the consensus of RS? Oh, that's right, it was me who proposed that. :-) What the heck was I thinking, I wonder, now that I have to try and apply this criteria, years later.
    • There are definitely RS that have described it as terrorism, e.g.:
      • New York Times [67]: "The planners of the terror attack on Israel most certainly knew that it carried the risk of igniting a wider regional war."
      • CNN [68]: "It launched the retaliatory offensive after Hamas' October 7 terror attacks that killed 1,300 people." and elsewhere [69] "It has also never faced a terror attack of this magnitude that has taken the lives of so many civilians."
      • CBS News [70]: "This comes after a week of retaliatory airstrikes in response to Hamas' terrorist attack in Israel last weekend.", "Israel is largely anticipated to begin a ground offensive in Gaza after a week of airstrikes as retaliation for Hamas' bloody terrorist attack on Oct. 7.", "He was on a small military base on the morning of Oct. 7 when Hamas terrorists attacked Israel.", "International journalists have not been able to enter the Palestinian territory since Israel imposed a complete blockade in the wake of its Hamas rulers' terror attack on southern Israel.", "Pete Davidson starts "Saturday Night Live" with somber, emotional cold open addressing terror attacks," ""Saturday Night Live" returned over the weekend for the show's season 49 premiere -- its first show since the WGA strike ended -- and addressed the Hamas terror attack in Israel."
      • NBC News [71]: "But he had been a wanted man long before Hamas militants launched a coordinated terrorist attack on kibbutzim, music festivals and city streets on Oct. 7."
      • Asian News International [72]: "At least 230 Palestinians killed in Israeli retaliation following Hamas terror attacks"
      • Hindustan Times [73]: "The spokesperson of Hamas' military wing claimed that fighting is still ongoing in several areas near the northern Gaza border, including Zikim, Sufa, and Mefalsim, and that terrorists managed to take a new group of Israeli hostages into the Gaza strip today.", "Police name other 4 officers killed in clashes with Hamas terrorists"
      • Times of India [74]: "Israel terror attack", "According to the Health Ministry, 908 injured people have been taken to hospital for treatment in the ongoing terror attack by Hamas on Israel's southern and central region, The Times of Israel reported. Some 800 people have been injured in the attacks, which have included dozens of Hamas terrorists infiltrating Israel and gunning down soldiers and people."
      • The Independent [75]: "Israel festival revellers record messages to loved ones as they hide from Hamas terrorists in undergrowth"
    • There are definitely sources that don't describe it as terrorism (in their own voice), or at least not that I've been able to find: e.g. ABC News, WaPo, AP, Reuters, AFP, CBC.ca, News.com.au.
    • Some sources have categories or topic tags for "Terrorism," and include stories about this in those categories. For example:
    • I don't consider sources that, as a matter of policy, never refer to anything in their own voice as terrorism, such as the BBC.
    • I did not look at Arabic sources or Israeli sources.
So, bottom line, is it a consensus of RS? I don't really know, I'm not sure what that means, considering that consensus is not unanimity. I also don't have the time to look at all the sources covering this topic, which would mean like every media outlet in the world right now. Also, you'd have to look at foreign language sources to figure out if they call it terrorism or not. I'd love to see a more in-depth analysis of sources to examine exactly what the consensus is. Maybe it should be certain sub-events that are listed, and not the entire operation. But for now, I think enough sources use the term to call it "widespread," and so I fall down on the side of "yes." (But I really don't like that third criteria, we need something more specific, or more "doable" than "consensus.") Levivich (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
ABC News "hamas terrorists", CBC.ca policy regarding the word terrorist. Reuters policy towards terrorism. News.com.au "hamas terrorists". All of the sources you said that don't describe it as terrorism either in fact do so, or never use that word, as a policy. Bar Harel (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Some more RS, all refer to Hamas's attack as terrorism:
  • Telegraph [76]: "‘Kill the difficult ones’: Hamas’s hostage-taking handbook reveals secrets of terror-raid planning"
  • Bild.de [77]: "Hamas-Terroristen" (in German).
  • iltalehti.fi [78]: "Terroristijärjestöksi" (Finnish)
  • globo.com [79]: "Hamas divulga pela primeira vez vídeo de um dos 200 reféns do terror" (Brazilian Portuguese)
German, Finish, Brazilian, all of them one after the other - the most visited news sources of each of their respective countries. Bar Harel (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • French embassy [80]: "Today, we – President Macron of France, Chancellor Scholz of Germany, Prime Minister Meloni of Italy, Prime Minister Sunak of the United Kingdom, and President Biden of the United States – express our steadfast and united support to the State of Israel, and our unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and its appalling acts of terrorism." (With additional statement by President of France, Chancellor of Germany, PM of Italy, PM of UK, President of US).
Bar Harel (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed list. "Terror attack" != "terrorism". I don't think articles referring to "terror attacks" provide support either way. A comment by the French embassy is not an independent reliable secondary source, so doesn't count. Obviously, that still leaves many reliable secondary sources that do explicitly say "terrorism".
If a source never uses "terrorism" as policy, I don't think that means we can ignore that source. I think that has to count as a source against. That is a source deciding the word does not apply. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
ISIS is not a terrorist in the eyes of Reuters either. In fact, if they don't use the word, according to your logic I fear we can delete this page and dozens of others.
"Terror attack" != "terrorism"? An official statement about world leaders uniting and condemning is not reliable? Do we need a news agency to repeat what they said then it's reliable? I'm sorry, I'm trying very hard but I don't understand what you're saying. Bar Harel (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
On your first point, we always have to weigh up what reliable sources say. If Reuters don't want to use the word "terrorist", then, sure, that's a vote against us having articles listing terrorist attacks. Reuters are not the only RS out there. I am comfortable that there is sufficient RS coverage to justify this article, Reuters notwithstanding. If lots of RS switch to Reuters' position, then we should too.
On your second point, WP:RS states Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Read WP:PRIMARY too. The French embassy saying something is a primary source. We prefer secondary sources. This is basic Wikipedia policy. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
September 11 attacks would qualify as a terrorist attack, given the perpetrators didn't capture several towns and didn't capture multiple military bases from the victum. Just saying... The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
So if they would have went in with a few terrorists and kill whoever was at the Pentagon at the time, suddenly it wouldn't have count as terrorism? Is that part of an unwritten WP:TERRORIST policy? Bar Harel (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s not what I said. The 9/11 attacks did not result in the Pentagon or any US military bases being occupied by the terrorists. In this circumstance, several towns and Israeli military bases were battled for and occupied by Hamas. Example is the Be’eri standoff, which lasted 18 hours (i.e. Hamas held Be’eri and had hostages for 18 hours). You also have the Battle of Sufa, where 60 Hamas militants held the town, including 250 hostages, before being killed by Israeli forces. The overall operation was no where close to a 9/11 attack. It was way more calculated and involved military-like planning to execute holding territory, military bases, and towns in several locations. That is why 9/11 is a terrorist attack and Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
By this logic, none of these would be "terrorist attacks" (though we explicitly call some of them that), since they all required "occupying" some space. François Robere (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Seems like may editors who oppose this label are simply appealing from their own personal opinion that this event should be characterized as a war. Merits of those views, or lack thereof, aside, our personal views simply don't matter - it's what the RS says that matters. Thus far, the strongest contrary argument raised so far is that many other reliable sources failed to adopt this characterization, and merely described this event as an "assault", "attack", "war" or even "operation". In my view, the mere fact that many reliable sources omitted to adopt the terrorist characterization doesn't make that characterization false, insofar as that characterization has been used by other reliable sources.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes per HollerithPunchCard and the many other editors above. BogLogs (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. European Union condemned the terrorist attack. UN delegates condemn the terrorist attack. Mohammend Deif called all arabs to kill as many as they can, indiscriminately target civilians populations. Why is this even a question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharel (talk • contribs)
Those are not independent reliable sources. The views of the European Parliament or UN reflect their political concerns. We favour instead what independent analysts say. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Does listing the whole operation mean that the distinct sub-attacks, like at the kibbutz and the music festival are listed or not? I feel that if the whole operation isn't listed at least those should be listed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    That is a part of this, some of the individual events may qualify for inclusion but not the entire operation. Conversely, if the entire operation were included, there would be no basis for including the subsidiary events. Selfstudier (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Impossible to ignore all the sources saying so. JoseJan89 (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
    Does it mean you have enough reliable sources, including those of the mainstream media, designating the incident as a terrorist one? --Mhhossein talk 18:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'll do something annoying now and present my support comment mostly as my TL;DR summary of the whole RfC thus far:
    In this RFC editors deliberated whether the consensus of reliable sources describe Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, the series of attacks conducted by the violent non-state actor that is Hamas, as a terrorist attack. No one disputed the list criterion as a controlling local consensus, specified in an earlier "list criteria" RfC. It was not significantly disputed that it's common to see the event described as a terrorist attack in the sources, but some sources do not describe the overarching event as a terrorist attack, and an oppose argument was presented that this means that the aforementioned consensus does not exist.
    The question was then what does a "consensus of reliable sources" mean, with a support argument stating that it does not mean unanimity and that a preponderance of reliable sources indicates a presence of consensus. There was also the argument that there are media organizations that never use the term as a matter of their policy, so their reflexive refusal to use it in relation to this event is not indicative of their describing the event as terrorism or not-terrorism: They are not dealing with the description of terrorism as a category. However, Wikipedia does, fairly regularly, despite "terrorist" being a recognized as a contentious label (see MOS:TERRORIST).
    So this really comes down to the meaning of "consensus". In the list criteria RfC, the participants did not talk about unanimity, and mentioned the proposal of requiring "consensus" as something consistent with MOS:TERRORIST. Said guideline does not require unanimity, it requires that the term be widely used by reliable sources. This shows that "consensus of reliable sources" was not intended to mean "each and every reliable source".
    Ultimately, when analyzing things this way, it becomes apparent that the second point of consensus of the list criteria RfC doesn't say anything beyond what MOS:TERRORIST already says.
    The "it was a military operation" arguments did not address the central issue, as we can't say that the consensus of reliable sources would not be describing the event as a terrorist attack when it would be describing the event as a terrorist attack, while also describing it as a military operation etc. The logic of "if the consensus of reliable sources describe the event as a terrorist attack the list criterion is met; reliable sources describe the event as a military operation -> the list criterion is not met" misses the mark because it doesn't answer whether the list criterion is met at all: Does the consensus of reliable sources describe the event as a terrorist attack or not? There is no special rule that one description overrides the other.
    Saying that it was a "legitimate uprising" doesn't interact with any relevant parameters. Maybe it was a legitimate uprising that relied also on terrorism, or that went tactically astray in the direction of terrorism.
    To add: And this is not about calling Hamas a terrorist organization in our own voice, or extending the description to all Hamas members. This is about describing an event. We can call this a terrorist attack, and not call Hamas a terrorist organization. Hamas can not be a terrorist organization, and some members of Hamas together with some members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad can have participated in a terrorist attack. The Viet Cong used terrorism regularly. During war. The Viet Cong is an organization that used terrorism. But we will never call Viet Cong a terrorist organization. That's not what the sources call it.—Alalch E. 01:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
You summarise much of the discussion well. However, there are additional points of note. First, is this an incident, or is it too broad an operation to be listed as a single incident? (Some have suggested not listing the operation as a whole, but listing certain incidents within it.) Second, the list is explicitly for non-state actors: Hamas in Gaza are operating as a quasi-state, so do they fall on the wrong side of that qualification? One might conclude that it was an act of terrorism, but that it is not a single incident thereof, or that it is effectively state terrorism, and thus ineligible here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think we need to get beyond the "terrorist/freedom fighter/don't forget Mandela" cliches. Terrorism is at root a description of method of attempting to affect a political goal, it has little to do with just or unjust causes and plenty of groups have employed it as a tactic/weapon - including in this context Irgun and the King David Hotel bombing and other events that brought Israel into being. In this circumstance, a sufficiently large and broad group of sources have described this attack as terrorist in character that it would be remiss to exclude it IMO, even if we also include that the label is disputed. That the attack also went for military targets seems fairly incidental. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Isr-Pal conflict(s) and relations, it would be difficult to argue that the intent here was to conquer territory, rather than to terrorise the civilian population of Israel, which is presumably why a critical mass of sources characterise this as 'terrorist' in character. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - Deliberate targeting of civilians, excessive brutality, zero abiding by any international rules of combat makes this rather cut and dry.Mistamystery (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    We could argue that Israel does the exact same thing Abo Yemen✉ 06:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    What's more, unlike Hamas, Israel is bound by international treaties, which it has been found on multiple occasions not to respect. — kashmīrī TALK 08:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No. I would note that the RS cited in support are based overwhelmingly in the (few) countries that designate Hamas a terrorist organization. That's not to say they lack editorial independence, just that we should be cautious of reinforcing systemic bias by stating in wikivoice that (what many perceive as) an anticolonial uprising was a "terrorist incident". And even news outlets in the Global North aren't unanimous: Canadian state media has taken a cautious approach to the use of "terror"-adjacent language in relation to the ongoing war. As other editors have noted, specific incidents from October 7 may fit the bill, but the offensive as a whole was military in nature. WillowCity(talk) 23:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    • We should be similarly wary of forcing our perceptions of "colonialism" on situations, people and mindsets with whom we have no familiarity. What certain Western liberal academics believe about the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and how Hamas perceives it, could be - and indeed are - two radically different things. The only way to resolve it is, as always, through WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and our other content policies. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
      But my very point is that even among "RS" in the Global North, opinion is far from unanimous. In such circumstances, and bearing in mind the lack of nuance that a list like this entails, I think the WP:ONUS on advocates for inclusion is particularly heavy. I am not saying that systemic bias concerns supersede existing content policies, but rather that those policies must be interpreted and applied in a manner that best serves and informs a broad, diverse readership.
      Your comment in fact supports my position: the situation is not clear cut, and perceptions differ, including among RS.
      I also object to the implication that I have "no familiarity" with the situation, people, or mindsets involved. I don't believe that comment was directed at any particular user, but it's a bit presumptuous to assume that we are all "Western liberal academics" or that we lack familiarity. I assume that many editors have varying degrees of direct, personal investment in the situation and do not view the issue as merely academic. WillowCity(talk) 15:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Of course I make no such presumptions.
With regards to certainty: we do not require "unanimity" or that things be "clear cut", we simply require "consensus" or "wide use" - and that we have. Can the same be said of serious RS justifying this atrocity as a legitimate "anticolonial uprising"? I doubt it. François Robere (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t dispute that certain events of October 7 (which already have their own articles) may meet the criteria for inclusion. My issue is that the proposal here would mean saying, in wikivoice, that the entire military operation was an act of terror. This is an extremely strong and controversial claim, and I think the usual “preponderance of sources” threshold (if such a preponderance even exists here) needs to be balanced against a generous and purposive application of policies/guidelines like MOS:LABEL, WP:EXCEPTIONAL. NPOV is not optional, and it is directly incorporated in the verifiability policy ("If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.") To the extent this article is amenable to that, we shuold do it; some extent of unanimity among RS does seem to be required.
I referred to the CBC above; they have a strongly pro-Israel editorial slant, but they’re an RSPSS, and the statement I linked bears reading. Regulations under the Criminal Code of Canada designate Hamas a terrorist organization, but CBC still does not use the description without attribution. Obviously that wouldn’t make sense for a list-based article like this, but it shows that a light touch, and great caution, is warranted when treading in areas that implicate both law and geopolitics (like “terror” designations). I think we should wait until the dust settles; time may provide a clearer picture and a more obvious editorial consensus. WillowCity(talk) 22:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
François, if youll endulge me in allowing me to give some advice. The likelihood a discussion comes to a consensus is inversely proportional to how often people repeatedly comment. nableezy - 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes per OP as well as Closetside, Chessrat, Marokwitz, and Levivich. Loksmythe (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Hamas is recognized as a terror org by many countries. 7-Oct terror attack included multiple massacres of civilians, house to house, burning the houses with civilians inhabitants inside, mass rapes of women, beheading of people, kidnapping babies, little children, women, elders, Thailand workers, Bedouins, mass shooing at a rave party with 200 murdered, mass shooting on civilians cars at roads. these actions are terror against civilians, whoever refuses to recognize it as a terror incident should be a shame of himself. per WP:ARBECR
  • Yes but I disagree with the argument that since Hamas is a terrorist organization, then these attacks are terrorist attacks (along with the arguments that "Hamas killed children", Israel committed genocide", "this is an invasion and they occupied the cities" and others). Per MOS:TERRORIST, unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, not the editors' personal opinions. Parham wiki (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - an attack is a terror attack even if part of the attack target military targets - as long as it also targets purely civilian targets; just like An ancient inscription in Greek and Phoenician should be included in the Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions, even though a part of the inscription is not Canaanite or Aramaic. This attack targeted many legal villages and cities, where civilians were deliberately shot, in masses. Some were less "lucky" and were also tortured. Most previous editors who 'voted' yes provided good points as well. פעמי-עליון (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Is Hamas a non-state actor? They were at one point the democratically elected government of the Palestinians (though there haven't been elections since then). Hamas has been widely described as the "governing" authority of Gaza Strip(CFR,NYT,CIA Factbook,Brookings,Vox). Freedom House[81] and The Economist[82] have even gone as far as to say that Hamas-run Gaza Strip is a de-facto state (which I personally disagree with).VR talk 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes - It seems that an Anti Jewish Ideological bias on Wikipedia is part of the reason this is even a debate. If Wikipedia wants to keep it's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view it must follow the United States, EU, UK etc. that consider this a terrorist attack. It is telling that not a single terrorist attack in Israel is on this list, despite numerous terrorist attacks that have more deaths injuries etc than others listed. We must remember the Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History article when we decide to play the terrorist anti Jewish side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yestyest2000 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Question François Robere (and other yes votes): what kind of sourcing do you actually require to show that this is not regarded by RS as a terrorist attack? Do you require a source to say "the October 7 attacks were not an example of terrorism"? Do sources ever actually issue such explicit denials? Outside of editorials (which, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, "are rarely reliable for statements of fact") I have never seen a news organization report like that. And how many sources do you require for that? I think the "yes" side is placing an unreasonable burden of sources that would not be applied for various other incidents where there is not a consensus of RS on whether the incident is terrorist or not.VR talk 03:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "'We are in a war,' Netanyahu says after Hamas launches surprise attack". NBC News. 7 October 2023.
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.

Edit request

I have no idea how this actually works lol, but the death toll listed for October 7th is 2200, but according to Israel it’s 1139

[83]https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths Badatusernames123 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Badatusernames123, please read WP:EDITREQ which has instructions on how to make protected edit requests. TarnishedPathtalk 11:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional citations required

Hi all, I've added additional citations needed tag to this article because many entries in this list have no citations. Please note that Wikilinks are inadequate, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TarnishedPathtalk 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_major_terrorist_incidents/Archive_1&oldid=1215041207"